So, who't this Ryan chap then?
Replies
-
But here is the interesting question, one I find myself facing often in politics. If Ryan is offering you a tax cut, but is opposite of you socially like with gay marriage or a seperation of church and state....are you willing to to trample civil liberties for some cash?
Thank you for bringing this up - I'm genuinely interested in responses, especially of fiscal conservatives that may not be so socially conservative.
It depends on the social issue.
I think all drugs should be legal and regulated but I could certainly vote for someone that does not agree with me.0 -
The Community reinvestment act came way before the housing bubble.
Indeed it did. 30 years and four recessions before. Blaming the housing bubble on a bill passed 30 years before is what Einstein called "Spooky Action at a Distance." Somehow a bill passed in 1977 has no negative impact for 30 years then suddenly causes a huge bubble. Makes as much sense as believing the universe was created in seven literal days in 4004 BC.0 -
Tell me how I am better off?
Sounds like you're not. The question in my mind though is how where you are now compares to where you would be if the Bush policies that caused the crisis were continued by a President McCain. And where you will be in the future if a President Romney returns to the failed policies that gave us a lost decade.
Of course, the way I phrase the questions tells you what I think the answers are!
I guess we agree to disagree. It wasn't entirely "Bush policies" that caused the crisis. A lot of it had more to do with the policies enacted by Dodd-Frank and the Community Lending Laws. You know, the ones that encouraged/armtwisted banks to make loans to people that really couldn't afford the terms in the first place and then defaulted. Obviously, I realize that's a gross oversimplication of the issue that caused the mortgage crisis (and it had a great deal to do with greediness of banking execs as well), but it was the Senate and Fed wanting banks to follow the whole "everyone should have a house" mantra that socialists love so much.
The whole "minorities caused the housing crisis" meme has been debunked numerous times.
It took about 90 seconds to find and scan this article from the Univ of North Carolina.
http://www.ccc.unc.edu/cra.php
And that's only one of dozens I could have cited.0 -
The Community reinvestment act came way before the housing bubble.
Indeed it did. 30 years and four recessions before. Blaming the housing bubble on a bill passed 30 years before is what Einstein called "Spooky Action at a Distance." Somehow a bill passed in 1977 has no negative impact for 30 years then suddenly causes a huge bubble. Makes as much sense as believing the universe was created in seven literal days in 4004 BC.
You fail to mention the changes that were made to the CRA in 1995 by President Clinton that strengthened the Federal reserves ability to investigate banks who were not compliant with their CRA performance. The Fed grew teeth during this time and were conducting fair lending reviews while simultaneously conducting CRA evaluations(which were made public). Talk about coercion. The government was strong arming the banks into bad loans. Once Glass-Steagull was partly repealed in 99, the perfect storm was created.
So, in summary, the housing inferno was ignited by Clinton, who pushed for these changes in 1995, and fueled by signing the bill in 1999 repealing Glass-Stegull. Wrap it up with some good ole mortgage backed securities and you have armageddon.0 -
Lunacy is to want to relect Obama. What has he accomplished?
-GDP growth is declinining. Last qtr was 1.5%
-He has added 5+ trillion dollars to the national debt in 3 years.
-Above 8% unemployment rate for more than 40 consecutive months.
-Failed Trillion dollar stimulus which he said would keep unemployment under 8%.
-Bailed out 2 automotive companies, one of which was then bought by a foreign entity, the other(GM) is floundering with it currently worth almost half of what it was worth during its 2010 IPO.
-3 consecuitive Trillion dollar+ budget deficits
-Hasn't signed a budget in 3+ years.
-Has actively killed jobs in this country with the oil moratorium and refusal to support the building of the Canadian pipeline.
-He has given amnesty to nearly 2 million individuals without congressional approval
-Dropped the work requirement for welfare without congressional approval after being passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by a Democratic President to illustrate the bipartisan nature of the bill.
-Obama is gutting Medicare to pay for Obamacare which was sold to the American public as a lie. The true 10 year cost will surpass 2 $trillion dollars in 10 years, when accounting for 10 years of actual benefits being paid. Obama said he was going to pay for this by taking $500 B out of medicare and putting it towards Obamacare. The other $440B will be collected through taxes, however, he is still short over a trillion dollars to cover the true cost of Obamacare. Where is that money going to come from? Were talking an additional $100B per year. So Obamacare is spending $200B a year to cover 30 million people, a third of which are illegal immigrants.
It is absolute insanity for people to want to vote for such a record. Obama and all the Dems know he has absolutely nothing to run on so all they have left in their arsenal(as usual) is to resort to personal attacks.
