View Full Version : Republicans may undercut economy
Jagger
02-24-2009, 05:22 PM
IF STATES FAIL TO USE STIMULUS FUNDS AS INTENDED, EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN ECONOMY COULD BE UNDERCUT
A few governors and legislative leaders have suggested that their states might not accept the full amount of fiscal relief in the new recovery legislation or might use the funds to finance tax cuts or build up reserves, rather than spend them as Congress intended. Such actions could weaken the new law’s impact, and possibly even prolong the recession, by reducing the amount of stimulus injected into the economy.
http://www.cbpp.org/2-24-09sfp.htm
Silver
02-24-2009, 05:37 PM
What nonsense....we will recover from this recession as we have in past recessions.....with Obama or without Obama.....
with the massive spending, or without the massive spending..
Or more likely, in spite of Obama and in spite of the massive spending...
but that won't stop the Dims from claiming the credit for the recovery or for blaming the R's for any and all setbacks to a recovery.....
Not get off the Koolade :cheers2:
emmett
02-24-2009, 05:40 PM
How interesting! Then again, those states could just experience a revamping from the private sector which would have a much less dependant, yet fruitful impact on the economy.
A job created by a solid private , non government subsidised, company is a much greater civil asset than otherwise. Economically it impacts the direct markets better and has lasting effect. An entity that has recieved help will not operate as carefully, falsely believing that since it was catapulted by government once, that it will be again. Therefore the jobs created are not safe.
You can only suck water out of a well at so great a pace my friend or you risk running it dry. For instance, we're broke. We don't have 800 billion dollars. Where do we get it? From future generations? They haven't authorized it! What gives us the right to take it?
April15
02-24-2009, 05:45 PM
All it means is those states that don't contribute to the nations coffers will not be taking more than they give and more for those who do.
yeah, how dare those states not want money with all the strings attached...if the feds really cared about economy and if this money is really going to help, cut off the strings attached to the money...
further, there is absolutely no proof that not taking the funds will undercut the economy. if obama stops raising taxes, spending money we don't have, then the economy will improve
emmett
02-24-2009, 06:04 PM
yeah, how dare those states not want money with all the strings attached...if the feds really cared about economy and if this money is really going to help, cut off the strings attached to the money...
further, there is absolutely no proof that not taking the funds will undercut the economy. if obama stops raising taxes, spending money we don't have, then the economy will improve
Ah but Yurt.... then jobs might be created that the new administration can't take credit for!
The new admin's way is take as much from the higharchy as possible so as to limit their ability to have any say so in the economy. That way, government does it all at their expense and gets the credit.
A dollar is a dollar! Where it comes from is the only question left. A job created by government influence with money it does not have is one thing. A job created by a legitimate need, by a company owned by a private entrepreneur who has borrowed legitimitely is quite another.
I would rather just loosen the credit standards and grant individuals money to start businesses. Mom and Pop things, springing up all over America like when the economy was real. THAT would stimulate the economy. Yes, many would piss their money away and fail but it is a darn sight batter than what we are doing! At least the overseeing could assure some sort of success in this effort. Individuals would have to produce a good financial and business plan with realistical proformas. Otherwise they would end up working for one of the other folks who were capable of it.
800 billion would start a hell of a lot of small businesses. A HELL OF A LOT. The rest would take care of itself. Implement a flat tax instantly after all this money hit the streets and welcome back almost 200 billion surrendered at the cash register almost instantly. Build your bridges. Watch business grow. Abolish the IRS!
avatar4321
02-24-2009, 06:39 PM
In order for Republicans to undercut the economy by refusing to take the stimulus pork, the bill would first have to legitimately stimulate the economy. It doesnt. Lets not pretend it does.
glockmail
02-24-2009, 07:19 PM
The States should take the money to cut their own income taxes- and on the highest earners. When their economies zoom we can all give Obama and the Democrat Congress the finger. :finger3:
hjmick
02-24-2009, 08:15 PM
Ooo... ooo... Republicans bad, Democrats good... :yawn:
actsnoblemartin
02-24-2009, 09:12 PM
Ooo... ooo... Republicans bad, Democrats good... :yawn:
yeah jagger's been on the (liberal) sauce :coffee: :laugh2:
avatar4321
02-24-2009, 11:22 PM
The States should take the money to cut their own income taxes- and on the highest earners. When their economies zoom we can all give Obama and the Democrat Congress the finger. :finger3:
but then Obama and the Democrats will claim all the credit and continue their stupid policies.
glockmail
02-25-2009, 08:29 AM
but then Obama and the Democrats will claim all the credit and continue their stupid policies.They'll claim that whenever, but the facts should be clearly simple to anyone with an IQ over 95 or so...
Jagger
02-25-2009, 09:55 AM
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Obama/Other/Poll-ABC-4.jpg
jimnyc
02-25-2009, 10:00 AM
Jagger - please refrain from posting the same text/photos in multiple threads, it will be seen as spamming said threads.
red states rule
02-25-2009, 10:06 AM
It is very early in the day, but it looks like Wall St did not like Obama's speech last night
Or how he is showing his "shitload" of economic experience
Dow is down 130 points right now
5stringJeff
02-26-2009, 06:16 PM
The States should take the money to cut their own income taxes- and on the highest earners. When their economies zoom we can all give Obama and the Democrat Congress the finger. :finger3:
That's a great idea!
PostmodernProphet
02-26-2009, 06:18 PM
I think it would be an excellent plan to allow the states to use the money elsewhere if they can show it would be a more intelligent use of the money....(which ought to be quite easy in most cases).......
Jagger
02-26-2009, 06:24 PM
How is cutting state income taxes on the rich going to zoom the state's economy?
glockmail
02-26-2009, 07:00 PM
How is cutting state income taxes on the rich going to zoom the state's economy? They'll invest in corporations, hence create increase productivity, hence produce more widgets, hence reduce price of widgets, hence increase sales of widgets, hence increase said corporation profits, hence allow expansion, hence create jobs.
It doesn't really work in reverse, even though most every Democrat since FDR has tried it and failed.
5stringJeff
02-26-2009, 07:12 PM
How is cutting state income taxes on the rich going to zoom the state's economy?
The rich drive the economy. They're the business owners, the venture capitalists, the ones who create jobs and wealth. Confiscating less in taxes means they have more to invest in their businesses.
PostmodernProphet
02-26-2009, 09:15 PM
How is cutting state income taxes on the rich going to zoom the state's economy?
so, do you object to cutting the taxes on all the rich or just the filthy rich.....how about the moderately dirty or the simple track a little mud in the door rich......
CockySOB
02-26-2009, 09:25 PM
The States should take the money to cut their own income taxes- and on the highest earners. When their economies zoom we can all give Obama and the Democrat Congress the finger. :finger3:
Maybe I'm just not thinking straight because of the flu, but isn't the definition of "income" used by the IRS defined by each of the states individually? That's how the IRS can levy the income tax as an indirect tax, yes? So why couldn't some of the fiscally responsible states redefine how they calculate "income" in order to stick it to the feds?
Like I said though, I am probably not thinking straight right now due to a severe case of the flu. This might be one of those "DOH!" moments.
Jagger
02-27-2009, 08:58 AM
They'll invest in corporations...
