|
11dimensionsandc ounting
Arlington Heights, IL
|
oak park mike wrote: Hello republicans and McCain/Palin lovers... Where are you you? Was this Rezko's/Daleys/liberals fault? Maybe it was Clinton. That's right, when in doubt blame Clinton and his sex life. Let's stop gay marriage and threaten other countries. Then this mess will go away. Your republican party has been hijacked and you have been hoodwinked. Less government indeed! ---------- Rove hasn't faxed the talking points to Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly. So the wingnuts on this board don't yet know how to respond. The fact is that ALL the day-to-day operations of the Federal government are being funded by DEBT. Much of that debt is being bought by communist China and the country that attacked us on 9/11. Everyone can clearly see that the U.S. Treasury, in Socializing the Mortgage, Banking and Insurance industries is taking on so much debt it's at risk of defaulting. Thus the Chinese and Saudi will either stop buying our debt or demand a greater rate of return. The Fed will be forced to raise rates. This will collapse not only the U.S. housing market but will slow business growth to a crawl. The final collapse will occur when the Chinese and Saudi determine that our debt is too risky and refuse to buy it anymore, even with the higher interest rates. They'll cash in their treasuries and dump their dollars back in our laps. The dollar will crash. Unemployment will spiral. Inflation will soar. America will cement its place as a third world country. Its better than porn for a neo-con.
|
|
Pete
Chicago, IL
|
Dave wrote: <quoted text>
The dumbest thing I've read on this entire board. Maybe you're not familiar with the lag time between enacting policies and seeing the results. By the way, the Democrats haven't taken control yet. Keep "imagining"...... Dave, You are so right about lag time. Look at how long it took for Clintons housing policies to impact the mortgage and Housing markets. Silly Clinton thought that lending money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back was a good idea. BO has a much better plan, just take the money from all taxpayers and give it to those very same deserving and needy people. It's utopia .. for a communist.
|
|
Pete
Chicago, IL
|
11dimensionsandcounting wrote: <quoted text>
----------
Rove hasn't faxed the talking points to Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly. So the wingnuts on this board don't yet know how to respond.
The fact is that ALL the day-to-day operations of the Federal government are being funded by DEBT. Much of that debt is being bought by communist China and the country that attacked us on 9/11. Everyone can clearly see that the U.S. Treasury, in Socializing the Mortgage, Banking and Insurance industries is taking on so much debt it's at risk of defaulting.
Thus the Chinese and Saudi will either stop buying our debt or demand a greater rate of return. The Fed will be forced to raise rates. This will collapse not only the U.S. housing market but will slow business growth to a crawl.
The final collapse will occur when the Chinese and Saudi determine that our debt is too risky and refuse to buy it anymore, even with the higher interest rates.
They'll cash in their treasuries and dump their dollars back in our laps. The dollar will crash.
Unemployment will spiral. Inflation will soar. America will cement its place as a third world country.
Its better than porn for a neo-con. I am pretty sure that you will not find one thing you state as FACT in any basic economics book or reliable news service. Talk about scaring people, with made up FACTS. This stuff is where the term Kool Aid Kook comes from.
|
|
Mike
Montgomery, AL
|
Pete wrote: <quoted text>
Dave,
You are so right about lag time. Look at how long it took for Clintons housing policies to impact the mortgage and Housing markets.
Silly Clinton thought that lending money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back was a good idea.
BO has a much better plan, just take the money from all taxpayers and give it to those very same deserving and needy people. It's utopia .. for a communist. If you make than 250K a year then yes your taxes will increase. Otherwise your taxes will go down. Pete you must make more than 250K. Wow I wish I made your salary.
|
|
SharonD
Huntley, IL
|
tralfaz wrote: <quoted text>
Oh yeah. I mean, what's going on right now is working out for EVERYONE.
We NEED government regulation. See how well going private helped Fannie and Freddie? Fannie and Freddie were never completely private. You don't think the government's hand in making more loan money available to underqualified borrowers had anything to do with this fiasco, do you?
|
|
liz
Los Angeles, CA
|
Pete wrote: <quoted text>
Dave,
You are so right about lag time. Look at how long it took for Clintons housing policies to impact the mortgage and Housing markets.
Silly Clinton thought that lending money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back was a good idea.
