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.
Incorrect. There are 180 million voters. Not all turned out to vote.
60 million elected Obama.
That is 30%.
Your 52% is 52% of those that voted, not 52% of Americans.
52% of Americans would be around 160 million people and Obama certainly didn't get anywhere near that.
So, if you want what the percentage of Americans was, it was 19%. 19% of Americans said they want Obama.
Rents in Portland went up 8 to 10 percent over the past year. You'd prefer to be a renter inn this economy? I'd prefer to have a fixed-rate mortgage than to have rent which keeps going up and up.
Eventually the mortgage is paid off and your payments are done; rent just goes on and on and on while your landlord gets richer and richer and richer.
Wow, I'm surprised OR doesn't have rent controls.
But any case, your area of the woods is the new Ashevile, NC.
Except, you didn't pass the MJ law - but still pretty.
Rent that goes on and on, it's called paying off someone else's mortage
in 30 years e.g. I got a renter
Ton's of cases of WELFARE are completely warranted and justified. Prove it? Get sick, etc., circumstances far beyond ANY you've EVER encountered. I'm really sick of this kind of crap. Don't criticise what you don't understand. You NEVER walked a mile in some men's/women's shoes.
Good argument for single payer health care insurance system -
pass it on...Last time I checked, Obama wasn't even for a
public option, let alone single payer.
Like I said, do you folks even know "Who you voted for"...
Wow, I'm surprised OR doesn't have rent controls.
But any case, your area of the woods is the new Ashevile, NC.
Except, you didn't pass the MJ law - but still pretty.
Rent that goes on and on, it's called paying off someone else's mortage
in 30 years e.g. I got a renter
OR, like a number of other states, has a statutory prohibition of rent controls, so it is not an option for cities and counties.
The usual scenario goes like this:
(1) Troublemaker activists in such-and-such city start talking about rent control, it grows to a serious proposal, either in the city council or through an initiative ballot proposal.
(2) Alarmed landlords, armed with oodles of campaign cash to use as (depending on circumstances) carrots or sticks, lobby legislators to put out the fire.
(3) Legislators put out the fire (for good) by prohibiting rent control. Cities have only those powers ("home rule") granted to them by the state, so denying the power to enact, implement, or enforce rent control works every time.
Detroit voters qualified a rent control initiative for the 1988 ballot, but voters never got to vote on it because the legislature quicklly banned rent control and the Democrat governor signed it into law.
Two years later, the Democrat governor ran for re-election and narrowly lost due to loss of support in Detroit. Served him right.
(But rent goes on and on and on, even after you have paid off the landlord's mortgage - you have bought him or her the house, then you just give him more and more icing on the cake. Doesn't that qualify as the supreme ?)
Incorrect. There are 180 million voters. Not all turned out to vote.
60 million elected Obama.
That is 30%.
Your 52% is 52% of those that voted, not 52% of Americans.
52% of Americans would be around 160 million people and Obama certainly didn't get anywhere near that.
So, if you want what the percentage of Americans was, it was 19%. 19% of Americans said they want Obama.
But you have to remember that democrats are more likely to stay home than republicans. So, most likely, he still would have won.
It always blows my mind how many people just don't bother to vote. Assuming your numbers are right, 2/3 of America just stayed home and let 1/3 elect the president.
Have you heard that old truism, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction? Do you not think that if people in high finance and industry, etc. experience increased costs, they will just pass it on the consumers of there product as a price increase? Thus, it is the little guy, the alleged 99 percent person who will get hurt in the end. Now will one of you brilliant liberals tell me where I am making a mistake in my thinking?
I don't understand if you are talking about personal income tax or corporate income tax? I think if you go after their personal income and assets it should not affect prices. The wealthy have controlled this country for far too long. This is supposed to be a Republic of equal citizens, not a shopping mall to be manipulated by the greediest and most aggressive.
The hypocrisy I see from the right is on one hand they say that if you tax the rich at a more FAIR percentage then they won't create jobs because as you know (sic) but then on the other hand they tell you that small business drives the economy. So which is it?
Obama is not going after small business, in fact he has lowered the tax rate on them. The wealthy create nothing but misery for everyone other than their own family. I'm talking about the uber wealthy, not these millionaire wannabe's.
OR, like a number of other states, has a statutory prohibition of rent controls, so it is not an option for cities and counties.
The usual scenario goes like this:
(1) Troublemaker activists in such-and-such city start talking about rent control, it grows to a serious proposal, either in the city council or through an initiative ballot proposal.
(2) Alarmed landlords, armed with oodles of campaign cash to use as (depending on circumstances) carrots or sticks, lobby legislators to put out the fire.
(3) Legislators put out the fire (for good) by prohibiting rent control. Cities have only those powers ("home rule") granted to them by the state, so denying the power to enact, implement, or enforce rent control works every time.
Detroit voters qualified a rent control initiative for the 1988 ballot, but voters never got to vote on it because the legislature quicklly banned rent control and the Democrat governor signed it into law.
Two years later, the Democrat governor ran for re-election and narrowly lost due to loss of support in Detroit. Served him right.
(But rent goes on and on and on, even after you have paid off the landlord's mortgage - you have bought him or her the house, then you just give him more and more icing on the cake. Doesn't that qualify as the supreme ?)
Being a landlord is not all roses and lollipops and sitting at home waiting for those rent checks to come in the mail.
Taking care of your building is an investment. Reserves have to be made in order to make repairs, pay for legal work, maintenance, etc.
Pipe breaks in a 2nd floor apt and floods not only that apt but the one below it.
That's thousands of dollars in repair and renovation. The landlord pays for that from his reserves.
I knew a guy that slowly accumulated small rentals (6-8 units) over the course of his working career.
He had no pension and didn't do the Wall Street/IRA route to retirement.
He was handy so he did a lot of the minor repairs himself. He also rented out one apt in each of his complexes to an on site handyman for free rent.
I met him when he was within 2-3 years of retiring from his job. He had 5 buildings and they were all paid for. He planned to live in one of his buildings. But he was far from rich. He said he'd be able to net $3K-$4K per month as his pension check. The rest had to go into reserves so there would be money to take care of the buildings and that also included putting away for future items because things like water heaters and a/c units and appliances don't last forever.
Taxes on this rent money received is also treated differently. They are complex and he did have to pay an accountant to keep all those records organized.
You seem to think that these landlords are just sitting home and banking your entire rent check and living the good life off your hard earned money. It couldn't be further from the truth.
It reminds me of the scene from the movie Vacation when Clark Griswold asks the mechanic how much the repairs for his car were going to cost. The mechanic answers "How much you got?". Liberals apparently think that those business practices are perfectly acceptable.
I don't know all of the deal with taxes, but I think if everyone paid some set percetnage of their income that would make sense.. I think the more wealthy someone gets there seems to be more loopholes and other nonsense.
Flat tax...
You pay X pecent whether you make 25K a yr or 1M a yr... I don't know why we can't get some straight answers on why this wouldn't work...
I like this idea, but the percentage of the flat tax should be higher the more money you make. If you are making 1million+ a year you should pay 30% across the board, no loopholes. 10m+ 40%.
People making less than 100K pay 20%. Less than 50K 10%. Less than 40K 5%.
And inheritance tax should be 50% minimum.
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.
Don't criticise what you don't understand. You NEVER walked a mile in some men's/women's shoes. 
?)