Why would a rich person like me invest any additional income in corporations that make widgets at a time when corporations that make widgets are not doing very well profit wise and the same corporations have lots of unused capacity to make widgets?
Since the problem right now is not enough demand for widgets, why not design a plan to cut the taxes of those who need widgets right now but just don't have the money to buy them because they have lost their jobs.
red states rule
02-27-2009, 09:01 AM
Why would a rich person like me invest any additional income in corporations at a time when corporations are not doing very well profit wise?
With Obama wanting to tax corporations even more, his reckless spending, and record deficts - how will anyone make a profit and grow the economy out of the current recession
Obama will only make things worse
Jagger
02-27-2009, 09:06 AM
It doesn't really work in reverse, even though most every Democrat since FDR has tried it and failed.
Huh?
Jagger
02-27-2009, 09:15 AM
The rich drive the economy. I thought Consumer Spending drove our economy.
They're the business owners I know many business owners who aren't rich. I just ate breakfast at the Goldmine Family Diner and the owner is not rich.
the venture capitalists Who wants to invest in General Motors right now?
the ones who create jobs and wealth. So why aren't they out there creating jobs right now?
Confiscating less in taxes means they have more to invest in their businesses. Rich people like me don't have businesses, other than managing our money.
Jagger
02-27-2009, 09:18 AM
so, do you object to cutting the taxes on all the rich or just the filthy rich.....how about the moderately dirty or the simple track a little mud in the door rich...... At this time, I'm in favor of increasing the income tax rate on rich people like me from 35% to 39.6%.
Jagger
02-27-2009, 09:20 AM
With Obama wanting to tax corporations even more how will anyone make a profit and grow the economy out of the current recession. What exactly has the Bama proposed with respect to taxing corporations?
Jagger
02-27-2009, 09:22 AM
With his reckless spending how will anyone make a profit and grow the economy out of the current recession The same way Reagan's reckless spending grew the economy in the 1980's.
Jagger
02-27-2009, 09:24 AM
With Obama wanting record deficts - how will anyone make a profit and grow the economy out of the current recession
Deficits don't matter.
--Ronald Reagan
red states rule
02-27-2009, 09:25 AM
What exactly has the Bama proposed with respect to taxing corporations?
snip
Corporate Tax Increase
Obama proposed $353.5 billion in higher taxes on corporations over the next decade, the bulk of which would come from “reforming” rules that allow U.S.-based multinational corporations such as General Electric Co. to defer U.S. tax on profits they earn overseas. GE has about $75 billion offshore on which it has never paid U.S. taxes, according to its regulatory filings.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aFsqsDD7lF1Y&refer=home
Obama, like Carter, will rape the producers and companies that keep the economy moving by taking money out of the private sector and redistribute it those he deems deserves it
Like Carter, he will drag the economy even deeper into the abyss
red states rule
02-27-2009, 09:26 AM
Deficits don't matter.
--Ronald Reagan
Obama said they did. Of course he said alot when running for office - now that he is in office - he has forgotten all about them
red states rule
02-27-2009, 09:27 AM
The same way Reagan's reckless spending grew the economy in the 1980's.
Revenues under Pres Reagan DOUBLED in eight years due to his tax cuts. It is spending that causes deficts -not tax cuts
Jagger
02-27-2009, 09:45 AM
Obama proposed $353.5 billion in higher taxes on corporations over the next decade, the bulk of which would come from “reforming” rules that allow U.S.-based multinational corporations such as General Electric Co. to defer U.S. tax on profits they earn overseas. GE has about $75 billion offshore on which it has never paid U.S. taxes, according to its regulatory filings. How long can the taxes on profits they earn overseas be deferred?
red states rule
02-27-2009, 09:47 AM
How long can the taxes on profits they earn overseas be deferred?
Corporations do NOT pay taxes. We pay them
Corporations pass the added cost of doing business on in higher prices, or cutting overhead (i.e JOBS)
Jagger
02-27-2009, 09:53 AM
Obama will take money out of the private sector and redistribute it...
That's what the American people want, dude.
Jagger
02-27-2009, 09:55 AM
Obama said they did. Of course he said alot when running for office - now that he is in office - he has forgotten all about them He hasn't forgotten about the deficit, dude. He talks about it all the time.
red states rule
02-27-2009, 09:59 AM
That's what the American people want, dude.
So peopel voted to turn America into a nanny state? I don't think so. Obama said reckless spending got us into this mess - yet he wants people to believe reckless spending will get us out of it?
red states rule
02-27-2009, 10:00 AM
He hasn't forgotten about the deficit, dude. He talks about it all the time.
How can he not talk about it? He is making it larger and more massive then ever
glockmail
02-27-2009, 10:00 AM
Why would a rich person like me invest any additional income in corporations that make widgets at a time when corporations that make widgets are not doing very well profit wise and the same corporations have lots of unused capacity to make widgets?
Since the problem right now is not enough demand for widgets, why not design a plan to cut the taxes of those who need widgets right now but just don't have the money to buy them because they have lost their jobs. You have it backwards. The problem right now is that there isn't enough supply of widgets. "Build it, and they will come."
Jagger
02-27-2009, 10:05 AM
Revenues under Pres Reagan DOUBLED in eight years due to his tax cuts. It is spending that causes deficts -not tax cuts Reagan and Congress cut taxes by enacting The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. The next year, tax revenues declined. Congress and President Reagan then raised taxes in '82, '83, '84, '85, '86 and '87.
red states rule
02-27-2009, 10:08 AM
Reagan and Congress cut taxes by enacting The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. The next year, tax revenues declined. Congress and President Reagan then raised taxes in '82, '83, '84, '85, '86 and '87.
snip
President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2
In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan refocused fiscal policy on the long run. He proposed, and Congress passed, sharp cuts in marginal tax rates. The cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were funda-mental policy changes that provided the foundation for the Great Expansion that began in December 1982.
As Exhibit 1 shows, the economic record of the last 17 years is remarkable, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of the 1970s. The United States has experienced two of the longest and strongest expansions in our history back to back. They have been interrupted only by a shallow eight-month downturn in 1990-91.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/images/bg1414tab1.gif
Jagger
02-27-2009, 10:09 AM
So peopel voted to turn America into a nanny state? I don't think so. Obama said reckless spending got us into this mess - yet he wants people to believe reckless spending will get us out of it?
What reckless spending? Please be very specific.
Jagger
02-27-2009, 10:10 AM
The problem right now is that there isn't enough supply of widgets.
Get real, dude.
Jagger
02-27-2009, 10:11 AM
How can he not talk about it? He is making it larger and more massive then ever You just said he forgot about it, dude.
Jagger
02-27-2009, 10:15 AM
His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000
Show us the JEC report.
glockmail
02-27-2009, 10:16 AM
Get real, dude.I don't see any counter argument from you. Apparently you don't have one.
red states rule
02-27-2009, 10:25 AM
I don't see any counter argument from you. Apparently you don't have one.
Jagger is out of the same mold as my liberal buddy Mije (i.e Blue States Rule)
He has a very difficult time explaining how Obama's polices wil help the economy
http://rlv.zcache.com/o_crap_obama_sticker-p217475307027260313qjcl_400.jpg
Jagger
02-27-2009, 11:08 AM
I don't see any counter argument from you. Apparently you don't have one.
