U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-06-2009, 07:54 PM
 
4,176 posts, read 5,470,515 times
Reputation: 1849

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heiwos View Post
Then why do France and other socialist, high-tax countries have the world's highest standards of living on average?


Poor people work hard too. The rich benefit more than poor people do from public services, so the rich should pay higher taxes to pay their fair share of those services. Simple as that. What you call "class warfare", liberals call "ending welfare for the rich", and the liberals are right.


Because Republicans wrecked the whole country.
You have no shame. Those states and cities I mentioned are under total (or near total) Democratic control and have been for decades. Even the (R)'s in those states like Shwarzenegger are liberals. Places like New Orleans have been in shambles for decades, even when Deal Leader Bill Clinton was President. The stock market went up under Bill b/c of the Tech and Telecom booms, which busted upon his departure from the WH. I don't blame him at all for the busts of those industries, but he deserves no credit for the boom either. He also had a conservative Congress to hold his feet to the fire.


France is a joke. They have a stagnant, low growth Economy. Their unemployment rate may not be that much higher than ours, but their Economy is much less vibrant and people do not have the versatile employment options we have here (during average and above Economic conditions). They work 35 hour weeks and are controlled by Unions. It got so bad, that a conservative (Sarkozy) won the Presidency.


Next time I hurt myself, I'll make sure to blame the GOP for that as well!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2009, 09:05 PM
 
957 posts, read 907,272 times
Reputation: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooperkat View Post
Heiwos, where do you see yourself in the American economic spectrum?

On Welfare? Lower Middle Class? Middle Class? Upper Middle Class? Or above?
My taxes will increase significantly under Obama's plan, but I don't consider myself to be rich.

Quote:
It is not the rich that benefit more from social programs. They pay for them. Also, the rich pay more taxes ( and give to charity ) more than any other economic class. It sucks that you proclaim that liberals are right when they are really thinking upside down and irrationally.
If the rich paid enough, we wouldn't have a huge national debt, now would we? I don't care what they give to charity, that doesn't make up for their underpayments on taxes. Clinton's performance shows that liberals are indeed right.

Quote:
You are free to move to any Socialist country you wish -- and bask in the huge warm collective bathwater they provide.
I'm also free to make the US more socialist. It seems the majority agree with me too.

Quote:
American capitalism is on a much larger scale. You can't expect American industry and small businesses to start paying 68% taxes for the better of their fellow man. Incentive is out the window at that rate. Countries like Denmark benefit from countries that prosper.
I don't buy the argument that other socialist countries or the US would falter if the US was more socialist. There's plenty of business incentive in socialist countries and no shortage of businesses in them. Try France instead of a cherry-picking a small country.

Quote:
Utopia occurs in America; where people take the risk to succeed and take the risk to lose. When they lose, they pull up their pants and try to win again.
No, when they lose they get a giant bailout from the gov't. The losses of the rich are socialized in America, which is a big reason they need to pay much higher taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 09:17 PM
 
957 posts, read 907,272 times
Reputation: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIS123 View Post
You have no shame. Those states and cities I mentioned are under total (or near total) Democratic control and have been for decades. Even the (R)'s in those states like Shwarzenegger are liberals.
I mostly agree about Schwarzeneggar. But when national management is so bad, it swamps state and local politics. So Republicans are to blame for problems all over the country.

Quote:
Places like New Orleans have been in shambles for decades, even when Deal Leader Bill Clinton was President. The stock market went up under Bill b/c of the Tech and Telecom booms, which busted upon his departure from the WH. I don't blame him at all for the busts of those industries, but he deserves no credit for the boom either. He also had a conservative Congress to hold his feet to the fire.
Yes, there are problem areas like New Orleans. Of course Republicans made New Orleans far far worse, by electing Bush, who then appointed Heckuva Job Brownie, who promptly scrapped New Orleans hurricane evacuation plan that would have saved 1000+ people had it been followed for Katrina. The stock market did not go up under Clinton just because of tech. Clinton also created a budget surplus, which Republicans insisted be spent as if there was no national debt. Clinton was the one holding their feet to the fire, not the other way around. The president writes the budget, not Congress.

Quote:
France is a joke. They have a stagnant, low growth Economy. Their unemployment rate may not be that much higher than ours, but their Economy is much less vibrant and people do not have the versatile employment options we have here (during average and above Economic conditions). They work 35 hour weeks and are controlled by Unions. It got so bad, that a conservative (Sarkozy) won the Presidency.
35-hour weeks is bad? Low growth is bad? Should I want 50-hour weeks and so much growth that all our national parks are paved over? I should want to risk bankruptcy because I get the flu, even with insurance? I don't care about a vibrant economy so much as a sustainable (tantamount to stagnant) economy where I don't have to work any more than necessary to have a nice life, and where I don't have to worry about losing everything I've worked for just because of some heath issue, despite my insurance. And don't get me started on their excellent ground transportation system. Your "bad" sounds great to me. What kind of country do you want? Is economic growth more important than quality of life to you? It sure seems so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 10:05 PM
 
Location: Here
10,864 posts, read 11,911,621 times
Reputation: 5981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heiwos View Post
My taxes will increase significantly under Obama's plan, but I don't consider myself to be rich.

