Election 2012 Is Comming

The Banks have no one to blame but themselves. When I went out and bought my first house in 91 I was told that I didn't quailify for a house that was 90k that I had to look for something lower. I had to run through background check that the FBI would have been proud of. I moved several years later to a nicer bigger house that I could afford.
Times changed and the housing industry boomed. Interest only loans were running full steam but unheard of ( at least for me) and why would anyone want one?I guess so they could keep up with the Jones's.
These people never thought of property taxes on a nicer house, maintenance, utilities, and etc lived paycheck to paycheck never giving thought to what if I lose my job. I on the other hand did just the opposite. The economy tanked because of 9/11 and now I'm ready to move as the area I live in has lost it's small town charm and is just another suburb of Atlanta. Brand new Strip Malls everywhere that are empty, have been for 3 years and some that might have a business or two in them. Foreclosed houses that are built on top of each other (so close that when you wake up and look out your bedroom window you can see what your neighbor is eating for breakfast) everywhere and I can't sell my house cause it's barely worth more than I owe and I have been here for 14 years and the market is flooded with new homes that have never been lived in that have been sitting vacant for years.
Now I have had to fight with the mortgage for months trying to get the ex off the loan and have gotten the royal run around to the point that they want to know where EVERY dollar spent in my checking account is going and what for and where EVERY deposit comes from if it didn't come from my employer. Even to the point where I asked them if I had a yard sell and sold a bunch of crap that I had to tell them what was sold and to whom so they could verify if needed that I was telling the truth. I told Bank of America that I'd fire them if I could and that I needed to remind them as they had copies of my divorce decree that I was in contempt of court as the EX was not off the loan by such and such date and that I could be thrown in jail for failure to comply if she so chose. How are you gonna get your money when I'm in jail over your refusal to grant me a loan assumption over a petty $100 deposit from a freaking yard sale and that B of A would be stuck with another foreclosed home? Needless to say I was approved a couple days later.

Idiots like these are why we are in the predicament we are in. Never ceases to amaze me but I know it's because of greed. It's very unfortunate because but those who've done it right, honestly and play by the rules are the ones who suffer the most it seems.

Bottom line is the banks are to blame for this whole banking mess and their mistakes. Now they are sticking it to the customers again by charging ridiculous fees to access THEIR money out of machines for the sake of convienance. Then on top of that come up with a 'Check Card' so they can do away with paper checks, the time and money it takes to process them to make it easier for THEM and now they are going to charge you a monthly fee to use the darn things.

GREED! It makes the world go round and will be the end of us ALL!    

Someone's lost it. I know a lot of bank stock is down about a 1/10 or less than what it was. I guess if the banks didn't get bailed out, they'd have gone under. Maybe that needed to happen, but our government, either Dem or Rep wasn't about to let that happen. But, like the stock market, wealth has vanished, and it just isn;t on paper when money is tied to it.

It cracks me up about this Dem versus Rep debate. Despite all the fighting and finger pointing and stances both sides take, there really isn't much difference between the two sides or the outcomes. Other than Obama Care, I don't think McCain would have done much different than Obama has done concerning the economy and the wars, and I don't think Obama has done much different than Bush would have done had he had another 4 years, dispite all the promises Obama made before the election.

"By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

The 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years."
[/QUOTE]

This is the worst economics and fundamental lie perpetrated by I guess I would call them conservatives but really they aren’t conservative it all they are tax reducers and spending increasers… redistributors of wealth from the middle class to the rich essentially.. so not conservatives but republicans for the last two decades…
Historically there has never been an inverse relationship between top tax rate and economic production.. that is with all other things being held the same decreasing the tax rate lowered revenue but doesn’t increase output.. this is backed up by logic as well at a certain level of wealth you simply cannot effectively spend or invest any faster… increasing wealth accumulation beyond that level simply takes money out of the economy.. the government as you well know never gets to the point where it can’t possibly spend or invest anymore.    Simply look at top tax rates and what was going on in the country at the time in the 50s and early sixties that top rate was %90 and it was the golden era of American dominance and competitiveness.. we were smashing the socialist soviet model.. and we were taxing at 90%.   We dropped it to 70 percent in the late 60s and 70s.   You talk about the pendulum and where it is at the extreme… 91 percent is actually the extreme left and right now there is a whole group of investor class billionaires who are paying 15% and that is by far the extreme right no matter how much right wing media says that lower taxes will increase economic output.
http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

Conversely two things that do increase demand and increase economic output albeit in unsustainable ways are the lowering of the fed funds rate and increasing government spending. Again these things are unsustainable.. talking about increasing growth well spending more money than you are taking in is akin to your wife saying you lived better when she was managing the finaces because you got a new house and new tvs and new cars while you were maxing out your credit cards and that you are living worse now because you are saving money and paying back your debt. Talking about increasing tax revenues to record rates while you were running up three of the top 10 deficits in history is like your wife telling you she actually made more money when she was in charge because by spending 20000 a year on the card she was getting 200 cash back and you are not. These things aside government spending does increase demand every time by definition, and lowering the fed rate (when it is high enough to be an effective tool) does increase demand every time.

