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.
Well , how about the fact the property was discounted by about 40% because of the existing mortgage that I assumed when I bought it. Plus, I didn't pay the mortgage and the day I recieved the foreclosure notice I walked in and paid the entire debt off in cash. That's an option on a Canadian mortgage.
AS much as the right would like us to believe it, it was not the government that was to blame for the banks giving mortgages to people who could not afford them. It was the FREAKIN BANKS. They created the huge bubble that burst and pretty much wrecked the economy. The scope of the frauds is just out of this world and very few have been charged as of yet but I'm expecting a few in the coming months, there should be thousands in jail!!!!
Foreclosure... Canadian mortgage?
Yep the banks, "government" AND the people who bought houses they could not afford. But nobody ever lays blame on themselves. I don't care what carrot anyone dangles in front of me, I have enough common sense to know what I can afford.
The people who could not really afford it were financially irresponsible. These people who bought are just as much to blame.
Subside -> Bubble -> Crash
Didn't Obama let the bankers off the hook?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow
Does the namy Grover Norquist ring a bell? How about the KOCH brothers?
What's it going to take for you Americans to be able to understand these guys are NOT on your side. They don't give on single crap about the 8,000 jobs instantly created, or the hundreds of billions more in trade it will create. Zippo, nada, nothing you understand!!!!! The only thing they care about at all is first THEMSELVES, second of all themselves thirdly themselves and fourthly their class.
If you are going to bring up Norquist and Koch brothers while your at it bring up G. Soros.
Koch brothers are dedicated to promoting free market practices and small government. Why should we demonize people who deeply believe in something and do whatever they can to promote it?
The truth is that everything we have in this country is because of entrepreneurs, large and small. From the corner store up to the most successful business people whether conservatives like the Koch brothers, liberals like Steve Jobs at Apple, or libertarians like Jeff Bezos of Amazon, the great wealth of this country comes from people helping other people by creating value. Without value, when businesspeople are just in it for themselves and don’t care about value, only about accruing benefits to themselves, everything falls apart including the business itself! Since their business began, the Koch brothers have been part of the value-creating class, not the crony class of business owners.
So why do we vilify people who represent the greatness of America? Is it just because they have different political beliefs? It’s time to stop demonizing people who do things the right way and generate tremendous wealth and value to all Americans. Those are the people we should celebrate, whether you agree with their politics or not!
If we want to preserve America as the great place it is, we need more entrepreneurs, more innovators—and a free market to foster them.
President Obama has just used the bully pulpit of the Presidency to apply extreme pressure on the Republican Congress. One of the first times in memory.
1) There must be revenues coupled with cuts and there absolutely has to be more revenue from the top 2% (non necessarily higher rates).
2) He is ready to sign a bill that makes permanent the current tax rates for 98% of Americans (those making under $250,000).
3) Puts the onus of any tax increases on all Americans past Dec. 31 (the Fiscal Cliff date) on the Republicans.
4) Reiterated that he ran on this platform and the issue has been decided by the elections.
Lots of pressure. How will Congress react?
- What cuts? He never has identified any cuts. The wars going away are not cuts. Cuts are not reduced growth in spending. Cuts are eliminating failed programs, agencies, laying off gov. workers etc...it won't happen.
- Revenues - increased taxes.
- There is not enough money to be obtained in raising taxes on only the 250k and above. It has to be much less because that is where the money is at.
- Put the pressure on Obama to let all the tax cuts expire. The Democrats have been demanding that for 12 years. Give it to them.
- He also ran on making the tough choices but at his latest speech he wants to have another meeting of various special interest groups so he can blame them. He is just outsourcing the heavy lifting once again.
- What cuts? He never has identified any cuts. The wars going away are not cuts. Cuts are not reduced growth in spending. Cuts are eliminating failed programs, agencies, laying off gov. workers etc...it won't happen.
- Revenues - increased taxes.
- There is not enough money to be obtained in raising taxes on only the 250k and above. It has to be much less because that is where the money is at.
