jcd11235 0 #51 February 21, 2009 QuoteOK, so have you not noticed yet that I'm not really reading your replies? I do still wonder where you jump, though. I was wondering if you were going to acknowledge posting without being informed w/r/t the topic of discussion.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #52 February 22, 2009 Quote No relevant response needed. I already made my point and don't really care what you think. As for flirting with you? No thanks. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA Marg skeered ya Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #53 February 22, 2009 Quote Quote No relevant response needed. I already made my point and don't really care what you think. As for flirting with you? No thanks. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA Marg skeered ya Skeered. Yeah, that's me. Skeered.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #54 February 22, 2009 QuoteQuote It's $32 a month. That won't entice anyone to make longterm spending commitments. It's not supposed to entice long term spending. The biggest chance it has of working is due to it being too small to be noticed, thus not changing spending habit from ~100% of income. The less likely that the extra money be noticed, the more likely it is to be spent immediately. The higher proportion that it is spent immediately, the more bang for the buck in terms of economic growth. The increased duration, as opposed to a single check, increases the chances of the growth being a trend instead of a short term spike. So, just to be clear, your argument is that an unnoticeably small increase in cash for the average American is the best answer for stimulating the economy? People will accidentally spend more because they have $8 a week extra? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #55 February 22, 2009 So you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. This bill is a big chunk of change for all the people that contribute nothing to this economy while those of us that work for a living are getting the shaft. How dare i work two jobs to pay for the mortgage I can barely afford. How dare I stay current on my payments which should belong to someone well above my income bracket. I don't deserve shit for constantly working more than all those lazy fucks collecting free handouts because I chose to take over a mortgage to help a friend avoid a dire financial situation that would have ripped his marriage apart. Shame on me for giving up my social life to ensure I didn't become a financial burden to this country. This bill is doing nothing more than paying off all the people that voted Obama into office so they wouldnt' have to pay their bills like those of us to choose to work and do the right thing for a living. Further, the bill is doing little to nothing to stimulate the economy. Giving a few extra bucks a month to people does jack to help the economy, helping out all the businesses that are trying to keep people employed will make a huge difference. But what would the dems be if they weren't giving free crap to the undeserving, spread the wealth everyone, people don't deserve the fruits of their labor anymore. Screw tax cuts for businesses that choose to keep jobs here so people don't need those free handouts, we'd rather just give the handouts, it makes people happy.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #56 February 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote It's $32 a month. That won't entice anyone to make longterm spending commitments. It's not supposed to entice long term spending. The biggest chance it has of working is due to it being too small to be noticed, thus not changing spending habit from ~100% of income. The less likely that the extra money be noticed, the more likely it is to be spent immediately. The higher proportion that it is spent immediately, the more bang for the buck in terms of economic growth. The increased duration, as opposed to a single check, increases the chances of the growth being a trend instead of a short term spike. So, just to be clear, your argument is that an unnoticeably small increase in cash for the average American is the best answer for stimulating the economy? People will accidentally spend more because they have $8 a week extra? I never said it was best for the economy. I said it was better than a single large check.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FallingOsh 0 #57 February 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote It's $32 a month. That won't entice anyone to make longterm spending commitments. It's not supposed to entice long term spending. The biggest chance it has of working is due to it being too small to be noticed, thus not changing spending habit from ~100% of income. The less likely that the extra money be noticed, the more likely it is to be spent immediately. The higher proportion that it is spent immediately, the more bang for the buck in terms of economic growth. The increased duration, as opposed to a single check, increases the chances of the growth being a trend instead of a short term spike. So, just to be clear, your argument is that an unnoticeably small increase in cash for the average American is the best answer for stimulating the economy? People will accidentally spend more because they have $8 a week extra? I never said it was best for the economy. I said it was better than a single large check. You also said it's not supposed to entice long term spending. If you believe that then what's the difference between the two? The reason the lump check didn't work last year is because people put it towards debt or savings. They knew it wasn't enought to count on so they didn't increase spending. These minimal tax cuts do the same things. People don't recognize they've gained $16 per pay check so they'll have no reason to increase their spending. It won't have any effect on boosting spending or the economy. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Capt.Slog 0 #58 February 22, 2009 QuoteSo you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. . The deadbeats who got us into this mess are the Wall Street Wizards who figured out how to leverage debt to the Nth degree, so that eventually the house of cards they built came tumbling down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #59 February 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. . The deadbeats who got us into this mess are the Wall Street Wizards who figured out how to leverage debt to the Nth degree, so that eventually the house of cards they built came tumbling down. You make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living?History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #60 February 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote So you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. . The deadbeats who got us into this mess are the Wall Street Wizards who figured out how to leverage debt to the Nth degree, so that eventually the house of cards they built came tumbling down. You make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living? You must be thinking of the 2+ million people who have lost their jobs and their health insurance since November. Yup, I bet they'd rather lose their homes than their TV sets. Must be nice to be a government employee like you.