These guys weren’t stupid these last two are easily seen facts supported by history, logic, macro and micro economic theory. So if you really want to see for the first time in history an inverse relationship between tax rates and growth you decrease tax rates….. and wait for it… you also increase spending and you lower the fed rate.. then when economic output goes up … as it will because you unsustainably goosed the heck out of the economy.. you declare victory for your policies of lowering tax rates. Then of course the bubble that was a easily forseeable result of giving away money free of interest for way too long bursts and someone else has to come clean up the mess spends more money to bail out the rich guys and future generations are left to pay for the money you spent goosing the economy.

But wait if I was right there would have to be evidence that we increased spending and dropped interest rates around the same time we were decreasing those taxes.. I would provide you the charts but you would call whatever source I pulled them from liberal and dismiss them but look it up yourself anywhere you want facts are facts..

As for the rich paying a larger percentage of the total tax burden.. one would expect that to happen when
As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers)

By 2007 the top 1% controlled 42%, the next 19% had 50% and then 7 percent was split below the bottom 80%.
So yeah we would kind of expect that the rich were paying more.. what with them closing factories and and selling us stuff built with Chinese labor and us thanking them for it by decreasing their tax rates and lending them money at zero interest so they could lend it out and make money on it, did I mention we were also overpaying them billions to provide substandard services to our troops at the time..   

So which way did we really swing the pendulum..
I agree with Bruce that there is no real difference with what Obama would have done and a reasonable republican would have done with few exceptions.. Obama has had the tarp money paid back to some extent and Obama took a percentage of ownership in GM in exchange for the bailout so we wouldn’t lose 100% of that money either .. republicans would have given it back to the original shareholders erasing the losses from their investments at the expense of the tax payers. That is just going off historical data on what republican president have done in previous bailouts though this one could have been different but based on who gives them campaign money I doubt it.
Again there are reasons to give tax cuts.. even to the ultra rich but they don’t increase economic output on their own.. never have and I highly doubt they ever will. They do however increase the deficit and the debt, always have and always will.. regardless of bushes record revenue increase (cashback rewards) of 785 billion over 4 years .. four years during which the credit card balance kept going up and was about to head to the moon…

Morfoot wrote: Bottom line is the banks are to blame for this whole banking mess and their mistakes. Now they are sticking it to the customers again by charging ridiculous fees to access THEIR money out of machines for the sake of convienance. Then on top of that come up with a 'Check Card' so they can do away with paper checks, the time and money it takes to process them to make it easier for THEM and now they are going to charge you a monthly fee to use the darn things. GREED! It makes the world go round and will be the end of us ALL!

The new $5 fee is a direct result of the government again medeling with the banks, the newest democrat inspired regulations decreased what the banks could charge per use of an ATM. It is not the governments palce to dictate how a private company runs its day to day operations. Those machines are not free to purchase or maintain, so the banks found a new way to charge to cover their costs. In response some democrats have called for a boycott of a private company. We now have the government deliberatly working against a private tax paying company. this is why our founders wanted limited government. When people demand regulation, this is what they end up with.

JoeinNY wrote: This is the worst economics and fundamental lie perpetrated by I guess I would call them conservatives but really they aren’t conservative it all they are tax reducers and spending increasers… redistributors of wealth from the middle class to the rich essentially.. so not conservatives but republicans for the last two decades… Historically there has never been an inverse relationship between top tax rate and economic production.. that is with all other things being held the same decreasing the tax rate lowered revenue but doesn’t increase output.. this is backed up by logic as well at a certain level of wealth you simply cannot effectively spend or invest any faster… increasing wealth accumulation beyond that level simply takes money out of the economy.. the government as you well know never gets to the point where it can’t possibly spend or invest anymore.    Simply look at top tax rates and what was going on in the country at the time in the 50s and early sixties that top rate was %90 and it was the golden era of American dominance and competitiveness.. we were smashing the socialist soviet model.. and we were taxing at 90%.   We dropped it to 70 percent in the late 60s and 70s.   You talk about the pendulum and where it is at the extreme… 91 percent is actually the extreme left and right now there is a whole group of investor class billionaires who are paying 15% and that is by far the extreme right no matter how much right wing media says that lower taxes will increase economic output. http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

Joe, Your logic and reality seam to be in conflict. Compare the big government policies of jimmy Carter, Barrack Obama against the closest model of conservatism we have which was Ronald Reagan. Which worked? Which generated growth? And which increased government revenues?