There is no shortage of widgets, dude.
Jagger
02-27-2009, 11:10 AM
How Obama's polices will help the economy
What policies?
jimnyc
02-27-2009, 11:22 AM
What policies?
No offense, but you have to be one of the worst debaters this board has ever seen. You very rarely offer anything of fact and the overwhelming majority of your replies are questions. If you're uninformed, which you obviously are, you are better off doing research than asking retarded questions.
glockmail
02-27-2009, 12:47 PM
There is no shortage of widgets, dude.
The basis for a majority of economic models is the assumption that all human beings are rational and will always attempt to maximize their utility - whether it be from monetary or non-monetary gains.http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/homoeconomicus.asp?viewed=1
In other words, Homo Economicus will always seek to obtain more widgets.
Jagger
02-27-2009, 12:59 PM
In other words, Homo Economicus will always seek to obtain more widgets.
So why are sales at Dillard's so low?
Jagger
02-27-2009, 01:04 PM
No offense, but you have to be one of the worst debaters this board has ever seen. Define "debate."
You very rarely offer anything of fact
Conservatives don't care about the facts, dude.
the overwhelming majority of your replies are questions.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
If you're uninformed, which you obviously are, you are better off doing research than asking retarded questions.
I have a masters degree in economics. My faculty adviser was Dick Armey.
Jagger
02-27-2009, 01:08 PM
the overwhelming majority of your replies are questions.
Reliability is best tested in the crucible of cross-examination.
jimnyc
02-27-2009, 01:12 PM
Define "debate."
You have a degree and don't know a simple definition?
Conservatives don't care about the facts, dude.
I'm not "dude", I am a conservative, and I ONLY deal in facts.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Yes, responding to questions with questions shows a lack of debating skills and a lack of knowledge. I guess it's not a bad thing if you want to appear uninformed in every other post.
I have a masters degree in economics. My faculty adviser was Dick Armey.
Yeah, sure, and you're 6'4, Army Rangers are pussies, you eat Marines for breakfast and my Dad is a pussy because he was in the Seabees. Forgive me if I don't believe a fucking word you type. If you were so damn smart you would be posting facts and winning debates instead of asking ridiculous and redundant questions.
jimnyc
02-27-2009, 01:14 PM
Reliability is best tested in the crucible of cross-examination.
You've been cross examined by a Pro Se litigant and found to be mentally incompetent to stand trial.
Good day!
Jagger
02-27-2009, 01:32 PM
Yeah, sure, and you're 6'4 Six four and half, actually.
Army Rangers are pussies Compared to me, Rangers are wimps. Compared to you, however, they're not that bad.
Mr. P
02-27-2009, 01:37 PM
Six four and half, actually.
Compared to me, Rangers are wimps. Compared to you, however, they're not that bad.
And you enlisted, when?
glockmail
02-27-2009, 01:37 PM
So why are sales at Dillard's so low? Prices are too high.
glockmail
02-27-2009, 01:40 PM
Six four and half, actually.
Compared to me, Rangers are wimps. Compared to you, however, they're not that bad.Easiest way to prove that is for you to take a picture of yourself standing next to a tape measure. Then one of us will ask for a second picture at a specific angle and you've got 10 minutes to reply with it. Other than that I can say your full of shit and there's nothing you can do to dispute it. *shrug*
Jagger
02-27-2009, 02:01 PM
And you enlisted, when? When I was drunk.
Jagger
02-27-2009, 02:02 PM
Easiest way to prove that...
You're assuming that I actually care what you think, dude.
Mr. P
02-27-2009, 02:02 PM
When I was drunk.
What yr?
Jagger
02-27-2009, 02:22 PM
What yr? The year I got drunk.
jagger, you ain't tough...i'm 8' 2", osama bin ladin's brother and i eat infidels like you for breakfast everyday....of course with a fat slice of bacon so your infidel carcus doesn't foul my paradise
Mr. P
02-27-2009, 02:58 PM
I'm convinced this IDIOT has never been in the military much less Special Forces.
Now, since he is lying about that????? Ya...He's all BS.
glockmail
02-27-2009, 04:15 PM
You're assuming that I actually care what you think, dude. No I'm assuming that you're lying. So far you've done nothing but reinforce that.
Jagger
02-27-2009, 05:58 PM
Prices are too high. Why didn't the supply of items at Dillard's create the demand for them?
PS: I was in Dillard's yesterday and everything was 70% off. However, it was the same stuff they had in November. It was truly sad. I spent a thousand dollars on men's apparel, because I see it as my patriotic duty as a rich liberal to help boost consumer spending.
Jagger
02-27-2009, 06:02 PM
No I'm assuming that you're lying. You're breaking my heart, dude.
http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif
Jagger
02-27-2009, 06:04 PM
jagger, you ain't tough...i'm 8' 2", osama bin ladin's brother and i eat infidels like you for breakfast everyday....of course with a fat slice of bacon so your infidel carcus doesn't foul my paradise I could turn you into a grease spot on the floor in a matter of seconds, dude.
Jagger
02-27-2009, 06:09 PM
I'm convinced this IDIOT has never been in the military...
I saw an old lady running down the street
Had a chute on her back, jump boots on her feet
Said, "Hey old lady, where you goin' to?"
She said, "US Army Ranger School"
Whatcha gonna do when you get there?
"I'm gonna Jump from a plane and fall through the air"
I said, "Hey old lady, ain't you been told?
Ranger School's for the brave and the bold."
She said, "Shut up now, don't be no fool,
I'm a combat instructor at the Ranger School!"
PostmodernProphet
02-27-2009, 06:29 PM
the world is definitely changing....was walking into a store today (it was rather chilly out) and a tall red-headed girl was talking to her friend just ahead of me....she said "today I could use one of those face masks like we wore with our combat gear...they really keep you warm".......
Mr. P
02-27-2009, 07:53 PM
I'm convinced this IDIOT has never been in the military much less Special Forces.
Now, since he is lying about that????? Ya...He's all BS.
I saw an old lady running down the street
Had a chute on her back, jump boots on her feet
I'm convinced this IDIOT has never been in the military much less Special Forces.
A straight answer will do, Jagger. Are you ashamed of your service? When did you serve in the military?
I could turn you into a grease spot on the floor in a matter of seconds, dude.
prepare for your death infidel!
alloha akkkbar!!!
now i must go prepare for my virgins
manu1959
02-27-2009, 11:16 PM
Why didn't the supply of items at Dillard's create the demand for them?
PS: I was in Dillard's yesterday and everything was 70% off. However, it was the same stuff they had in November. It was truly sad. I spent a thousand dollars on men's apparel, because I see it as my patriotic duty as a rich liberal to help boost consumer spending.
if you shop at dillards.....you ain't rich.......and if you actually are rich and shop at dillards ....you are a poorly dressed rich guy......
5stringJeff
02-28-2009, 06:46 PM
I thought Consumer Spending drove our economy.
And rich consumers spend more than poor consumers. Rich people buy yachts and diamonds; poor people buy groceries.
I know many business owners who aren't rich. I just ate breakfast at the Goldmine Family Diner and the owner is not rich.