<searching for the BS Meter>
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2009, 05:00 AM
 
12,870 posts, read 13,117,211 times
Reputation: 4453
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm View Post
Interesting.

Do you really think folks would go through the trouble of qualifying themselves as financially unable to meet their obligations to the bank for a lower payment? I understand the concern in the rest of your statement, this piece however, shows some lack of understanding of what the bank or lender requires in order to "consider" a shortsale, restructuring or renegotiation.
I'm curious - What percentage of folks who are currently paying their mortgage do you think would engage in the practice you're proposing here?
if you simply go by the statistics that are out there now, 55% of all the renegotiated mortgages fail within 6 months.

Last edited by floridasandy; 03-07-2009 at 05:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2009, 05:44 AM
 
Location: Orlando
8,233 posts, read 11,250,310 times
Reputation: 4063
Just because someone writes something does not mean it is the reason. Remember news medias need material to fill the pages, it doesnt have to be true.
Have you considered that Obama doesnt lend a favorable climate to the speculators who run stocks up on smoke and mirrors and now you get to see the companies for what they are? after years of seeing Microsoft selling with a PE ratio 10 times higher than most companies we now see it in more realistic realms.---- 8.19 when it is trading for $15.28.
And you want unrealistic numbers why? `
Bank of America = PE = 5.67, price $3.14
Verizon = 12.1, price $27.28
GM and Ford have no earning so their price is under $2 and probably still too high
AT& T - 10.45, @ $22.58
Yahoo = 43.07 @ $13.05
Qual Comm = 20.43 @ $33.63

Seems you still have some of the dot coms still trading in unrealistic numbers. I prefer to see a company trade in the 10-12 PE range. if it is above that the price is unrealistic, below it is a bargain.

And the US as a whole bases the falling DOW on activities being negative by Obama. Perhaps, those speculators that get the bad rap when Oil shoots up or bank stocks are soaring too high and simply not as active and taking a gulible public that thinks a stock soaring is great.... when they own it

I think there is still room for more correcetion in the market. I don't blame it on Obama. Companies were trading in unrealistic prices and finally they are coming back to reality. guess over pricing doesnt just happen in housing.

HEADLINE **** OBAMA SAVES THE DAY FOR INVESTORS AND BRINGS MARKET BACK TO REALITY

don't guess we will see that one... nor does it being written mean it is true or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2009, 06:03 AM
 
12,870 posts, read 13,117,211 times
Reputation: 4453
if a new policy makes a situation worse, who should we blame it on then? if tax cheats get appointed instead of getting punished who should we blame? if the stimulus rewards porky lobbyists instead of creating real jobs with this (borrowed) money who should we blame? if taxpayers are being asked to prop up these unrealistic markets who should we blame?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2009, 06:21 AM
 
4,433 posts, read 3,914,842 times
Reputation: 1354
Everyone knows that the voters have no one to blame except themselves.

What gets me, is that "the people" vote for the same idiots in Congress over and over again.

I can think of several Congressmen and Women who need to get the boot. Can you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2009, 09:27 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 60,497,183 times
Reputation: 22276
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm View Post
Interesting.

Do you really think folks would go through the trouble of qualifying themselves as financially unable to meet their obligations to the bank for a lower payment? I understand the concern in the rest of your statement, this piece however, shows some lack of understanding of what the bank or lender requires in order to "consider" a shortsale, restructuring or renegotiation.
I'm curious - What percentage of folks who are currently paying their mortgage do you think would engage in the practice you're proposing here?
Of course they will. Why should someone who carefully chose a home he/could afford sit back and see that they will have to pay for homes for the irresponsible?

Look who comes out ahead under the Obama plan. Someone making $8 an hour who wanted to impress his friends by buying a $300,000 home will be given that home by the government. When he sells that home, he gets $300,000. Someone with common sense who bought a $100,000 home will not only have to pay for his home but will only have a $100,000 when it's sold.

That is so obviously unfair, why wouldn't people try to get in on this big government give-away?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2009, 12:12 PM
 
957 posts, read 907,272 times
Reputation: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01Snake View Post
<searching for the BS Meter>
Not all of us are Republicans = welfare lovers. The decent Americans want to lower the national debt so it isn't left for future generations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top