BO has a much better plan, just take the money from all taxpayers and give it to those very same deserving and needy people. It's utopia .. for a communist. HAH! Read back on Bush's State of the Union speeches. In several of them he boasted about "More people are buying homes than ever before!" Too bad they couldn;t afford them.
|
|
SharonD
Huntley, IL
|
Mike wrote: <quoted text>
If you make than 250K a year then yes your taxes will increase. Otherwise your taxes will go down. Pete you must make more than 250K. Wow I wish I made your salary. That's pretty narrow Mike, on more than one level: the obvious one, that you are concerned about taxes only as they affect you immediately; and the less obvious one, that you seem unable to even imagine that not everyone has such a narrow view. I am WELL under the 250 mark, but I don't want the wealthy's money to be confiscated and redistributed in my name by a bunch of people focused on popularity and power.
|
|
11dimensionsandc ounting
Arlington Heights, IL
|
Pete wrote: <quoted text>
I am pretty sure that you will not find one thing you state as FACT in any basic economics book or reliable news service.
Talk about scaring people, with made up FACTS.
This stuff is where the term Kool Aid Kook comes from. ---------- For goodness sake turn off Limbaugh your brain is mush. The daily functions of our government are being funded ENTIRELY by debt. China and Saudi account for approx. 2-3 trillion dollars of that debt. The rest of what I wrote is my prediction of what will unfold. The sources where I get my information were RIGHT about almost everything. Whereas your Republican/neo-con/corporate sources of propaganda have been WRONG about everything. (1) You thought that "Free Market" capitalism would solve all economic problems. WRONG. (2) You thought running deficits doesn't matter. WRONG. (3) You thought Iraq had WMD. WRONG. (4) You thought the war in Iraq would be short and easy. WRONG. (5) You think burning fossil fuels has no impact on global warming. WRONG. That's just the short list. You really have NO business even giving your opinion on anything more complicated then ordering from the menu at McDonalds.
|
|
|
djx
Wheeling, IL
|
Pete, etc - Making loans easier to get, ie lower downpayments, etc isn't the same as greedy brokers & lenders, especially non-bank lenders, taking it to the extreme by not using income verification, using exagerated appraisals, interest-only, ball0on, & ARM loans to get as many loans sold as possible. Sure the idiots who bought a too expensive house or didn't ask or understand their loan are to blame, as well.
But this all started unravelling because lenders found a way to make more money faster by getting their loans off their books in 90 days instead of 30 years by selling portfolios of loans to investment banks who budled loans into Mortgage Backed Securities.
Relax the requirements, sell lotsa loans, make big money.
Everybody & thier brother started investing in those securities. One batch could have at least 3 tiers of bonds issued on them. The bond rating agencies, btw, originally created by the government & spun off,did know what they were lokking at just turned a blind eye to the fact that the subprime loans the securities were based on were defaulting at historic rates.
Plenty of blame for everyone.
By the way, plenty of hard working lower/middle class people took advantage of those loans and are dutifully paying them off while having a good home to raise their family.
You people need to get off your f*#!ing high horse and blame the people who made money off of this.
Follow the money...
|
|
Just do not get it
Bethpage, NY
|
Terri at home wrote: <quoted text>
AIG did. The US Government now owns a big chunk of it. OUR money should not have been the money to bail their incompetence out. Their practices are bad and that's what got them here. They lost their right to exist as a company due to bad management. We can't bail out every mismanaged company, no matter how deep their tentacles run into our government. This is not just the republicans' fault. Between Congress, Bill Clinton, both George Bushes and Ronald Reagan, this was a problem that took years to manifest itself and not just the last eight years.
|
|
11dimensionsandc ounting
Arlington Heights, IL
|
Pete wrote: <quoted text>
I am pretty sure that you will not find one thing you state as FACT in any basic economics book or reliable news service.
Talk about scaring people, with made up FACTS.