And many business owners are rich, at least by Obama's definition. Many others want to become rich.
Who wants to invest in General Motors right now?
You obviously don't know what a venture capitalist is.
So why aren't they out there creating jobs right now?
The entrepreneurs are attempting to find ways to make money, right now.
Rich people like me don't have businesses, other than managing our money.
Well, good for you. I'm glad you don't have to work.
emmett
02-28-2009, 07:19 PM
I could turn you into a grease spot on the floor in a matter of seconds, dude.
There once was this "dude" name of The Jagger
Who fantasized of Rangers, Seals and men with daggers,
After a bogus, lying, fact claiming spree
He tangled up with a guy name of P
Who exposed him, as a real life cowardly fagger!!!
:lol: I made a funny!
That's funny.... I don't care where you're from... that is FUNNY!
Jagger
02-28-2009, 10:27 PM
if you shop at dillards.....you ain't rich.......and if you actually are rich and shop at dillards ....you are a poorly dressed rich guy...... I'm rich, so I buy my suits where ever I want to. The quality available at Dillard's and Culwell & Son is good enough for me.
Jagger
02-28-2009, 10:32 PM
And rich consumers spend more than poor consumers. Rich people buy yachts and diamonds; poor people buy groceries. I'm rich. I buy a few diamonds, but not many. I buy lots of groceries but no yachts. However, I did invest in a marina in Bay Saint Louis.
And many business owners are rich, at least by Obama's definition. Many others want to become rich. I agree. So what?
You obviously don't know what a venture capitalist is.
I am a venture capitalist, dude. Over the years, I have invested in numerous ventures. Right now, I'm considering investing in a venture to buy some of those so called "toxic assets."
The entrepreneurs are attempting to find ways to make money, right now. Good for them. I hope they succeed.
Well, good for you. I'm glad you don't have to work.
I'm glad you're glad I'm rich.
bullypulpit
03-01-2009, 04:44 AM
IF STATES FAIL TO USE STIMULUS FUNDS AS INTENDED, EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN ECONOMY COULD BE UNDERCUT
A few governors and legislative leaders have suggested that their states might not accept the full amount of fiscal relief in the new recovery legislation or might use the funds to finance tax cuts or build up reserves, rather than spend them as Congress intended. Such actions could weaken the new law’s impact, and possibly even prolong the recession, by reducing the amount of stimulus injected into the economy.
http://www.cbpp.org/2-24-09sfp.htm
Why do they hate America?
red states rule
03-01-2009, 08:15 AM
Why do they hate America?
BP, we love America and do not want to see it taken down the drain. Why do you now support $3.6 trillion budegts, $2 trillion deficits, expanding social handouts, and rolling back welfare reforms that made people work and niot live off taxpayers?
For years you were opposed to deficit spending and a $500 billion deficit. Or like Virgil, now that your guys are in power, you have flip flopped on the principals you once held Republicans to
Jagger
03-01-2009, 09:14 AM
Why do they hate America? Because they wear ideological straight jackets.
red states rule
03-01-2009, 09:16 AM
Because they wear ideological straight jackets.
We are invested in defeating Obama, liberals, and their tax and spend policies
I have no ill will against Obama personally, but I do not want Obama to change this nation into a socialist society.
How many liberals wanted Bush to succeed?
Jagger
03-01-2009, 09:19 AM
BP, we love America and do not want to see it taken down the drain. You could have fooled me.
Why do you now support $3.6 trillion budegts How much should we cut military spending?
Why do you now support $2 trillion deficits. Because we need to remake America.
expanding social handouts What social handouts?
and rolling back welfare reforms that made people work and niot live off taxpayers? What rolling back of welfare reforms?
For years you were opposed to deficit spending and a $500 billion deficit.
The deficit doesn't matter. I don't worry about it.
Ronald Reagan
Jagger
03-01-2009, 09:26 AM
We are invested in defeating Obama, liberals, and their tax and spend policies Who is we?
red states rule
03-01-2009, 09:26 AM
You could have fooled me.
How much should we cut military spending?
Because we need to remake America.
What social handouts?
What rolling back of welfare reforms?
The deficit doesn't matter.
Ronald Reagan
You are a lousy debater son
Here is a sample of the handouts
89 billion for Medicaid
$30 billion for COBRA insurance extension
$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
$20 billion for food stamps
and here is the link to Dems rolling back Welfare Reforms that Bill Clinton signed
Another golden opportunity, thanks to stimulus
By Patrick McIlheran of the Journal Sentinel
Feb. 19, 2009
That would be the opportunity to fix welfare, again, explains Peter Ferrara at the American Spectator.
This is because welfare reform just got undone by the stimulus bill, Ferrara notes. You may have heard of this, but the old Reagan hand explains particularly clearly just what happened. In short, the incentives got reversed.
Before reform, the federal government matched what states spent for welfare, with no limit. More poor people? Richer benefits? That meant more federal pelf. Of course dependency grew.
The welfare reform that the only successful Democratic president of the past four decades signed changed that. Federal welfare aid instead came as a block grant, a fixed sum. If states managed to get poor people to go to work and support themselves instead, they had more money left over for the really pathetic cases. Ferrara writes:
"The results were truly spectacular. The old AFDC welfare rolls declined by a shocking 60% across the country! The former recipients who now moved into work enjoyed an increase in their income over time through real earnings from real jobs. Child poverty in America declined as a result. Federal spending on AFDC/TANF remained flat for a dozen years with no increase, resulting in enormous savings in federal spending by avoiding the increases that would have otherwise occurred under the old system."
So much for that. The stimulus provides oodles of new federal welfare aid -- on an 80%-to-30% match. It's a pure reversion to the old incentives to keep people signed up and to sign up more, only the payoff for states is still richer. It's a cruel return to the perverse incentives that led to untold pain and suffering for people whom governments left trapped in dependency.
And there's the opportunity, writes Ferrara. Republicans and conservatives, he writes, "have public opinion on their side, and they should aggressively go on the offensive to restore and expand historic, highly effective welfare reform. Republicans should introduce a bill to reinstate welfare reform and its highly effective incentives. Indeed, they should propose and campaign on expanding welfare reform to more federal programs. At a minimum this should include block granting food stamps back to the states, with the funds used for federal work programs for the poor. It should also include block granting Medicaid to the states as well, which is the key to health-care reform focused on providing coverage to the uninsured who could not otherwise afford health insurance. Ultimately, this same welfare reform model can and should be extended to every federal, means-tested welfare program."
And it surely beats the Democrats' determined restoration of the ’70s.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/39851252.html
red states rule
03-01-2009, 09:26 AM
Who is we?
Conservatives
Jagger
03-01-2009, 09:28 AM
I do not want Obama to change this nation into a socialist society. Define the term "socialist society", then show us evidence that President Obama wants to change this nation into one.
red states rule
03-01-2009, 09:30 AM
Define the term "socialist society", then show us evidence that President Obama wants to change this nation into one.
Government buying stakes in banks, and his "down payment" of $634 billion for government run healthcare
For a guy who claims to be so smart, you play ignorant on so many issues
Jagger
03-01-2009, 09:32 AM
Conservatives Conservatives, judging from their actions when they hold power, are gifted at the practice of tax, borrow and spend.