Answering in order:
1. Have you ever seen a historical GDP graph? I suggest you look one up.
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/is-obama-responsible-for-a-5-trillion-increase-in-the-debt/2012/05/15/gIQACA0QSU_blog.html
3. True. It's called a recession.
4. OMG! The market fluctuates?? Why didn't anyone ever tell me?? (BTW, 20 is not have of 34)
5. True. Good thing he's the smallest government spender since Eisenhower. Perhaps if Bush hadn't destroyed the surplus we wouldn't be in this position.
6. Can't find anything that says this anywhere. Source please?
7. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/04/362056/fact-check-keystone-xl-tar-sands-pipeline-isnt-a-job-creator/ (yes, Thinkprogress is a very liberal site. The article, however, is full of independent links.)
8. 2 million? Where do you get that number? That one does tick me off though but I keep seeing 1 million except on ultra right wing sites.
9. I hope you don't get all your "facts" from Romney's political ads. This one is a blatant lie. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/
10. Oh, I guess you are assuming Romney's ads are true. You might want to think for yourself. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/15/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-said-barack-obama-first-history-rob-me/ http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2012/aug/02/michael-riley/ri-congressional-candidate-michael-riley-says-cong/0 -
That's not at all what the CRA did. Banks were still discriminating despite it being illegal. The CRA merely gave the Fed some teeth (as you put it) to make sure that a balck couple and a white couple were treated the same. It didn't make the banks give loans to minorities with bad credit unless they would give loans to whites in the same situation. Bottom line - the banks were greedy and wanted the money. They knew that if someone defaulted it worked out to their benefit so they lent money to anyone.The Community reinvestment act came way before the housing bubble.
Indeed it did. 30 years and four recessions before. Blaming the housing bubble on a bill passed 30 years before is what Einstein called "Spooky Action at a Distance." Somehow a bill passed in 1977 has no negative impact for 30 years then suddenly causes a huge bubble. Makes as much sense as believing the universe was created in seven literal days in 4004 BC.
You fail to mention the changes that were made to the CRA in 1995 by President Clinton that strengthened the Federal reserves ability to investigate banks who were not compliant with their CRA performance. The Fed grew teeth during this time and were conducting fair lending reviews while simultaneously conducting CRA evaluations(which were made public). Talk about coercion. The government was strong arming the banks into bad loans. Once Glass-Steagull was partly repealed in 99, the perfect storm was created.
So, in summary, the housing inferno was ignited by Clinton, who pushed for these changes in 1995, and fueled by signing the bill in 1999 repealing Glass-Stegull. Wrap it up with some good ole mortgage backed securities and you have armageddon.
In 2004 we moved from MI to AZ. We had a home in MI that we refinanced so we could put a down payment on a home in AZ. When we were looking for a house we had excellent credit but already had 1 mortgage, a line of credit, and no jobs (hubby had just gotten back from being deployed to Iraq and his company laid him off when they found out he'd likely be activated.) I thought we'd have a hard time getting loan approval. Instead we were approved for up to $450,000. That had nothing at all to do with a law from 1977 or a law from 1995. It had everything to do with banks who knew they'd make money if we paid our mortgage and they'd make money if we couldn't pay our mortgage and went into foreclosure. That's what caused the problem. Too many people who know nothing about finance were told they could afford up to $400,000 so they looked for houses up to $400,000 without bothering to think things through.0 -
You are holding a beautiful baby. If (God forbid) he develops asthma or diabetes or something else and you change insurance he will no longer be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.I'm solidly middle class, and I can say that despite working my *kitten* off, I am worse off than I was 4 years ago.
My home value decreased due to foreclosures in my neighborhood, so I can't refinance at the wonderful new loan rates everyone is so excited about.
2/3 of my credit card interest rates went up due to the inflation of the dollar and banks wanting to recoup money they have lost through the passage of certain laws meant to "protect the consumer" that through basic economic principles banks and businesses then pass on to the consumer anyway.
My husband and I have received salary increases of about 1% each, although again the inflated dollar means that my fuel, food, and daycare costs have been inflated at a rate of more like 5-15%.
Tell me how I am better off?
You will no longer be charged more for healthcare simply because you are female.
The Lily Ledbetter Act means that your employer cannot pay you less than an equally qualified male just because you are a woman.
You can take that beautiful baby for well baby visits without having to worry about a co-pay (most likely but depending on your insurance)
Your taxes went down last year. If you make so little that you get the EIC, WIC, etc you still get them (RR wants to gut those so you might want to check how much you may lose.)