- Put the pressure on Obama to let all the tax cuts expire. The Democrats have been demanding that for 12 years. Give it to them.
- He also ran on making the tough choices but at his latest speech he wants to have another meeting of various special interest groups so he can blame them. He is just outsourcing the heavy lifting once again.
1) He specifically mentioned that he is willing to make cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, as a start.
2) Yes, he stated that there will be a need to increase tax revenues on those making $250,000 and above.
3) Yes, revenues earned by increasing tax revenues on those making $250,000 and above would not be nearly enough. It would be barely a down payment as would the cuts that they are discussing.
Only much faster growth can begin to bridge the debt gap. An approach that might work would be to make sure more money goes to the middle class so that they have more money to spend, which increases demand for goods and services, which is how an economy grows. Giving more money to the wealthy as Romney proposed with his 20% cut, would be extremely damaging to the country since the debt would grow enormously.
No one knows what will happen at this point. We will know soon.
At least two, and possibly more, posters keep laying the Bank Bailout on Obama's administration. This is incorrect. The Bank Bailout goes on Bush's books. When America needed massive amounts of opportunity, in the aftermath of WWII, tax rates on the wealthy exceeded 90%. When I was a young adult (197?) the top rate was 50% and it stopped at 250K. In the 1950's it didn't stop! Today a millionaire would only pay taxes on the first 250K, a millionaire two generations ago would have paid 92% right to the top. Of course that is all an oversimplification because the Tax Code is so complex it takes trained professionals to apply it to real life. Why do you imagine the Tax Code is so complex? Eliminate loopholes and leave marginal rates where they are... ... sounds like a plan... I have a better idea, eliminate loopholes AND increase marginal rates. ON EVERYONE. I am not averse to paying more taxes or my fair share, whatever you want to call it. I wouldn't even have a problem with the rich paying no taxes at all, if Middle Class wages and income were sufficient to keep the country in the black. As they have been for a couple of decades, but is no longer the case.
Would letting the Bush tax cuts expire pay of the National Debt? No it would not. So.... don't do it then. Let the wealthy pay 13% since making them pay more wouldn't pay off the National Debt in a lump sum... ... right. I could argue that things are at this watershed moment because taxes on the wealthy have been dropping steadily and the Middle Class has essentially been doing all the financial heavy lifting tor a generation. And would have happily continued doing so, except that the Ruling Class, in their collective wisdom, decided that even more wealth gain was desirable and sourced labor from offshore monetary systems that are 1/10 of the U.S.'s. Slick... but then American workers can't pay their taxes because they have no income. The rich aren't paying taxes because they have tax breaks and the less well off aren't paying any taxes because they have no income. Do I understand correctly that we want to continue this??
Romney lost the election. That fact seems to be missing in this discussion, so I'll say it again: ROMNEY LOST THE ELECTION. Had he won, I might expect a different dynamic when talking about the Fiscal Cliff. Obama, as a duly elected DEMOCRAT, is not the one who has a mandate to de-fund every wasteful social program that people on the Right want done away with. When and if, a Republican rudder has control of fiscal and other policies in America I will revise that opinion. As for now, it is emblematic of the Republican inability to compromise that brings us to this impasse. Do your own dirty work, and yes, the dismantlement of the EPA, Planned Parenthood and/or the Department of Education would be "dirty" accomplishments. For which Obama, if he had any hand in their destruction would receive sound castigation, scorn and disgust. FROM REPUBLICANS.
"From each according to their ability; to each according to their need."
At least two, and possibly more, posters keep laying the Bank Bailout on Obama's administration. This is incorrect. The Bank Bailout goes on Bush's books.
H
The only thing that surpasses Liberals' faith in Obama is Conservatives' faith in Limbaugh.
You will have to do some homework, but during your investigation concerning Obama's economic policies you will find that during his administration (including the years that Democrats completely controlled Congress):
1) The Federal Government gave banks hundreds of trillions of dollars (courtesy of the Federal Reserve) to bail out banks. I am not talking about FDIC insured deposits. I am talking about bailing out banks from their horrific mortgage loans which would have cost Wall Street their Christmas bonuses and probably their jobs. Instead, they continue to pay themselves 100s of billions of dollars in bonuses while the taxpayer gets to take the losses and pay off the bad debts.