Jagger
03-01-2009, 09:34 AM
Government buying stakes in banks, and his "down payment" of $634 billion for government run healthcare
For a guy who claims to be so smart, you play ignorant on so many issues
You forgot to define the term I asked you to.
Jagger
03-01-2009, 09:37 AM
Government buying stakes in banks
Do you have a better idea to solve the banking crisis?
jimnyc
03-01-2009, 09:37 AM
For a guy who claims to be so smart, you play ignorant on so many issues
I don't know why you bother replying to this idiots questions. He's obviously a liar that is having fun asking questions just trying to rile people up. He's been asked many questions, especially from Mr. P, which he leaves ignored - because it would only prove even further that he is a liar.
red states rule
03-01-2009, 09:38 AM
I don't know why you bother replying to this idiots questions. He's obviously a liar that is having fun asking questions just trying to rile people up. He's been asked many questions, especially from Mr. P, which he leaves ignored - because it would only prove even further that he is a liar.
I was thinking the same thing Jim. I am done with him
Jagger
03-01-2009, 09:40 AM
his "down payment" of $634 billion for government run healthcare Explain how that constitutes a "socialistic society."
Jagger
03-01-2009, 09:41 AM
You are a lousy debater son
Here is a sample of the handouts
89 billion for Medicaid
What 89 Billion for Medicaid?
jimnyc
03-01-2009, 09:42 AM
Explain how that constitutes a "socialistic society."
What 89 Billion for Medicaid?
* PLONK * - we don't reply to idiotic liars.
Jagger
03-01-2009, 10:44 AM
* PLONK * - we don't reply to idiotic liars.
You're obviously a Marxist?
jimnyc
03-01-2009, 10:54 AM
You're obviously a Marxist?
Nope, and honest American, unlike you, liar.
Insein
03-01-2009, 04:44 PM
Figured I'd chime in even though Jagger doesn't seem to want to debate. Just ask rhetorical questions.
By taxing corporations or "Rich" People more, 2 things will happen that negatively affect the rest of us unwahsed masses. Corporations don't pay taxes as explained before. They pass the bill onto us by charging more for their products. The more products cost, the less money in the common schmoe's pocket. The less in our pocket, the less demand for the products. The less demand, the less production for the product. The less production means a cutback in jobs of the poor schmoes who make the product. Thus making the problem worse going forward. Thats not even getting into the fact that if a corporation is taxed to death in one country, whats to stop them from taking their business to a different country with less taxes?
The 2nd part is that rich people will buy less. If Rich people are having more of their money taken from them by the government, then they will buy less extravagant items. Items you or I may never be able to afford like a beach house, $80,000 luxury cars or high end electronic devices. However, to the people that work in the factories that make those items, it is a very big deal. IF people stop buying the extravagant items, then there will be no need to pay a worker to make them. Thus another job is lost.
Like it or not, in a working CAPITALIST market, the rich drive the market and make things better for the middle class and the poor. What Obama wants to produce is a SOCIALIST market. This comes about when their is no rich and everyone has to goto the government to get their goods and services. If polled properly, I guarantee you that the American people would unanimously shoot down any form of Socialist government.
Kathianne
03-01-2009, 04:56 PM
Figured I'd chime in even though Jagger doesn't seem to want to debate. Just ask rhetorical questions.
By taxing corporations or "Rich" People more, 2 things will happen that negatively affect the rest of us unwahsed masses. Corporations don't pay taxes as explained before. They pass the bill onto us by charging more for their products. The more products cost, the less money in the common schmoe's pocket. The less in our pocket, the less demand for the products. The less demand, the less production for the product. The less production means a cutback in jobs of the poor schmoes who make the product. Thus making the problem worse going forward. Thats not even getting into the fact that if a corporation is taxed to death in one country, whats to stop them from taking their business to a different country with less taxes?
The 2nd part is that rich people will buy less. If Rich people are having more of their money taken from them by the government, then they will buy less extravagant items. Items you or I may never be able to afford like a beach house, $80,000 luxury cars or high end electronic devices. However, to the people that work in the factories that make those items, it is a very big deal. IF people stop buying the extravagant items, then there will be no need to pay a worker to make them. Thus another job is lost.
Like it or not, in a working CAPITALIST market, the rich drive the market and make things better for the middle class and the poor. What Obama wants to produce is a SOCIALIST market. This comes about when their is no rich and everyone has to goto the government to get their goods and services. If polled properly, I guarantee you that the American people would unanimously shoot down any form of Socialist government.
Good to see you! Been awhile!
Insein
03-01-2009, 07:26 PM
Good to see you! Been awhile!
Thanks, yes it has. I was away while Republicans made fools of themselves for the remainder of Bush's term and helped get us where we are now. I can't stand by while Socialists are stealing our country away though.
Jagger
03-01-2009, 07:35 PM
The Democrats Are The Party of Fiscal Responsibility
Budgets prepared by Republican presidents during the last 40 years increased the national debt by $3,800,000,000,000. The average yearly deficit under Republican budgets was $190 billion.
Budgets prepared by Democratic presidents during the last 40 years increased the national debt by $719,500,000,000. The average yearly deficit under Democratic budgets was $36 billion.
Jagger
03-01-2009, 07:38 PM
By taxing corporations or "Rich" People more, 2 things will happen that negatively affect the rest of us unwahsed masses. Corporations don't pay taxes as explained before.
Corporations pay taxes, dude.
Jagger
03-01-2009, 07:39 PM
They pass the bill onto us by charging more for their products.
Go learn about the price elasticity of demand.
Mr. P
03-01-2009, 07:57 PM
Go learn about the price elasticity of demand.
Go learn about embedded tax. Where do you suppose the money comes from to pay a corp tax, from a tax tree? The tax obligation IS IN THE PRODUCT price...Did you graduate HS?
BTW when did you serve in the Military? Be specific.
manu1959
03-01-2009, 08:32 PM
The Democrats Are The Party of Fiscal Responsibility
Budgets prepared by Republican presidents during the last 40 years increased the national debt by $3,800,000,000,000. The average yearly deficit under Republican budgets was $190 billion.
Budgets prepared by Democratic presidents during the last 40 years increased the national debt by $719,500,000,000. The average yearly deficit under Democratic budgets was $36 billion.
and in two months obama took it to 3 trillion.....
manu1959
03-01-2009, 08:34 PM
Corporations pay taxes, dude.
if you believe that ..... it certainly explains why you are wearing a dillards suit instead of a savile row suit......
if you believe that ..... it certainly explains why you are wearing a dillards suit instead of a savile row suit......
oh come on...corporations do in fact pay taxes...with the same, exact money that the government pays back loans with...
manu1959
03-01-2009, 09:06 PM
oh come on...corporations do in fact pay taxes...with the same, exact money that the government pays back loans with...
tounge in cheek ....... corporations disburse their profits to share holders ...... shareholders pay the taxes on those profits......
Insein
03-01-2009, 09:19 PM
Go learn about the price elasticity of demand.
Is there a need to make 1 reply for each sentence?
IF you don't understand the cost of production model then perhaps you should go back to eight grade economics. If the costs are higher then the public is willing to pay, then the product won't be made. Tax is a cost that goes into making a product. Fairly simple concept to grasp.