If your child is gay he can still choose to serve in the military.
Your child can remain on your insurance until he is 26.
I actually posted several links to things Obama has done a few pages ago. These are the ones I know made you better off based on knowing nothing more than your avatar. If you go through the list I bet you'll find others.
However, you may be a die hard Obama hater in which case let me ask how was your life better under Bush and how do you think it will change from it's present state under Romney?0 -
Answering in order:
1. Have you ever seen a historical GDP graph? I suggest you look one up.
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/is-obama-responsible-for-a-5-trillion-increase-in-the-debt/2012/05/15/gIQACA0QSU_blog.html
3. True. It's called a recession.
4. OMG! The market fluctuates?? Why didn't anyone ever tell me?? (BTW, 20 is not have of 34)
5. True. Good thing he's the smallest government spender since Eisenhower. Perhaps if Bush hadn't destroyed the surplus we wouldn't be in this position.
6. Can't find anything that says this anywhere. Source please?
7. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/04/362056/fact-check-keystone-xl-tar-sands-pipeline-isnt-a-job-creator/ (yes, Thinkprogress is a very liberal site. The article, however, is full of independent links.)
8. 2 million? Where do you get that number? That one does tick me off though but I keep seeing 1 million except on ultra right wing sites.
9. I hope you don't get all your "facts" from Romney's political ads. This one is a blatant lie. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/
10. Oh, I guess you are assuming Romney's ads are true. You might want to think for yourself. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/15/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-said-barack-obama-first-history-rob-me/ http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2012/aug/02/michael-riley/ri-congressional-candidate-michael-riley-says-cong/
1. Absolutely. Just for reference, the US achieved a 2nd qtr GDP growth rate of 5% during Reagan's last year of his first term. 1.5% vs 5%. You do the math.
2. Obama has had 3 years of trillion+ budget deficits. How hard is that to quantify?
3. And yet Reagan was able to lower the unemployment rate from 10.1% in 6/1983 to 7.2% in 6/1984.
4. GM actually traded as high as $35 that day and if you open your eyes and look closely I said "almost".
5. I always love to see liberals try to magically turn numerous trillion dollar budget deficits into the smallest government spender in history. It reeks of desperation. Do me a favor. Add up all the budget deficits in Obama's term and compare it to Bush's. Let me know what you come up with.
6. The last budget passed in Congress that was signed by Obama was 2009 Omnibus bill.
7. I read it and yes it would have created jobs. It says so in the article.
8. http://24ahead.com/18-million-illegal-aliens-will-be-eligible-obamas-dream-act
9. This legislation was negotiated and passed in Congress. No President(R or D) should be allowed to circumvent the legislative process. Yes, Welfare has been fundamentally changed and again without congressional approval.
10. It's nice to see your only point of disagreement is how much of Medicare is being gutted to pay for Obamacare. For your reading pleasure. http://www.npr.org/2012/07/30/157587027/weekly-standard-obamacare-to-cost-1-93-trillion0 -
That's not at all what the CRA did. Banks were still discriminating despite it being illegal. The CRA merely gave the Fed some teeth (as you put it) to make sure that a balck couple and a white couple were treated the same. It didn't make the banks give loans to minorities with bad credit unless they would give loans to whites in the same situation. Bottom line - the banks were greedy and wanted the money. They knew that if someone defaulted it worked out to their benefit so they lent money to anyone.The Community reinvestment act came way before the housing bubble.
Indeed it did. 30 years and four recessions before. Blaming the housing bubble on a bill passed 30 years before is what Einstein called "Spooky Action at a Distance." Somehow a bill passed in 1977 has no negative impact for 30 years then suddenly causes a huge bubble. Makes as much sense as believing the universe was created in seven literal days in 4004 BC.
You fail to mention the changes that were made to the CRA in 1995 by President Clinton that strengthened the Federal reserves ability to investigate banks who were not compliant with their CRA performance. The Fed grew teeth during this time and were conducting fair lending reviews while simultaneously conducting CRA evaluations(which were made public). Talk about coercion. The government was strong arming the banks into bad loans. Once Glass-Steagull was partly repealed in 99, the perfect storm was created.
So, in summary, the housing inferno was ignited by Clinton, who pushed for these changes in 1995, and fueled by signing the bill in 1999 repealing Glass-Stegull. Wrap it up with some good ole mortgage backed securities and you have armageddon.