2) The wealth gap continued to build as Obama's policies shifted wealth from the middle class to the top 1% (nice policies).
3) The average family income declined under Obama because the so-called job growth has been mostly temporary/part-time jobs.
4) Trillions of dollars have been added to the debt which, believe or not, someone has to pay for. Seeing as the top 1% continue to get more and more of the wealth, one can easily guess that it is the middle class that is paying for the debt (in numerous ways such as no interest on savings, lower standard of living, working more hours for less pay or no pay, etc.).
There actually is a liberal that knows something about economics. He is Senator Bernie Sanders who frequently warns against current economic policies. As for Krugman, no doubt he is being paid off well for moving trillions of dollars of middle class money into the pockets of the top 1%.
Isn't this really what it is al about. There is absolutely no easier way to make money with no risk than doing "business" with the Federal Government. That is why the Universities gave a ton of money to Obama's campaign. Government guarantees loans, parents take out loans, Universities get a ton of money, parents go broke, Government has hundreds of billions of bad loans, taxpayers have to pay for the loans. And the wealthy ... get richer.
The only thing that surpasses Liberals' faith in Obama is Conservatives' faith in Limbaugh.
You will have to do some homework, but during your investigation concerning Obama's economic policies you will find that during his administration (including the years that Democrats completely controlled Congress):
1) The Federal Government gave banks hundreds of trillions of dollars (courtesy of the Federal Reserve) to bail out banks. I am not talking about FDIC insured deposits. I am talking about bailing out banks from their horrific mortgage loans which would have cost Wall Street their Christmas bonuses and probably their jobs. Instead, they continue to pay themselves 100s of billions of dollars in bonuses while the taxpayer gets to take the losses and pay off the bad debts.
2) The wealth gap continued to build as Obama's policies shifted wealth from the middle class to the top 1% (nice policies).
3) The average family income declined under Obama because the so-called job growth has been mostly temporary/part-time jobs.
4) Trillions of dollars have been added to the debt which, believe or not, someone has to pay for. Seeing as the top 1% continue to get more and more of the wealth, one can easily guess that it is the middle class that is paying for the debt (in numerous ways such as no interest on savings, lower standard of living, working more hours for less pay or no pay, etc.).
There actually is a liberal that knows something about economics. He is Senator Bernie Sanders who frequently warns against current economic policies. As for Krugman, no doubt he is being paid off well for moving trillions of dollars of middle class money into the pockets of the top 1%.
Isn't this really what it is al about. There is absolutely no easier way to make money with no risk than doing "business" with the Federal Government. That is why the Universities gave a ton of money to Obama's campaign. Government guarantees loans, parents take out loans, Universities get a ton of money, parents go broke, Government has hundreds of billions of bad loans, taxpayers have to pay for the loans. And the wealthy ... get richer.
And... ...Romney would be different? At least, under Obama, while the rich continue to get richer, the middle class would have healthcare. At least, under Obama, while the rich continue to get richer, there would be concern for the environment. And so on. Several Republican administrations have shown, in hindsight, to have had the enrichment of the 1% as their only lasting legacy. The rich will always do well, what about the rest of us? Romeny made little issue out of wanting to scrap the EPA, Planned Parenthood and take hard looks at Social Security and Medicare. The rich don't need any of these tools (but they use them) and the pain of their loss would be felt most by the Middle Class. You can't get more dysfunctional than cutting off your kids allowance and then telling him, "no more free ride Johnny, we're hurting and you've got to pick up your share of the mortgage". And then you go out and buy a Ferrari. The rich are broke and can't pay anymore in taxes and they can't pay any wages but they sure pay each other well.