Jagger
03-01-2009, 09:33 PM
Go learn about embedded tax. Where do you suppose the money comes from to pay a corp tax, from a tax tree? The tax obligation IS IN THE PRODUCT price...Did you graduate HS?
If corporations don't pay taxes, why are you bitching about corporations paying taxes?
Jagger
03-01-2009, 09:36 PM
BTW when did you serve in the Military? Be specific. If told you that, I would go to jail.
PostmodernProphet
03-01-2009, 09:37 PM
The Democrats Are The Party of Fiscal Responsibility
Budgets prepared by Republican presidents during the last 40 years increased the national debt by $3,800,000,000,000. The average yearly deficit under Republican budgets was $190 billion.
Budgets prepared by Democratic presidents during the last 40 years increased the national debt by $719,500,000,000. The average yearly deficit under Democratic budgets was $36 billion.
give us the same breakdown for democratically controlled Congresses, versus Republican controlled, please.....the six years of idiocy under Bush aside, I expect the Dems outspent by a factor something like 718 billion to 1.........
Jagger
03-01-2009, 09:38 PM
and in two months obama took it to 3 trillion..... The projected budget deficit for 2009 isn't 3 Trillion Dollars, dude.
Jagger
03-01-2009, 09:41 PM
if you believe that ..... it certainly explains why you are wearing a dillards suit instead of a savile row suit......
I look good in a Dillard's suit. Especially my blue one.
PostmodernProphet
03-01-2009, 09:45 PM
aren't you guys sick of the schoolyard games yet?.....
Jagger
03-01-2009, 09:45 PM
oh come on...corporations do in fact pay taxes...with the same, exact money that the government pays back loans with...
When I was freshman at NTSU, Dick Armey jumped in my face when I said that corporations don't pay taxes, and made me learn about elasticity of demand. Twenty five years later, I heard him on television claim that corporations don't pay taxes. I laughed my ass off....
Mr. P
03-01-2009, 09:47 PM
If told you that, I would go to jail.
Bullshit..fact is you never served.
Jagger
03-01-2009, 09:54 PM
Is there a need to make 1 reply for each sentence?
IF you don't understand the cost of production model then perhaps you should go back to eight grade economics. If the costs are higher then the public is willing to pay, then the product won't be made. Tax is a cost that goes into making a product. Fairly simple concept to grasp.
If the taxes on a corporation increase by $100 per unit of production, the corporation will simply increase the unit price by $100.
Remember, corporations don't pay taxes, they just raise their prices. The demand for all products made by corporations is perfectly elastic. It's magical... http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif
Jagger
03-01-2009, 09:57 PM
Bullshit..fact is you never served. If you say so, pee wee.
bullypulpit
03-01-2009, 10:04 PM
BP, we love America and do not want to see it taken down the drain. Why do you now support $3.6 trillion budegts, $2 trillion deficits, expanding social handouts, and rolling back welfare reforms that made people work and niot live off taxpayers?
For years you were opposed to deficit spending and a $500 billion deficit. Or like Virgil, now that your guys are in power, you have flip flopped on the principals you once held Republicans to
Ummm...Yeah...Right. So, where were you when the Bush administration was burdening future generations with mountains of debt? The government is the last resort here. The capital markets are fucked and all you and your fellow travelers want to do is cut taxes. Well guess what...? It doesn't work. If you've learned anything from the eight years of the Bush administration, it should be that "trickle down" economics doesn't work.
The Bush administration made choices, which turned out to be the wrong ones. We're paying the price now.
Jagger
03-01-2009, 10:07 PM
Ummm...Yeah...Right. So, where were you when the Bush administration was burdening future generations with mountains of debt? The government is the last resort here. The capital markets are fucked and all you and your fellow travelers want to do is cut taxes. Well guess what...? It doesn't work. If you've learned anything from the eight years of the Bush administration, it should be that "trickle down" economics doesn't work.
The Bush administration made choices, which turned out to be the wrong ones. We're paying the price now.
Bush belongs in GITMO....
Mr. P
03-01-2009, 11:02 PM
If you say so, pee wee.
I do. And i's true.
Bush belongs in GITMO....
obama is closing gitmo genius
Insein
03-01-2009, 11:54 PM
If the taxes on a corporation increase by $100 per unit of production, the corporation will simply increase the unit price by $100.
Remember, corporations don't pay taxes, they just raise their prices. The demand for all products made by corporations is perfectly elastic. It's magical... http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif
When a corporation's taxes are raised $100 per unit, they either A) stop making that unit, b) find cheaper resources in other countries that can help to offset the cost of the tax increase or c) take production to a new country where taxes are cheaper. Either way, jobs are lost and demand dwindles. Thanks for the lesson in elasticity. Its relevance is noted.
red states rule
03-02-2009, 07:07 AM
Ummm...Yeah...Right. So, where were you when the Bush administration was burdening future generations with mountains of debt? The government is the last resort here. The capital markets are fucked and all you and your fellow travelers want to do is cut taxes. Well guess what...? It doesn't work. If you've learned anything from the eight years of the Bush administration, it should be that "trickle down" economics doesn't work.
The Bush administration made choices, which turned out to be the wrong ones. We're paying the price now.
BP you know full well I was speaking out about the spending, border security, pork, and how Bush should have taken out his veto pen
The government is not the last resort. Obama's tax and spend plans will make the issue worse
Obama has said over and over that reckless spending got us in this mess - so how will his increased level of reckless spending get us out
BTW, tax cuts did not get un in our current mess. The groundwork was laid in 1999 when Fannie and Freddie admitted they were foing to loosen up requirements for those "with less then steller credit scores" to get home loans
September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.
”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”
Under Fannie Mae’s pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 — a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/1999-ny-times-fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending/
jimnyc
03-02-2009, 07:11 AM
If you say so, pee wee.
I could be wrong, liar, but I believe the following thread was made in your honor:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=21661
I only link to it as I don't believe you are bright enough to make it out of the first forum on the board. I guess your brain cells can only handle so much debate before you run out of steam.
red states rule
03-02-2009, 07:12 AM
BTW BP, tax cuts do work. Here are numbers that show most of the lowest income groups did better with the Bush tax cuts
Income Mobility: How the Liberals Lie about the Income Gap.
By goright
We are frequently inundated with frantic cries from the left concerning the widening income gap, or how the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. These are, of course, emotional arguments designed to pluck at our heart strings as opposed to rational arguments based on facts and data.
One of the unspoken assumptions in that emotional argument is that “the rich” are invariably the same group of people and that “the poor” are likewise the same. This implicit assumption is key to the emotional reaction that the liberals are counting on because it evokes images of a huddled mass of helpless and starving poor who are trapped in a system which exploits them on a daily basis, and unfairly so. But does this assumption stand up to rational scrutiny?
A November 13, 2007 Wall Street Journal article titled Movin’ On Up discusses some of the findings in a U.S. Income Mobility Study conducted by the Treasury Department which exposes these emotional appeals as being just “so much populist hokum:”
The Treasury study examined a huge sample of 96,700 income tax returns from 1996 and 2005 for Americans over the age of 25. The study tracks what happened to these tax filers over this 10-year period. One of the notable, and reassuring, findings is that nearly 58% of filers who were in the poorest income group in 1996 had moved into a higher income category by 2005. Nearly 25% jumped into the middle or upper-middle income groups, and 5.3% made it all the way to the highest quintile.