On the logic side your reasoning says at a certain point the rich just idle thier money under a matress because they dont have enough time to deal with it. This is false, they always have their money invested in something to make more, this funds other business, If they dont have the time to manage it they hire others to do so resulting in more employment. the more they have the bigger they think, the exception is in times of uncertainty, then they find safer investments like gold and bonds. Government deficit spending only adds to the uncertainty.

So many of our problems go back to special interest bedfellows. Solyndra is not only a shining example, but it will be the tainted cocktail that comes back home to roost.

This is the sort of thing I'm sick of.

Hooray for Florida !

I-95 will be jammed for the next month or so........Druggies and deadbeats heading North out of Florida ..


Florida is the first state - Hooray for Florida !!!!


Florida is the first state requiring drug testing to receive welfare! In signing the new law,


Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, "If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free.


Applicants who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment.


Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving funds for three years!


Naturally, a few people are crying this is unconstitutional.


How is this unconstitutional?


It's completely legal that every other working people have to pass drug tests in order to get a J-O-B which supports those on welfare!


Forward if you agree!!


Let's get Welfare back to the ones who NEED it, not those who WON'T get a JOB.....

I AGREE 100%
And:

As these critical elections get closer, you will want to know the latest developments on key Conservative Caucus grassroots issues like:
•Stopping Barack Obama's "open borders" strategy and plans to turn millions of illegal aliens into citizens as fast as he can


•Turning back Obama's unconstitutional health care rationing measures and cutting back federal government power into all corners of our lives


•Curbing the power of government unions to squeeze taxpayers for massive salaries and obscene pensions


•Blocking President Obama's radical judicial activist nominees from taking lifetime appointments to the federal bench


•Preventing multi-national bodies like the U.N. or a proposed North American Union from stealing US independence


•Ending the billions spent on bi-lingual education and pushing for English as our Official Language

Phil,Why is it I dont hear you complaining about the cost increases in education? Eduction increases by percentage are far greater then those in health care.

phospher wrote: [QUOTE=OverMyHead] Phil, I am not appologising for anyone, A business should not appologize for making a profit. I am so sick of people thinking of business as nothing more than a revenue stream for government. ............ The only one I personally have heard attacking Romneys mormanism is Perry. I think it will hurt him more than it helps. Cain seems to be coming on strong. I like what he says, I just wish he had some political history to see if his votes would match his rhetoric.

.

It's more than Perry ripping on he mormon faith. Pastors are starting to speak out.

QUOTE]

Perry mad one little comment on it, and it was not even bad, but off course as statesd in the thread earlier. You guys would be looking too make it a big deal.



What large corporation have you worked for??

phospher wrote: And yes, since you brought it up, college expenses are ridiculous.

And yet no complaints from the left about price gouging, no attempt to limit salaries of school presidents, coaches, or professors. Instedd we subsidise the schools, Finace the education with grants and loans so that know one really knows how much we pay, and we saddle our youth with years of debt. To top it off we beat up and discourage those that might hire them after graduation and give them a shot at paying off thier loans.

OverMyHead wrote: Phil, Once again you have it backwards. The government was not designed to "allow" anything, It is the limited powers we allow the government. People came here and were doing business long before our government arrived. Our government did not say to Bill gates, here is everything you need, we will allow you to create microsoft, Bill gates the individual had that vision, it was only after it became profitable thet the government got involved... by putting their hand out for tax dollars. We give the government money to keep us safe and build us infrastructure, that is what we allow it to do. The government did not say to Steve Jobs, we will allow you to make the Iphone (It had no clue what an Iphone would be), it did not tell benjamin franklin it was ok to go outside in a thundrestorm with a kite and a key. It did not tell edison it would allow him to invent the lightbulb so the government could now tax the second and third shifts, it did not tell Eli he should invent the cotton gin, and it did build the railroads that expanded this country west (it did have a hand in the money pit known as Amtrack). It did not help alexander invent the telephone (it did regulate and tax the industry later), and it did not grant airspace to orville and wilbur just in case they invented the airplane. It is the money taxed from the great individuals of this country that allows for government, and it is time for the government to start remebering that.