And... ...Romney would be different? At least, under Obama, while the rich continue to get richer, the middle class would have healthcare. At least, under Obama, while the rich continue to get richer, there would be concern for the environment. And so on. Several Republican administrations have shown, in hindsight, to have had the enrichment of the 1% as their only lasting legacy. The rich will always do well, what about the rest of us? Romeny made little issue out of wanting to scrap the EPA, Planned Parenthood and take hard looks at Social Security and Medicare. The rich don't need any of these tools (but they use them) and the pain of their loss would be felt most by the Middle Class. You can't get more dysfunctional than cutting off your kids allowance and then telling him, "no more free ride Johnny, we're hurting and you've got to pick up your share of the mortgage". And then you go out and buy a Ferrari. The rich are broke and can't pay anymore in taxes and they can't pay any wages but they sure pay each other well.
H
Yes, the middle class gets healthcare, and the people who can least afford it, those who can't pay the premiums, will be forced to pay. And of course, the big, big winners of all of this are the insurance companies who now, essentially are taxing people for healthcare and reaping the profits. Healthcare costs are way out of control (we pay 50% more per capita than any other developed country with no discernible benefits) and now it will be more out of control
The stereotype of liberals, unfortunately has some reality to it. Liberals really do love to spend money without a moments thought about how to pay for it. And they love their heroes and have as much faith in them as Conservatives have in theirs. Very few people actually think it true. Of course it is possible to have progressive views with an eye toward fiscal responsibility ... but it sure is difficult to find in this world.
The rich got richer under Obama and they will get richer still. They would also get rich under Romney. The only difference being which rich gets rich. The rest of us can either celebrate that they are get richer or like you some how excuse it because it is the Obama administration that is making them richer.
President Obama has just used the bully pulpit of the Presidency to apply extreme pressure on the Republican Congress. One of the first times in memory.
1) There must be revenues coupled with cuts and there absolutely has to be more revenue from the top 2% (non necessarily higher rates).
None of the plans offered by either party to date accomplish that.
Historically, increasing revenues has only resulted in increasing spending, so excuse me if I'm skeptical that any cuts....other than those already enacted...will take place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf
2) He is ready to sign a bill that makes permanent the current tax rates for 98% of Americans (those making under $250,000).
Um, it already is "permanent"....to the extent that it can be. It was a tax cut through the first termn of Bush the Younger. After that, it became tax policy.
The only way to make it permanent is through a Constitutional Amendment.
So how stupid are people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf
3) Puts the onus of any tax increases on all Americans past Dec. 31 (the Fiscal Cliff date) on the Republicans.
You're going over the fiscal cliff. Whether you raise taxes, don't raise taxes, make cuts, don't make cuts....you're already over the cliff....you just haven't hit bottom yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf
4) Reiterated that he ran on this platform and the issue has been decided by the elections.'
Yes, and Americans decided that a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress was more frightening than they could ever imagine.....so they left a Republican majority as a check on Obama.
Remember? You already went through this once....2 years of a Democrat House with a Democrat President scared the bejeezus out of people, so the people hired 63 Republican to give the House a decent majority of Republicans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf
Lots of pressure. How will Congress react?
Hopefully they will cut the hell out of pork...but I doubt it.
None of the plans offered by either party to date accomplish that.
Historically, increasing revenues has only resulted in increasing spending, so excuse me if I'm skeptical that any cuts....other than those already enacted...will take place.
There will probably be minor cuts with minor revenue increases this time. The country is in an economic quagmire, and investors such as Marc Faber believe it will take a major stock market crash to set things right again ... i.e. balance the books of the total economic debt, here and in other countries. Might happen. Another alternative is a gradual and perpetual decline in our standard of living similar to Japan.
Quote:
Um, it already is "permanent"....to the extent that it can be. It was a tax cut through the first termn of Bush the Younger. After that, it became tax policy.
The only way to make it permanent is through a Constitutional Amendment.
Technically even a Constitutional Amendment can be changed. But why quibble. We both know what I mean by permanent.
Why aren't we talking about closing down bases in other countries before we start kicking people into the streets?
Why aren't we talking about cutting subsidies that just go towards padding the profits of big businesses before we start cutting back on people basic needs?
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.
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.