Of those in the second lowest income quintile, nearly 50% moved into the middle quintile or higher, and only 17% moved down. This is a stunning show of upward mobility, meaning that more than half of all lower-income Americans in 1996 had moved up the income scale in only 10 years.
http://rightcounterpoints.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/usincomemobility.gif
http://rightcounterpoints.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/income-mobility-how-the-liberals-lie-about-the-income-gap-part-1-2/
PostmodernProphet
03-02-2009, 07:13 AM
Ummm...Yeah...Right. So, where were you when the Bush administration was burdening future generations with mountains of debt? The government is the last resort here. The capital markets are fucked and all you and your fellow travelers want to do is cut taxes. Well guess what...? It doesn't work. If you've learned anything from the eight years of the Bush administration, it should be that "trickle down" economics doesn't work.
The Bush administration made choices, which turned out to be the wrong ones. We're paying the price now.
I'm sorry, Bully....but you can't go there anymore.....what Bush spent in eight years (not forgetting that during everyone of those eight years the Dems not only voted in support of big spending but criticized each expenditure as miserly) is nothing compared to the money the Dems have spent in the last 90 days.......at the rate he's going Obama looks to spend more in his first administration than the combined spending of every other president that has ever existed.....don't talk to us about "trickle down" economics when your boy seems to have discovered the method of "Hoover Dam has burst" economics......
you say Bush made bad choices and we are paying the price?......where in the world did you come to the conclusion that the solution for those bad choices was to make the same bad choice a million times larger?..........
red states rule
03-02-2009, 07:22 AM
I'm sorry, Bully....but you can't go there anymore.....what Bush spent in eight years (not forgetting that during everyone of those eight years the Dems not only voted in support of big spending but criticized each expenditure as miserly) is nothing compared to the money the Dems have spent in the last 90 days.......at the rate he's going Obama looks to spend more in his first administration than the combined spending of every other president that has ever existed.....don't talk to us about "trickle down" economics when your boy seems to have discovered the method of "Hoover Dam has burst" economics......
you say Bush made bad choices and we are paying the price?......where in the world did you come to the conclusion that the solution for those bad choices was to make the same bad choice a million times larger?..........
and what party controlled Congress during the last 2 years Bush was President - and approved all the spending?
glockmail
03-02-2009, 09:42 AM
Why didn't the supply of items at Dillard's create the demand for them?
PS: I was in Dillard's yesterday and everything was 70% off. However, it was the same stuff they had in November. It was truly sad. I spent a thousand dollars on men's apparel, because I see it as my patriotic duty as a rich liberal to help boost consumer spending.
When the supply gets high relative to demand, the price drops, and people buy widgets. Thanks for demonstrating my point.
Jagger
03-02-2009, 06:53 PM
When the supply gets high relative to demand, the price drops, and people buy widgets. Thanks for demonstrating my point. I thought you right wing nuts believed that supply creates its own demand.
glockmail
03-02-2009, 07:33 PM
I thought you right wing nuts believed that supply creates its own demand. So now you know the truth, that supply reduces prices, which in turn increases demand.
sgtdmski
03-03-2009, 05:24 AM
It has been a while since I have been here, however, I wanted to get involved in this debate. I am very glad that there are Republican governors out there who are refusing to accept some of the funding offered by the Stimulus bill.
This bill expands unemployment, COBRA, Medicaid and the food stamp program. While it is great that the Federal government wishes to do this, currently these programs are funded by both the federal and state governments. If states increase rolls of eligible recipients under this Stimulus bill what happens next year?? This is nothing more than another unfunded mandate being passed from the federal government to the state government to require the states to become even more reliant on the federal government.
If the rolls increase this year, and next year the federal government does not increase its funding to the states for the people on Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and unemployment, then it is the states that will be responsible for funding these programs, the only other option would be to drop people from the rolls.
I applaud these governors and I am glad that my governor is one of the few who is considering refusing some of the bailout money. Way to Go Sarah!!!!
With all this talk about the economy I find it interesting that the market today fell below 7000. The only way we are going to fix the banks and the financial markets is through private capital. However, with the idea of taxing Capital Gains, I have a bad feeling that we are going to continue to see this crisis continue. No amount of government money is going to solve the nations economic problems. FDR tried for 5 years to end the great depression with one stimulus program followed by another, it was not until the SEC changed the manner in which the value of bank investments were determined.
Until 1938 investments were valued by the market value accounting, however, that was changed to the historical cost accounting and with such, banks began lending again and investments return. I find it kind of remarkable that in 2006, the SEC once again returned to the mark-to-market accounting, seems to me that this is exactly around the time that we first began seeing our economic woes surface.
Time will only tell.
dmk
red states rule
03-03-2009, 08:06 AM
BP you know full well I was speaking out about the spending, border security, pork, and how Bush should have taken out his veto pen
The government is not the last resort. Obama's tax and spend plans will make the issue worse
Obama has said over and over that reckless spending got us in this mess - so how will his increased level of reckless spending get us out
BTW, tax cuts did not get un in our current mess. The groundwork was laid in 1999 when Fannie and Freddie admitted they were foing to loosen up requirements for those "with less then steller credit scores" to get home loans
September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.
”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”
Under Fannie Mae’s pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 — a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/1999-ny-times-fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending/
Has BP ran way from this thread? Come on BP, try to offer some defense of the facts :laugh2:
Jagger
03-03-2009, 08:52 AM
This bill expands unemployment
Show us the provision in the Bill that you believe expands unemployment?
red states rule
03-03-2009, 08:54 AM
Show us the provision in the Bill that you believe expands unemployment?
He did stupid
You left out the rest of the paragraph
This bill expands unemployment, COBRA, Medicaid and the food stamp program. While it is great that the Federal government wishes to do this, currently these programs are funded by both the federal and state governments. If states increase rolls of eligible recipients under this Stimulus bill what happens next year?? This is nothing more than another unfunded mandate being passed from the federal government to the state government to require the states to become even more reliant on the federal government.
Jagger
03-03-2009, 08:55 AM
The root cause of the present banking crisis is deregulation. Ginnie Mae isn't tanking because it is still federally owned and regulated.
red states rule
03-03-2009, 08:56 AM
The root cause of the present banking crisis is deregulation.
You must have missed this or are ignoring it. This is the root cause - Dems thinking home ownership is a right and not something that is earned
September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.
”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”
Under Fannie Mae’s pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 — a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2008/1...tgage-lending/
Jagger
03-03-2009, 09:01 AM
That article doesn't even allege, much less prove, that Fannie Mae's easing of credit requirements caused the present banking crisis, dude. Try again.
red states rule
03-03-2009, 09:05 AM
That article doesn't even allege, much less prove, that Fannie Mae's easing of credit requirements caused the present banking crisis, dude. Try again.
You are an idiot.