Well said

OverMyHead wrote: phospher wrote: . And do not forget, it is our great country and government that allows the american business the opportunity to even make a profit . Phil, Once again you have it backwards. The government was not designed to "allow" anything, It is the limited powers we allow the government. People came here and were doing business long before our government arrived. Our government did not say to Bill gates, here is everything you need, we will allow you to create microsoft, Bill gates the individual had that vision, it was only after it became profitable thet the government got involved... by putting their hand out for tax dollars. We give the government money to keep us safe and build us infrastructure, that is what we allow it to do. The government did not say to Steve Jobs, we will allow you to make the Iphone (It had no clue what an Iphone would be), it did not tell benjamin franklin it was ok to go outside in a thundrestorm with a kite and a key. It did not tell edison it would allow him to invent the lightbulb so the government could now tax the second and third shifts, it did not tell Eli he should invent the cotton gin, and it did build the railroads that expanded this country west (it did have a hand in the money pit known as Amtrack). It did not help alexander invent the telephone (it did regulate and tax the industry later), and it did not grant airspace to orville and wilbur just in case they invented the airplane. It is the money taxed from the great individuals of this country that allows for government, and it is time for the government to start remebering that.

Dave,

Are you seriously arguing the word "allow" used in an earlier post just to highlight your own "limited power" agenda. If you really did understand Phils comment to mean the government allows business to exist, than your head is further in the clouds than I thought.

This government is not " created because of the great rich individuals and corporations of America, the people...so we will honor them by lowering taxes and regulation.....allow them to control government...kiss their feet.."

" by the people...for the people..."



Are you super rich, or are you going to be? I just cannot get how you have become such a shill for the exact party that is trying to destroy you.

You do not have to give the rich any more breaks because you are grateful for their blessings of wealth.They are already getting a break, aaahem, their rich, one hell of a break in my book.

skicat2001 wrote: Hooray for Florida ! I-95 will be jammed for the next month or so........Druggies and deadbeats heading North out of Florida .. Florida is the first state - Hooray for Florida !!!! Florida is the first state requiring drug testing to receive welfare! In signing the new law, Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, "If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free. Applicants who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment. Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving funds for three years! Naturally, a few people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It's completely legal that every other working people have to pass drug tests in order to get a J-O-B which supports those on welfare! Forward if you agree!! Let's get Welfare back to the ones who NEED it, not those who WON'T get a JOB..... I AGREE 100% And: As these critical elections get closer, you will want to know the latest developments on key Conservative Caucus grassroots issues like: •Stopping Barack Obama's "open borders" strategy and plans to turn millions of illegal aliens into citizens as fast as he can •Turning back Obama's unconstitutional health care rationing measures and cutting back federal government power into all corners of our lives •Curbing the power of government unions to squeeze taxpayers for massive salaries and obscene pensions •Blocking President Obama's radical judicial activist nominees from taking lifetime appointments to the federal bench •Preventing multi-national bodies like the U.N. or a proposed North American Union from stealing US independence •Ending the billions spent on bi-lingual education and pushing for English as our Official Language

You are a few months late with this one....


Oh, and if you don't want to go back ON THIS VERY THREAD, 2.3 % is the rate they found, I think.


And it cost more to give the tests than to pay the welfare.....bwah!

Seth, Neither Phil or I said the government was created to allow, Phil; said this.

phospher wrote: . And do not forget, it is our great country and government that allows the american business the opportunity to even make a profit .

And I said our government does not "allow" anything. Communist countries and dictatorships allow things, that is not what our government is set up to do. It can only enforce (not allow) the laws our elected representatives write. The law does not "allow" us to drive 55 on the freeway, it just does not allow us to to exceed the posted limit. The wording, and concept, are very important.

ononewheel wrote: [This government is not " created because of the great rich individuals and corporations of America, the people...so we will honor them by lowering taxes and regulation.....allow them to control government...kiss their feet.." " by the people...for the people..." Are you super rich, or are you going to be? I just cannot get how you have become such a shill for the exact party that is trying to destroy you. You do not have to give the rich any more breaks because you are grateful for their blessings of wealth.They are already getting a break, aaahem, their rich, one hell of a break in my book.

Seth, I am not advocating kissing the feet of the rich, I am just saying we should not maybe not crap on them so much. Here in Minnesota we used to have the NorthStars, they had offers to move elsewhere, and asked for a few things in exchange for them sticking around. We said no and off they went to Dallas.
After they left we realized we missed them and kissed alot of feet for a lot of years to get the Wild franchise. It would have been far cheaper and easier to keep the NorhtStars happy, and we would not have lost all that history. The same goes for any other business, most are portable but preffer to not go through the hassle, treat them a little nice and they will stick around, treat them with disdain and they along with their jobs are gone, and it will take massive foot kissing to get them back.

By the way, I am not advocating for the rich, I am advocating for jobs, and more importantly the constitution. The difference between justice and social justice is that social justice looks at the person or group first before it decides what the justice should be. I like the image of lady justice with the blindfold. Justice is justice , and should not change based on who it is applied to. As soon as we say it is OK for the government to treat one group differntly from another, we have opened the door for any group to face the same fate, the next group might be one to which you belong.