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #61 February 22, 2009 Quote In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The last time it was this low was around 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow, what worthless Republican was President in 1997? That would be Bill Clinton, a democrat, and the stock price wasn't "low" because it dropped, it was on a steady rise over the period of many years. http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?symb=djia&sid=1643&time=all&Submit1=Refresh Now, when Bush Jr took office in 2000, it became suddenly flat for several years, followed by a major drop. Funny how that works. Edit for better URLTrapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #62 February 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote So you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. . The deadbeats who got us into this mess are the Wall Street Wizards who figured out how to leverage debt to the Nth degree, so that eventually the house of cards they built came tumbling down. You make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living? You must be thinking of the 2+ million people who have lost their jobs and their health insurance since November. Yup, I bet they'd rather lose their homes than their TV sets. Must be nice to be a government employee like you. I have no issue with giving a helping hand to hard working people who have lost their jobs because of the recession, don't twist my words. The tax cuts and extra cash going to fund the damn welfare programs should be geared more towards those who are unemployed due to no fault of their own, the working class, and the businesses struggling to keep them in their jobs. However, people who had no business buying a house and are going into foreclosure because they don't want to sell the new Lincoln Navigator and replace it with a beater so they can eek otu a few more months of payments don't deserve shit. The majority of my non-deployed time in the military has been spent working a second job on the weekends so I could up my standard of living despite the fact that I own a home I don't even live in and can barely afford. and guess what, I may not have the lifestyle I want but I'm making my payments on time and haven't lowered my standard of living. It's called hard work, maybe the people in this country begging for a government handout who didn't have a decent job to begin with should try it every once in a while.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #63 February 22, 2009 QuoteYou also said it's not supposed to entice long term spending. In the sense that people are not going to take on long new long term financial obligations, no, the tax cuts are not intended to do that. It is designed to be spent as received, spent in the short term. QuoteThe reason the lump check didn't work last year is because people put it towards debt or savings. Exactly. That's why this proposal is a better idea. It avoids people doing that as much. They won't notice the extra money, they'll just spend it. QuotePeople don't recognize they've gained $16 per pay check so they'll have no reason to increase their spending. No, they will increase their spending, because they don't notice the extra money. So they continue spending all they have from one pay period to the next. When people are living from paycheck to paycheck, their spending is based on how much is left until the next check, not a fixed budgeted amount. They're often used to seeing small variations in the amount coming in due to variance of the number of hours worked. Even people that work 40 hours weekly don't usually work exactly 40 hours. They'll go on spending everything from paycheck to paycheck, just like always. They won't change their spending habits at all. QuoteIt won't have any effect on boosting spending or the economy. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Its chances are greater than the lump sum method.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #64 February 22, 2009 QuoteYou make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. Nor should they have been offered the loans. It takes at least two parties to enter into that contract. Both parties demonstrated poor judgement. QuoteHow much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living? I'm confident there are many people who fit that description. I'm equally confident that many people losing their homes could not make the payments, no matter how hard they tried to stretch the household income.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #65 February 22, 2009 QuoteNow, when Bush Jr took office in 2000, it became suddenly flat for several years, followed by a major drop. Funny how that works. Edit for better URL Flat for several years... yeah, except for that whole pesky rise to 14k, that is. Funny how that works.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #66 February 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteNow, when Bush Jr took office in 2000, it became suddenly flat for several years, followed by a major drop. Funny how that works. Edit for better URL Flat for several years... yeah, except for that whole pesky rise to 14k, that is. Funny how that works. I would describe the Bush years as a full cycle of a sine wave - started with a drop, then a rise similar magnitude, finishing with a drop. The first cycle ended last year and now it's in the down trend, which means it wasn't flat for 8 years, it was negative. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #67 February 22, 2009 Quote OK, so have you not noticed yet that I'm not really reading your replies? I do still wonder where you jump, though. If this is flirting, let me help you out. Women don't like hearing that you're not listening. Educated women - triply so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #68 February 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteNow, when Bush Jr took office in 2000, it became suddenly flat for several years, followed by a major drop. Funny how that works. Edit for better URL Flat for several years... yeah, except for that whole pesky rise to 14k, that is. Funny how that works. Yes, they call it a speculative bubble, I believe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #69 February 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote So you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. . The deadbeats who got us into this mess are the Wall Street Wizards who figured out how to leverage debt to the Nth degree, so that eventually the house of cards they built came tumbling down. You make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living? You must be thinking of the 2+ million people who have lost their jobs and their health insurance since November. Yup, I bet they'd rather lose their homes than their TV sets. Must be nice to be a government employee like you. I have no issue with giving a helping hand to hard working people who have lost their jobs because of the recession, don't twist my words. The tax cuts and extra cash going to fund the damn welfare programs should be geared more towards those who are unemployed due to no fault of their own, the working class, and the businesses struggling to keep them in their jobs. However, people who had no business buying a house and are going into foreclosure because they don't want to sell the new Lincoln Navigator and replace it with a beater so they can eek otu a few more months of payments don't deserve shit. Do you have any real data to back up your rant claim that these people caused the economic mess? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #70 February 22, 2009 Here's the culprit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html Fannie Mae's Patron Saint In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever." Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets." Great or not, we'll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam's assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities. Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that "there is no federal guarantee" of Fan and Fred obligations. A month later, Freddie Mac's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," he said at the time. Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury." Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become "a self-fulfilling prophecy."Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 426 #71 February 22, 2009 Quote Quote OK, so have you not noticed yet that I'm not really reading your replies? I do still wonder where you jump, though. If this is flirting, let me help you out. Women don't like hearing that you're not listening. Educated women - triply so. That's what my wife keeps telling me.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #72 February 22, 2009 Do you have any real data to back up your rant claim that these people caused the economic mess? Quote Could you be more explicit in asking for economic data? What exactly are you asking me to back up/ The fact that a good portion of the stimulus package is going to people who don't pay taxes to begin with yet feel they deserve more? Read the stimulus bill if you would like confirmation on that. Or are you looking for data showing how the number of foreclosures that happened before the "meltdown" when everybody started losing their jobs helped cause the problem? Before the mass layoffs began a good number of the people losing their homes were the ones that didn't belong in them in the first place. Reality is also a good reference for this as well. Of course we could all fall under the easy banner that would have us blaming wall street for everything gone wrong with this country but the greed of the individual consumers in this country is equally to blame.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Capt.Slog 0 #73 February 23, 2009 Quote Do you have any real data to back up your rant claim that these people caused the economic mess? Quote Could you be more explicit in asking for economic data? What exactly are you asking me to back up/ I interpreted it as this (run-on) sentence of yours: "How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living?" I'd be interested to know what data you have to back up that claim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Capt.Slog 0 #74 February 23, 2009 QuoteHere's the culprit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html Fannie Mae's Patron Saint In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever." Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets." Great or not, we'll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam's assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities. Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that "there is no federal guarantee" of Fan and Fred obligations. A month later, Freddie Mac's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," he said at the time. Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury." Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become "a self-fulfilling prophecy." That caused the financial crisis? How? Did Frank force any investment bank to buy crappy securities? Did Frank force Moodys to rate crap as "AAA"? Did Frank force any broker to push NINJA mortgages? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #75 February 23, 2009 Quote Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? Can I answer this one?!?!?!?!!?I read your posts Marg. I'm not sure what to think about folks who argue without taking the rebuttal into consideration....except that they have a future in talk radio. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
jcd11235 0 #56 February 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote It's $32 a month. That won't entice anyone to make longterm spending commitments. It's not supposed to entice long term spending. The biggest chance it has of working is due to it being too small to be noticed, thus not changing spending habit from ~100% of income. The less likely that the extra money be noticed, the more likely it is to be spent immediately. The higher proportion that it is spent immediately, the more bang for the buck in terms of economic growth. The increased duration, as opposed to a single check, increases the chances of the growth being a trend instead of a short term spike. So, just to be clear, your argument is that an unnoticeably small increase in cash for the average American is the best answer for stimulating the economy? People will accidentally spend more because they have $8 a week extra? I never said it was best for the economy. I said it was better than a single large check.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #57 February 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote It's $32 a month. That won't entice anyone to make longterm spending commitments. It's not supposed to entice long term spending. The biggest chance it has of working is due to it being too small to be noticed, thus not changing spending habit from ~100% of income. The less likely that the extra money be noticed, the more likely it is to be spent immediately. The higher proportion that it is spent immediately, the more bang for the buck in terms of economic growth. The increased duration, as opposed to a single check, increases the chances of the growth being a trend instead of a short term spike. So, just to be clear, your argument is that an unnoticeably small increase in cash for the average American is the best answer for stimulating the economy? People will accidentally spend more because they have $8 a week extra? I never said it was best for the economy. I said it was better than a single large check. You also said it's not supposed to entice long term spending. If you believe that then what's the difference between the two? The reason the lump check didn't work last year is because people put it towards debt or savings. They knew it wasn't enought to count on so they didn't increase spending. These minimal tax cuts do the same things. People don't recognize they've gained $16 per pay check so they'll have no reason to increase their spending. It won't have any effect on boosting spending or the economy. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #58 February 22, 2009 QuoteSo you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. . The deadbeats who got us into this mess are the Wall Street Wizards who figured out how to leverage debt to the Nth degree, so that eventually the house of cards they built came tumbling down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #59 February 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. . The deadbeats who got us into this mess are the Wall Street Wizards who figured out how to leverage debt to the Nth degree, so that eventually the house of cards they built came tumbling down. You make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living?History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #60 February 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote So you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. . The deadbeats who got us into this mess are the Wall Street Wizards who figured out how to leverage debt to the Nth degree, so that eventually the house of cards they built came tumbling down. You make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living? You must be thinking of the 2+ million people who have lost their jobs and their health insurance since November. Yup, I bet they'd rather lose their homes than their TV sets. Must be nice to be a government employee like you.