The article is back from 1999, when Clinton and the Dems laid the foundation for the problems we have now
People with lousy credit scores get the loan, default, and yet you don't (more like won't) see the connection
Jagger
03-03-2009, 09:06 AM
the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
What is the amount of money that was lent under those easier Fannie credit requirements, and how much of that amount is presently in default?
red states rule
03-03-2009, 09:08 AM
What is the amount of money that was lent under those easier credit requirements, and how much of that amount is presently in default?
Give it a break dummy. Fannie and Freddie's collapse started the chain reaction that has taken us to where we are
Even when those loan are modified, more then half are back in default AGAIN
Jagger
03-03-2009, 09:09 AM
The article is back from 1999, when Clinton and the Dems laid the foundation for the problems we have now
There is no evidence whatsoever that what Clinton did in 1999 caused the problems we have now.
How much money was lent under those easier credit requirements, and how much of that amount is presently in default?
Jagger
03-03-2009, 09:12 AM
People with lousy credit scores get the loan, default, and yet you don't (more like won't) see the connection
Exactly how much money was lent to people with lousy credit scores as a result of Fannie easing its credit requirements in 1999, and how much of that amount is presently in default?
Jagger
03-03-2009, 09:13 AM
Fannie and Freddie's collapse started the chain reaction that has taken us to where we are
Fannie and Freddie didn't collapse, dude.
sgtdmski
03-04-2009, 04:20 AM
Show us the provision in the Bill that you believe expands unemployment?
Employment and Training Administration
training and employment services
For an additional amount for `Training and Employment Services' for activities under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (`WIA'), $3,950,000,000, which shall be available for obligation on the date of enactment of this Act, as follows:
(1) $500,000,000 for grants to the States for adult employment and training activities, including supportive services and needs-related payments described in section 134(e)(2) and (3) of the WIA: Provided, That a priority use of these funds shall be services to individuals described in 134(d)(4)(E) of the WIA;
(2) $1,200,000,000 for grants to the States for youth activities, including summer employment for youth: Provided, That no portion of such funds shall be reserved to carry out section 127(b)(1)(A) of the WIA: Provided further, That for purposes of section 127(b)(1)(C)(iv) of the WIA, funds available for youth activities shall be allotted as if the total amount available for youth activities in the fiscal year does not exceed $1,000,000,000: Provided further, That with respect to the youth activities provided with such funds, section 101(13)(A) of the WIA shall be applied by substituting `age 24' for `age 21': Provided further, That the work readiness performance indicator described in section 136(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the WIA shall be the only measure of performance used to assess the effectiveness of summer employment for youth provided with such funds;
(3) $1,250,000,000 for grants to the States for dislocated worker employment and training activities;
(4) $200,000,000 for the dislocated workers assistance national reserve;
(5) $50,000,000 for YouthBuild activities: Provided, That for program years 2008 and 2009, the YouthBuild program may serve an individual who has dropped out of high school and re-enrolled in an alternative school, if that re-enrollment is part of a sequential service strategy; and
(6) $750,000,000 for a program of competitive grants for worker training and placement in high growth and emerging industry sectors: Provided, That $500,000,000 shall be for research, labor exchange and job training projects that prepare workers for careers in energy efficiency and renewable energy as described in section 171(e)(1)(B) of the WIA: Provided further, That in awarding grants from those funds not designated in the preceding proviso, the Secretary of Labor shall give priority to projects that prepare workers for careers in the health care sector:
Provided, That funds made available in this paragraph shall remain available through June 30, 2010: Provided further, That a local board may award a contract to an institution of higher education or other eligible training provider if the local board determines that it would facilitate the training of multiple individuals in high-demand occupations, if such contract does not limit customer choice.
state unemployment insurance and employment service operations
For an additional amount for `State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service Operations' for grants to States in accordance with section 6 of the Wagner-Peyser Act, $400,000,000, which may be expended from the Employment Security Administration Account in the Unemployment Trust Fund, and which shall be available for obligation on the date of enactment of this Act: Provided, That such funds shall remain available to the States through September 30, 2010: Provided further, That $250,000,000 of such funds shall be used by States for reemployment services for unemployment insurance claimants (including the integrated Employment Service and Unemployment Insurance information technology required to identify and serve the needs of such claimants): Provided further, That the Secretary of Labor shall establish planning and reporting procedures necessary to provide oversight of funds used for reemployment services.
Obviously you are like many of the members of the Congress, you support the bill but yet haven't had any time to read it.
Black and white for you. If you don't believe my cutting and pasting I am sure that if you really wanted you could take the time to read the some 1,000 pages here. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1.enr:)
dmk
sgtdmski
03-04-2009, 04:55 AM
The root cause of the present banking crisis is deregulation. Ginnie Mae isn't tanking because it is still federally owned and regulated.
Wrong again. Ginnie Mae is a government owned corporation. And like Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae is being bailed out with $500 billion dollars by the federal government. Damn, here is a government owned corporation and yet it is still failing. Which goes to prove deregulation had nothing to do with the collapse of the housing market.
The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 and it sought to make sure that lenders were serving their whole community when passed. Hmmm the is called legislation which regulates and industry, in this case home mortgage lenders.
In 1995, bank regulators changed the rules regarding how the CRA was to be applied. Not only did banks have to show that they were accepting and investing in their community but also that they were loaning money to low and median income borrowers. In order to accomplish this the change in regulation allowed for the lenders to use innovative and flexible lending practices, thus was born the sub-prime and Alt-A loan programs.
Futhermore the government allowed the GSE of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to offer these type loans to the people that they serviced. As a result of this governmental intervention Freddie and Fannie were allowed to enter the market with private owned lenders and created competition for borrowers. By 2006 more than half of all loans made by Fannie and Freddie were either sub-prime or Alt-A. Because of the large market share of these loans being given by the government, private lenders also began to increase the amount of these loans.
Now as mortgage rates dropped, many people were refinancing their homes and taking the cash-out option which allowed them to take the equity in their home in cash. Well guess what, when the market began to fall, suddenly people had loans for homes that were well above the actual cost of the homes.
For almost 30 years home prices increased. Why? Because the government created a demand for homes thanks to tasking lenders to be innovative and flexible in loaning money to people who were low and median income who might not have normally been approved for a home loan. Because of the demand and a limited supply there was an unnatural increase in the cost of the homes. Many people took mortgages far above their ability to pay in order to buy a home.
A natural market has ups and downs. Normally when prices increase, the demand decreases resulting in the prices decreasing until once again there is a demand. However, with the ability to take flexible loans and loans with no down payments, people never complained nor did they worry about the cost.
This so called housing foreclosure crisis truly only concerns five states - California, Nevada, Arizona, Florida and Michigan. These are the states with the highest rates of foreclosure. The remaining 45 states have a foreclosure rate of about 1/10th of 1%.
So now were are going to use money from the other 45 states to bail out the bad practices allowed in this 5 states?
This is what happens when the government gets involved in the markets. The government wanted higher home ownership and forced the private lenders to compete with government entities for the market.
dmk
sgtdmski
03-04-2009, 05:14 AM
Fannie and Freddie didn't collapse, dude.
So what do you call the need for a federal bailout by a GSE??? They may have not hit rock bottom but they sure did collapes causing a rip in the market because of their lending practices which then suddenly caused a rift in the private markets.
dmk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.