This stuff is where the term Kool Aid Kook comes from. ---------- Here you go smart *** From Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page: "...Most Americans, including the presidential candidates and the media, are unaware that the US government today, now at this minute, is unable to finance its day-to-day operations and must rely on foreigners to purchase its bonds. The government pays the interest to foreigners by selling more bonds, and when the bonds come due, the government redeems the bonds by selling new bonds. The day the foreigners do not buy is the day the American people and their government are brought to reality..." Full piece at: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09162008.h...
|
|
liz
Los Angeles, CA
|
SharonD wrote: <quoted text>
I am WELL under the 250 mark, but I don't want the wealthy's money to be confiscated and redistributed in my name by a bunch of people focused on popularity and power. You don't? Why the H3LL NOT??? They're taking our money and redistributing it to big businesses, aren't they?
|
|
11dimensionsandc ounting
Arlington Heights, IL
|
SharonD wrote: <quoted text>
That's pretty narrow Mike, on more than one level: the obvious one, that you are concerned about taxes only as they affect you immediately; and the less obvious one, that you seem unable to even imagine that not everyone has such a narrow view. I am WELL under the 250 mark, but I don't want the wealthy's money to be confiscated and redistributed in my name by a bunch of people focused on popularity and power. ---------- FYI Sharon, are you aware that the upper income tax rate after WW2 was 90%. Yes 90%. As a result the biggest and most prosperous middle class was built. Later it was lowered to 70%. Now it stands at 35%. Predictably the middle class is disappearing. From Tompaine: It's true: During World War II, there was 94 percent marginal income tax rate. And what's more, the president had originally proposed a 100 percent tax rate. In those days, everyone made contributions for the war, and the wealthy made the biggest ones. Labor journalist Sam Pizzigati argues that this shared sacrifice from the top down helped define the "Greatest Generation" and pulled the country—including the elites—together in wartime. snip During World War II, everyone seemed to be making contributions. Everyone, at some level, seemed to be making sacrifices. Even the rich. All Americans were asked to pay more in taxes during World War II, and the wealthy were asked to pay the most of all, more in taxes than any Americans had ever before paid. In 1943, America’s most affluent households faced a 93 percent tax rate on all their income over $200,000. The next year, 1944, the nation’s top tax rate would rise even higher, to 94 percent on income over $200,000—the highest rate in American history. ...But here’s the truly incredible part. Back during World War II, many Americans, including the president of the United States, wanted our nation’s top tax rate to rise even higher. How high? In 1942, only a few months after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a 100 percent top marginal tax rate. At a time of “grave national danger,” the president advised that April,“no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year. Roosevelt was proposing, in effect, what amounted to a maximum wage—at an income level that would equal, in our contemporary dollars, about $300,000. http://www.tompaine.com/articles/shared_sacri... ***Today, by contrast, we are waging a war amid what have become the least progressive tax years in modern U.S. history. Pulitzer Prize-winning tax analyst David Cay Johnston estimates that our nation’s wealthiest households are now paying federal income taxes at a mere 17.5 percent rate, after exploiting all available loopholes. America’s richest households in 1943, after exploiting all available loopholes, paid nearly 78 percent of their total incomes in federal tax.
|
|
dirty bong water
Woodridge, IL
|
allow me to recommend a great book, which can save our nation..."Boomsday" by Christopher Buckley.
|
|
SharonD
Huntley, IL
|
liz wrote: <quoted text>You don't? Why the H3LL NOT??? They're taking our money and redistributing it to big businesses, aren't they? Apparently your thinking is that narrow, too. If you're happy reaching your hand into your wealthier neighbor's pocket, with an armed government official backing you up, that's your business. And, I'm not happy about the government bailout of AIG, either, in case you missed an earlier post in which I expressed displeasure. My exact words were, "And it stinks." That the government is doing it wrongly in one arena doesn't make it right in the other.
|
|
Since: Jul 08
Lancaster, PA
|
Please wait...
SharonD wrote: <quoted text>
Fannie and Freddie were never completely private. You don't think the government's hand in making more loan money available to underqualified borrowers had anything to do with this fiasco, do you? It had far more to do with mortgage brokers accepting no- and low-doc applications from people who were in no position to afford the monthly payments on those mortgages. Those same mortgage brokers then resold those subprime loans to banks that assumed the risk. The GD brokers made out like bandits, and when people couldn't pay their loans, the banks started to suffer. Put plainly, this is the fault of the subprime loan originators. Greedy a--holes, I hope they lose THEIR houses.