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #61 February 22, 2009 Quote In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The last time it was this low was around 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow, what worthless Republican was President in 1997? That would be Bill Clinton, a democrat, and the stock price wasn't "low" because it dropped, it was on a steady rise over the period of many years. http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?symb=djia&sid=1643&time=all&Submit1=Refresh Now, when Bush Jr took office in 2000, it became suddenly flat for several years, followed by a major drop. Funny how that works. Edit for better URLTrapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #62 February 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote So you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. . The deadbeats who got us into this mess are the Wall Street Wizards who figured out how to leverage debt to the Nth degree, so that eventually the house of cards they built came tumbling down. You make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living? You must be thinking of the 2+ million people who have lost their jobs and their health insurance since November. Yup, I bet they'd rather lose their homes than their TV sets. Must be nice to be a government employee like you. I have no issue with giving a helping hand to hard working people who have lost their jobs because of the recession, don't twist my words. The tax cuts and extra cash going to fund the damn welfare programs should be geared more towards those who are unemployed due to no fault of their own, the working class, and the businesses struggling to keep them in their jobs. However, people who had no business buying a house and are going into foreclosure because they don't want to sell the new Lincoln Navigator and replace it with a beater so they can eek otu a few more months of payments don't deserve shit. The majority of my non-deployed time in the military has been spent working a second job on the weekends so I could up my standard of living despite the fact that I own a home I don't even live in and can barely afford. and guess what, I may not have the lifestyle I want but I'm making my payments on time and haven't lowered my standard of living. It's called hard work, maybe the people in this country begging for a government handout who didn't have a decent job to begin with should try it every once in a while.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #63 February 22, 2009 QuoteYou also said it's not supposed to entice long term spending. In the sense that people are not going to take on long new long term financial obligations, no, the tax cuts are not intended to do that. It is designed to be spent as received, spent in the short term. QuoteThe reason the lump check didn't work last year is because people put it towards debt or savings. Exactly. That's why this proposal is a better idea. It avoids people doing that as much. They won't notice the extra money, they'll just spend it. QuotePeople don't recognize they've gained $16 per pay check so they'll have no reason to increase their spending. No, they will increase their spending, because they don't notice the extra money. So they continue spending all they have from one pay period to the next. When people are living from paycheck to paycheck, their spending is based on how much is left until the next check, not a fixed budgeted amount. They're often used to seeing small variations in the amount coming in due to variance of the number of hours worked. Even people that work 40 hours weekly don't usually work exactly 40 hours. They'll go on spending everything from paycheck to paycheck, just like always. They won't change their spending habits at all. QuoteIt won't have any effect on boosting spending or the economy. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Its chances are greater than the lump sum method.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #64 February 22, 2009 QuoteYou make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. Nor should they have been offered the loans. It takes at least two parties to enter into that contract. Both parties demonstrated poor judgement. QuoteHow much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living? I'm confident there are many people who fit that description. I'm equally confident that many people losing their homes could not make the payments, no matter how hard they tried to stretch the household income.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #65 February 22, 2009 QuoteNow, when Bush Jr took office in 2000, it became suddenly flat for several years, followed by a major drop. Funny how that works. Edit for better URL Flat for several years... yeah, except for that whole pesky rise to 14k, that is. Funny how that works.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #66 February 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteNow, when Bush Jr took office in 2000, it became suddenly flat for several years, followed by a major drop. Funny how that works. Edit for better URL Flat for several years... yeah, except for that whole pesky rise to 14k, that is. Funny how that works. I would describe the Bush years as a full cycle of a sine wave - started with a drop, then a rise similar magnitude, finishing with a drop. The first cycle ended last year and now it's in the down trend, which means it wasn't flat for 8 years, it was negative. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #67 February 22, 2009 Quote OK, so have you not noticed yet that I'm not really reading your replies? I do still wonder where you jump, though. If this is flirting, let me help you out. Women don't like hearing that you're not listening. Educated women - triply so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #68 February 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteNow, when Bush Jr took office in 2000, it became suddenly flat for several years, followed by a major drop. Funny how that works. Edit for better URL Flat for several years... yeah, except for that whole pesky rise to 14k, that is. Funny how that works. Yes, they call it a speculative bubble, I believe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #69 February 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote So you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. . The deadbeats who got us into this mess are the Wall Street Wizards who figured out how to leverage debt to the Nth degree, so that eventually the house of cards they built came tumbling down. You make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living? You must be thinking of the 2+ million people who have lost their jobs and their health insurance since November. Yup, I bet they'd rather lose their homes than their TV sets. Must be nice to be a government employee like you. I have no issue with giving a helping hand to hard working people who have lost their jobs because of the recession, don't twist my words. The tax cuts and extra cash going to fund the damn welfare programs should be geared more towards those who are unemployed due to no fault of their own, the working class, and the businesses struggling to keep them in their jobs. However, people who had no business buying a house and are going into foreclosure because they don't want to sell the new Lincoln Navigator and replace it with a beater so they can eek otu a few more months of payments don't deserve shit. Do you have any real data to back up your rant claim that these people caused the economic mess? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #70 February 22, 2009 Here's the culprit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html Fannie Mae's Patron Saint In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever." Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets." Great or not, we'll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam's assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities. Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that "there is no federal guarantee" of Fan and Fred obligations. A month later, Freddie Mac's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," he said at the time. Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury." Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become "a self-fulfilling prophecy."Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 426 #71 February 22, 2009 Quote Quote OK, so have you not noticed yet that I'm not really reading your replies? I do still wonder where you jump, though. If this is flirting, let me help you out. Women don't like hearing that you're not listening. Educated women - triply so. That's what my wife keeps telling me.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #72 February 22, 2009 Do you have any real data to back up your rant claim that these people caused the economic mess? Quote Could you be more explicit in asking for economic data? What exactly are you asking me to back up/ The fact that a good portion of the stimulus package is going to people who don't pay taxes to begin with yet feel they deserve more? Read the stimulus bill if you would like confirmation on that. Or are you looking for data showing how the number of foreclosures that happened before the "meltdown" when everybody started losing their jobs helped cause the problem? Before the mass layoffs began a good number of the people losing their homes were the ones that didn't belong in them in the first place. Reality is also a good reference for this as well. Of course we could all fall under the easy banner that would have us blaming wall street for everything gone wrong with this country but the greed of the individual consumers in this country is equally to blame.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Capt.Slog 0 #73 February 23, 2009 Quote Do you have any real data to back up your rant claim that these people caused the economic mess? Quote Could you be more explicit in asking for economic data? What exactly are you asking me to back up/ I interpreted it as this (run-on) sentence of yours: "How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living?" I'd be interested to know what data you have to back up that claim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Capt.Slog 0 #74 February 23, 2009 QuoteHere's the culprit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html Fannie Mae's Patron Saint In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever." Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets." Great or not, we'll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam's assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities. Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that "there is no federal guarantee" of Fan and Fred obligations. A month later, Freddie Mac's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," he said at the time. Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury." Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become "a self-fulfilling prophecy." That caused the financial crisis? How? Did Frank force any investment bank to buy crappy securities? Did Frank force Moodys to rate crap as "AAA"? Did Frank force any broker to push NINJA mortgages? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #75 February 23, 2009 Quote Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? Can I answer this one?!?!?!?!!?I read your posts Marg. I'm not sure what to think about folks who argue without taking the rebuttal into consideration....except that they have a future in talk radio. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
GQ_jumper 4 #59 February 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. . The deadbeats who got us into this mess are the Wall Street Wizards who figured out how to leverage debt to the Nth degree, so that eventually the house of cards they built came tumbling down. You make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living?History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #60 February 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote So you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. . The deadbeats who got us into this mess are the Wall Street Wizards who figured out how to leverage debt to the Nth degree, so that eventually the house of cards they built came tumbling down. You make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living? You must be thinking of the 2+ million people who have lost their jobs and their health insurance since November. Yup, I bet they'd rather lose their homes than their TV sets. Must be nice to be a government employee like you.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #61 February 22, 2009 Quote In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The last time it was this low was around 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow, what worthless Republican was President in 1997? That would be Bill Clinton, a democrat, and the stock price wasn't "low" because it dropped, it was on a steady rise over the period of many years. http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?symb=djia&sid=1643&time=all&Submit1=Refresh Now, when Bush Jr took office in 2000, it became suddenly flat for several years, followed by a major drop. Funny how that works. Edit for better URLTrapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #62 February 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote So you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. . The deadbeats who got us into this mess are the Wall Street Wizards who figured out how to leverage debt to the Nth degree, so that eventually the house of cards they built came tumbling down. You make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living? You must be thinking of the 2+ million people who have lost their jobs and their health insurance since November. Yup, I bet they'd rather lose their homes than their TV sets. Must be nice to be a government employee like you. I have no issue with giving a helping hand to hard working people who have lost their jobs because of the recession, don't twist my words. The tax cuts and extra cash going to fund the damn welfare programs should be geared more towards those who are unemployed due to no fault of their own, the working class, and the businesses struggling to keep them in their jobs. However, people who had no business buying a house and are going into foreclosure because they don't want to sell the new Lincoln Navigator and replace it with a beater so they can eek otu a few more months of payments don't deserve shit. The majority of my non-deployed time in the military has been spent working a second job on the weekends so I could up my standard of living despite the fact that I own a home I don't even live in and can barely afford. and guess what, I may not have the lifestyle I want but I'm making my payments on time and haven't lowered my standard of living. It's called hard work, maybe the people in this country begging for a government handout who didn't have a decent job to begin with should try it every once in a while.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #63 February 22, 2009 QuoteYou also said it's not supposed to entice long term spending. In the sense that people are not going to take on long new long term financial obligations, no, the tax cuts are not intended to do that. It is designed to be spent as received, spent in the short term. QuoteThe reason the lump check didn't work last year is because people put it towards debt or savings. Exactly. That's why this proposal is a better idea. It avoids people doing that as much. They won't notice the extra money, they'll just spend it. QuotePeople don't recognize they've gained $16 per pay check so they'll have no reason to increase their spending. No, they will increase their spending, because they don't notice the extra money. So they continue spending all they have from one pay period to the next. When people are living from paycheck to paycheck, their spending is based on how much is left until the next check, not a fixed budgeted amount. They're often used to seeing small variations in the amount coming in due to variance of the number of hours worked. Even people that work 40 hours weekly don't usually work exactly 40 hours. They'll go on spending everything from paycheck to paycheck, just like always. They won't change their spending habits at all. QuoteIt won't have any effect on boosting spending or the economy. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Its chances are greater than the lump sum method.