|
|
Pete
Chicago, IL
|
Mike wrote: <quoted text>
If you make than 250K a year then yes your taxes will increase. Otherwise your taxes will go down. Pete you must make more than 250K. Wow I wish I made your salary. Take a break from the kool aid. Under OB's plan taxes will go up for everybody, whether it is in the form of capital gains, estate or corporate taxes. As a matter of fact the corporate tax increases will impact those OB purports to care for the most. But that's basic economics, something which OB supporters are not capable of understanding.
|
|
Pete
Chicago, IL
|
liz wrote: <quoted text>You don't? Why the H3LL NOT??? They're taking our money and redistributing it to big businesses, aren't they? Liz, Explain how that happens, if you can.
|
|
11dimensionsandc ounting
Gary, IN
|
SharonD wrote: <quoted text>
Apparently your thinking is that narrow, too. If you're happy reaching your hand into your wealthier neighbor's pocket, with an armed government official backing you up, that's your business.
And, I'm not happy about the government bailout of AIG, either, in case you missed an earlier post in which I expressed displeasure. My exact words were, "And it stinks."
That the government is doing it wrongly in one arena doesn't make it right in the other. ---------- Please count me in SharonD as narrow minded! I've got good company, Warren Buffett. From the times online: Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner. Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said:“The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.” Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/ar... ** The tax rate for the uber-wealthy needs to be jacked back up to the 70% level where it was for much of the 60's. All the loopholes need to be close too. All of them.
|
|
SharonD
Huntley, IL
|
11dimensionsandcounting wrote: <quoted text> ---------- FYI Sharon, are you aware that the upper income tax rate after WW2 was 90%. Yes 90%. As a result the biggest and most prosperous middle class was built. Later it was lowered to 70%. Now it stands at 35%. Predictably the middle class is disappearing. From Tompaine: It's true: During World War II, there was 94 percent marginal income tax rate. And what's more, the president had originally proposed a 100 percent tax rate. In those days, everyone made contributions for the war, and the wealthy made the biggest ones. Labor journalist Sam Pizzigati argues that this shared sacrifice from the top down helped define the "Greatest Generation" and pulled the country—including the elites—together in wartime. snip During World War II, everyone seemed to be making contributions. Everyone, at some level, seemed to be making sacrifices. Even the rich. All Americans were asked to pay more in taxes during World War II, and the wealthy were asked to pay the most of all, more in taxes than any Americans had ever before paid. In 1943, America’s most affluent households faced a 93 percent tax rate on all their income over $200,000. The next year, 1944, the nation’s top tax rate would rise even higher, to 94 percent on income over $200,000—the highest rate in American history. ...But here’s the truly incredible part. Back during World War II, many Americans, including the president of the United States, wanted our nation’s top tax rate to rise even higher. How high? In 1942, only a few months after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a 100 percent top marginal tax rate. At a time of “grave national danger,” the president advised that April,“no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year. Roosevelt was proposing, in effect, what amounted to a maximum wage—at an income level that would equal, in our contemporary dollars, about $300,000. http://www.tompaine.com/articles/shared_sacri... **** Today, by contrast, we are waging a war amid what have become the least progressive tax years in modern U.S. history. Pulitzer Prize-winning tax analyst David Cay Johnston estimates that our nation’s wealthiest households are now paying federal income taxes at a mere 17.5 percent rate, after exploiting all available loopholes. America’s richest households in 1943, after exploiting all available loopholes, paid nearly 78 percent of their total incomes in federal tax. People were not "asked" to pay more taxes, confiscation is not "sacrifice," and FDR was not one of my favorite presidents. He did propose the 100% tax rate, indeed. So, people in 1943 paid nearly 78% of their income as compared to today's 17.5%. And that makes it desirable? The country also had gas rationing, not by pump prices, but by the government. So, I guess that because it happened during WWII, it would also be desirable? We also had wage and price controls. Ah, those were the good old days, weren't they? It was a different world, and the comparison is of apples to oranges. People WERE more willing to "do their part" because they were united in a cause. We are not. We have thousands of special interests vying for the earnings of the wealthy. Who, do you think, makes the most voluntary contributions to charity in this country? The more wealthy people you marginalize, the more the government gets to decide what's a worthy cause. Frankly, I don't trust their judgment in that area. And isn't language interesting? What someone else pays is "mere" when you think they should be paying more regardless of how much they earn and generate.
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Capricorn