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #64 February 22, 2009 QuoteYou make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. Nor should they have been offered the loans. It takes at least two parties to enter into that contract. Both parties demonstrated poor judgement. QuoteHow much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living? I'm confident there are many people who fit that description. I'm equally confident that many people losing their homes could not make the payments, no matter how hard they tried to stretch the household income.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #65 February 22, 2009 QuoteNow, when Bush Jr took office in 2000, it became suddenly flat for several years, followed by a major drop. Funny how that works. Edit for better URL Flat for several years... yeah, except for that whole pesky rise to 14k, that is. Funny how that works.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #66 February 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteNow, when Bush Jr took office in 2000, it became suddenly flat for several years, followed by a major drop. Funny how that works. Edit for better URL Flat for several years... yeah, except for that whole pesky rise to 14k, that is. Funny how that works. I would describe the Bush years as a full cycle of a sine wave - started with a drop, then a rise similar magnitude, finishing with a drop. The first cycle ended last year and now it's in the down trend, which means it wasn't flat for 8 years, it was negative. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #67 February 22, 2009 Quote OK, so have you not noticed yet that I'm not really reading your replies? I do still wonder where you jump, though. If this is flirting, let me help you out. Women don't like hearing that you're not listening. Educated women - triply so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #68 February 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteNow, when Bush Jr took office in 2000, it became suddenly flat for several years, followed by a major drop. Funny how that works. Edit for better URL Flat for several years... yeah, except for that whole pesky rise to 14k, that is. Funny how that works. Yes, they call it a speculative bubble, I believe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #69 February 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote So you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. . The deadbeats who got us into this mess are the Wall Street Wizards who figured out how to leverage debt to the Nth degree, so that eventually the house of cards they built came tumbling down. You make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living? You must be thinking of the 2+ million people who have lost their jobs and their health insurance since November. Yup, I bet they'd rather lose their homes than their TV sets. Must be nice to be a government employee like you. I have no issue with giving a helping hand to hard working people who have lost their jobs because of the recession, don't twist my words. The tax cuts and extra cash going to fund the damn welfare programs should be geared more towards those who are unemployed due to no fault of their own, the working class, and the businesses struggling to keep them in their jobs. However, people who had no business buying a house and are going into foreclosure because they don't want to sell the new Lincoln Navigator and replace it with a beater so they can eek otu a few more months of payments don't deserve shit. Do you have any real data to back up your rant claim that these people caused the economic mess? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #70 February 22, 2009 Here's the culprit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html Fannie Mae's Patron Saint In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever." Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets." Great or not, we'll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam's assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities. Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that "there is no federal guarantee" of Fan and Fred obligations. A month later, Freddie Mac's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," he said at the time. Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury." Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become "a self-fulfilling prophecy."Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 426 #71 February 22, 2009 Quote Quote OK, so have you not noticed yet that I'm not really reading your replies? I do still wonder where you jump, though. If this is flirting, let me help you out. Women don't like hearing that you're not listening. Educated women - triply so. That's what my wife keeps telling me.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #72 February 22, 2009 Do you have any real data to back up your rant claim that these people caused the economic mess? Quote Could you be more explicit in asking for economic data? What exactly are you asking me to back up/ The fact that a good portion of the stimulus package is going to people who don't pay taxes to begin with yet feel they deserve more? Read the stimulus bill if you would like confirmation on that. Or are you looking for data showing how the number of foreclosures that happened before the "meltdown" when everybody started losing their jobs helped cause the problem? Before the mass layoffs began a good number of the people losing their homes were the ones that didn't belong in them in the first place. Reality is also a good reference for this as well. Of course we could all fall under the easy banner that would have us blaming wall street for everything gone wrong with this country but the greed of the individual consumers in this country is equally to blame.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Capt.Slog 0 #73 February 23, 2009 Quote Do you have any real data to back up your rant claim that these people caused the economic mess? Quote Could you be more explicit in asking for economic data? What exactly are you asking me to back up/ I interpreted it as this (run-on) sentence of yours: "How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living?" I'd be interested to know what data you have to back up that claim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Capt.Slog 0 #74 February 23, 2009 QuoteHere's the culprit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html Fannie Mae's Patron Saint In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever." Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets." Great or not, we'll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam's assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities. Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that "there is no federal guarantee" of Fan and Fred obligations. A month later, Freddie Mac's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," he said at the time. Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury." Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become "a self-fulfilling prophecy." That caused the financial crisis? How? Did Frank force any investment bank to buy crappy securities? Did Frank force Moodys to rate crap as "AAA"? Did Frank force any broker to push NINJA mortgages? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #75 February 23, 2009 Quote Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? Can I answer this one?!?!?!?!!?I read your posts Marg. I'm not sure what to think about folks who argue without taking the rebuttal into consideration....except that they have a future in talk radio. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
jerryzflies 0 #60 February 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote So you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. . The deadbeats who got us into this mess are the Wall Street Wizards who figured out how to leverage debt to the Nth degree, so that eventually the house of cards they built came tumbling down. You make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living? You must be thinking of the 2+ million people who have lost their jobs and their health insurance since November. Yup, I bet they'd rather lose their homes than their TV sets. Must be nice to be a government employee like you.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #61 February 22, 2009 Quote In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The last time it was this low was around 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow, what worthless Republican was President in 1997? That would be Bill Clinton, a democrat, and the stock price wasn't "low" because it dropped, it was on a steady rise over the period of many years. http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?symb=djia&sid=1643&time=all&Submit1=Refresh Now, when Bush Jr took office in 2000, it became suddenly flat for several years, followed by a major drop. Funny how that works. Edit for better URLTrapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #62 February 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote So you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. . The deadbeats who got us into this mess are the Wall Street Wizards who figured out how to leverage debt to the Nth degree, so that eventually the house of cards they built came tumbling down. You make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living? You must be thinking of the 2+ million people who have lost their jobs and their health insurance since November. Yup, I bet they'd rather lose their homes than their TV sets. Must be nice to be a government employee like you. I have no issue with giving a helping hand to hard working people who have lost their jobs because of the recession, don't twist my words. The tax cuts and extra cash going to fund the damn welfare programs should be geared more towards those who are unemployed due to no fault of their own, the working class, and the businesses struggling to keep them in their jobs. However, people who had no business buying a house and are going into foreclosure because they don't want to sell the new Lincoln Navigator and replace it with a beater so they can eek otu a few more months of payments don't deserve shit. The majority of my non-deployed time in the military has been spent working a second job on the weekends so I could up my standard of living despite the fact that I own a home I don't even live in and can barely afford. and guess what, I may not have the lifestyle I want but I'm making my payments on time and haven't lowered my standard of living. It's called hard work, maybe the people in this country begging for a government handout who didn't have a decent job to begin with should try it every once in a while.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #63 February 22, 2009 QuoteYou also said it's not supposed to entice long term spending. In the sense that people are not going to take on long new long term financial obligations, no, the tax cuts are not intended to do that. It is designed to be spent as received, spent in the short term. QuoteThe reason the lump check didn't work last year is because people put it towards debt or savings. Exactly. That's why this proposal is a better idea. It avoids people doing that as much. They won't notice the extra money, they'll just spend it. QuotePeople don't recognize they've gained $16 per pay check so they'll have no reason to increase their spending. No, they will increase their spending, because they don't notice the extra money. So they continue spending all they have from one pay period to the next. When people are living from paycheck to paycheck, their spending is based on how much is left until the next check, not a fixed budgeted amount. They're often used to seeing small variations in the amount coming in due to variance of the number of hours worked. Even people that work 40 hours weekly don't usually work exactly 40 hours. They'll go on spending everything from paycheck to paycheck, just like always. They won't change their spending habits at all. QuoteIt won't have any effect on boosting spending or the economy. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Its chances are greater than the lump sum method.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #64 February 22, 2009 QuoteYou make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. Nor should they have been offered the loans. It takes at least two parties to enter into that contract. Both parties demonstrated poor judgement. QuoteHow much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living? I'm confident there are many people who fit that description. I'm equally confident that many people losing their homes could not make the payments, no matter how hard they tried to stretch the household income.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #65 February 22, 2009 QuoteNow, when Bush Jr took office in 2000, it became suddenly flat for several years, followed by a major drop. Funny how that works. Edit for better URL Flat for several years... yeah, except for that whole pesky rise to 14k, that is. Funny how that works.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #66 February 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteNow, when Bush Jr took office in 2000, it became suddenly flat for several years, followed by a major drop. Funny how that works. Edit for better URL Flat for several years... yeah, except for that whole pesky rise to 14k, that is. Funny how that works. I would describe the Bush years as a full cycle of a sine wave - started with a drop, then a rise similar magnitude, finishing with a drop. The first cycle ended last year and now it's in the down trend, which means it wasn't flat for 8 years, it was negative. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #67 February 22, 2009 Quote OK, so have you not noticed yet that I'm not really reading your replies? I do still wonder where you jump, though. If this is flirting, let me help you out. Women don't like hearing that you're not listening. Educated women - triply so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #68 February 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteNow, when Bush Jr took office in 2000, it became suddenly flat for several years, followed by a major drop. Funny how that works. Edit for better URL Flat for several years... yeah, except for that whole pesky rise to 14k, that is. Funny how that works. Yes, they call it a speculative bubble, I believe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #69 February 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote So you oppose the tax cuts it contains? Quote I oppose giving money back to the deadbeats that don't do a whole lot of anything for this country anyways and helped get us into this mess. . The deadbeats who got us into this mess are the Wall Street Wizards who figured out how to leverage debt to the Nth degree, so that eventually the house of cards they built came tumbling down. You make a very valid point however, the house of cards built by leveraging credit would not have collapsed if people had not purchased homes and used credit in manner they had no business doing. How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living? You must be thinking of the 2+ million people who have lost their jobs and their health insurance since November. Yup, I bet they'd rather lose their homes than their TV sets. Must be nice to be a government employee like you. I have no issue with giving a helping hand to hard working people who have lost their jobs because of the recession, don't twist my words. The tax cuts and extra cash going to fund the damn welfare programs should be geared more towards those who are unemployed due to no fault of their own, the working class, and the businesses struggling to keep them in their jobs. However, people who had no business buying a house and are going into foreclosure because they don't want to sell the new Lincoln Navigator and replace it with a beater so they can eek otu a few more months of payments don't deserve shit. Do you have any real data to back up your rant claim that these people caused the economic mess? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #70 February 22, 2009 Here's the culprit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html Fannie Mae's Patron Saint In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever." Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets." Great or not, we'll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam's assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities. Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that "there is no federal guarantee" of Fan and Fred obligations. A month later, Freddie Mac's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," he said at the time. Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury." Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become "a self-fulfilling prophecy."Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #71 February 22, 2009 Quote Quote OK, so have you not noticed yet that I'm not really reading your replies? I do still wonder where you jump, though. If this is flirting, let me help you out. Women don't like hearing that you're not listening. Educated women - triply so. That's what my wife keeps telling me.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #72 February 22, 2009 Do you have any real data to back up your rant claim that these people caused the economic mess? Quote Could you be more explicit in asking for economic data? What exactly are you asking me to back up/ The fact that a good portion of the stimulus package is going to people who don't pay taxes to begin with yet feel they deserve more? Read the stimulus bill if you would like confirmation on that. Or are you looking for data showing how the number of foreclosures that happened before the "meltdown" when everybody started losing their jobs helped cause the problem? Before the mass layoffs began a good number of the people losing their homes were the ones that didn't belong in them in the first place. Reality is also a good reference for this as well. Of course we could all fall under the easy banner that would have us blaming wall street for everything gone wrong with this country but the greed of the individual consumers in this country is equally to blame.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Capt.Slog 0 #73 February 23, 2009 Quote Do you have any real data to back up your rant claim that these people caused the economic mess? Quote Could you be more explicit in asking for economic data? What exactly are you asking me to back up/ I interpreted it as this (run-on) sentence of yours: "How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living?" I'd be interested to know what data you have to back up that claim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Capt.Slog 0 #74 February 23, 2009 QuoteHere's the culprit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html Fannie Mae's Patron Saint In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever." Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets." Great or not, we'll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam's assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities. Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that "there is no federal guarantee" of Fan and Fred obligations. A month later, Freddie Mac's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," he said at the time. Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury." Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become "a self-fulfilling prophecy." That caused the financial crisis? How? Did Frank force any investment bank to buy crappy securities? Did Frank force Moodys to rate crap as "AAA"? Did Frank force any broker to push NINJA mortgages? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #75 February 23, 2009 Quote Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? Can I answer this one?!?!?!?!!?I read your posts Marg. I'm not sure what to think about folks who argue without taking the rebuttal into consideration....except that they have a future in talk radio. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Capt.Slog 0 #73 February 23, 2009 Quote Do you have any real data to back up your rant claim that these people caused the economic mess? Quote Could you be more explicit in asking for economic data? What exactly are you asking me to back up/ I interpreted it as this (run-on) sentence of yours: "How much are you willing to bet that a good number of the people whose homes are being foreclosed have the ability to pay their mortgages if only they would be willing to make some sacrifices when it comes to their standard of living?" I'd be interested to know what data you have to back up that claim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Capt.Slog 0 #74 February 23, 2009 QuoteHere's the culprit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html Fannie Mae's Patron Saint In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever." Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets." Great or not, we'll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam's assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities. Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that "there is no federal guarantee" of Fan and Fred obligations. A month later, Freddie Mac's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," he said at the time. Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury." Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become "a self-fulfilling prophecy." That caused the financial crisis? How? Did Frank force any investment bank to buy crappy securities? Did Frank force Moodys to rate crap as "AAA"? Did Frank force any broker to push NINJA mortgages? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #75 February 23, 2009 Quote Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? Can I answer this one?!?!?!?!!?I read your posts Marg. I'm not sure what to think about folks who argue without taking the rebuttal into consideration....except that they have a future in talk radio. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Capt.Slog 0 #74 February 23, 2009 QuoteHere's the culprit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html Fannie Mae's Patron Saint In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever." Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets." Great or not, we'll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam's assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities. Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that "there is no federal guarantee" of Fan and Fred obligations. A month later, Freddie Mac's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," he said at the time. Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury." Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become "a self-fulfilling prophecy." That caused the financial crisis? How? Did Frank force any investment bank to buy crappy securities? Did Frank force Moodys to rate crap as "AAA"? Did Frank force any broker to push NINJA mortgages? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #75 February 23, 2009 Quote Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? Can I answer this one?!?!?!?!!?I read your posts Marg. I'm not sure what to think about folks who argue without taking the rebuttal into consideration....except that they have a future in talk radio. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