In 2004 we moved from MI to AZ. We had a home in MI that we refinanced so we could put a down payment on a home in AZ. When we were looking for a house we had excellent credit but already had 1 mortgage, a line of credit, and no jobs (hubby had just gotten back from being deployed to Iraq and his company laid him off when they found out he'd likely be activated.) I thought we'd have a hard time getting loan approval. Instead we were approved for up to $450,000. That had nothing at all to do with a law from 1977 or a law from 1995. It had everything to do with banks who knew they'd make money if we paid our mortgage and they'd make money if we couldn't pay our mortgage and went into foreclosure. That's what caused the problem. Too many people who know nothing about finance were told they could afford up to $400,000 so they looked for houses up to $400,000 without bothering to think things through.
The article I cited (one of many available) points out that only a tiny percentage of loans made during the mortgage boom were subject to the provisions of the CRA. It also includes the data that shows that the default rate for those loans was lower than average. The whole "CRA was responsible for the economic meltdown" meme is so old and has been so discredited that even republicans don't mention it anymore.
If you want to learn about the subprime mortgage crisis and the tactics used to make it happen, read "The Monster" by Michael Hudson of the Wall Street Journal.0 -
Only have a minute so short answer here but do you understand finance? Do you know how IPOs work? They are almost always substantially higher on their IPO/within a few days than they are after even a few weeks.
Obamacare will cost money. However, it costs money to have people treat emergency rooms like clinics. All medical care costs money. I just think it's worth a few dollars to keep people alive. I'm pro choice but pro life after they are born. Too bad RR can't say the same or even be pro life after birth. Instead it's "A zygote is a person who deserves all the rights thereof!" then once it's born it's a welfare leech sho should just hurry up and die already.
And fnally, I'm not a liberal but I do love how the righties like to generalize and exaggerate. It's amusing in a sad, pathetic sort of way. I'm actually an independant. I voted McCain in 08. I woted McCain in the primary in 2000. I lived in AZ for 5 years and voted for him every time. I also voted for Sheriff Joe and I think Brewer has done a pretty decent job. In fact, over the past decade I've voted R much more often than not. But the GOP aren't Republicans anymore. I loved Reagan and voted for him too (my first POTUS election actually) But Republicans have turned away from fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Now they are Gays, Guns, and God. They demand fiscal responsibility from the poor and middle class but love the idea of corporate welfare and tax cuts for millionaires. They Bible thump and claim that this is a Christian nation with laws based on the Bible. Reagan would be a liberal hippie by their standards today. He probably wouldn't even pass their "requirements" to make it through the primaries. Give me a Reagan or Goldwater and I'll vote R again. Keep throwing out Romneys and Cantors and Bachmanns and I may well just pull the D lever and call it a day.0 -
That's not at all what the CRA did. Banks were still discriminating despite it being illegal. The CRA merely gave the Fed some teeth (as you put it) to make sure that a balck couple and a white couple were treated the same. It didn't make the banks give loans to minorities with bad credit unless they would give loans to whites in the same situation. Bottom line - the banks were greedy and wanted the money. They knew that if someone defaulted it worked out to their benefit so they lent money to anyone.The Community reinvestment act came way before the housing bubble.
Indeed it did. 30 years and four recessions before. Blaming the housing bubble on a bill passed 30 years before is what Einstein called "Spooky Action at a Distance." Somehow a bill passed in 1977 has no negative impact for 30 years then suddenly causes a huge bubble. Makes as much sense as believing the universe was created in seven literal days in 4004 BC.
You fail to mention the changes that were made to the CRA in 1995 by President Clinton that strengthened the Federal reserves ability to investigate banks who were not compliant with their CRA performance. The Fed grew teeth during this time and were conducting fair lending reviews while simultaneously conducting CRA evaluations(which were made public). Talk about coercion. The government was strong arming the banks into bad loans. Once Glass-Steagull was partly repealed in 99, the perfect storm was created.
So, in summary, the housing inferno was ignited by Clinton, who pushed for these changes in 1995, and fueled by signing the bill in 1999 repealing Glass-Stegull. Wrap it up with some good ole mortgage backed securities and you have armageddon.
In 2004 we moved from MI to AZ. We had a home in MI that we refinanced so we could put a down payment on a home in AZ. When we were looking for a house we had excellent credit but already had 1 mortgage, a line of credit, and no jobs (hubby had just gotten back from being deployed to Iraq and his company laid him off when they found out he'd likely be activated.) I thought we'd have a hard time getting loan approval. Instead we were approved for up to $450,000. That had nothing at all to do with a law from 1977 or a law from 1995. It had everything to do with banks who knew they'd make money if we paid our mortgage and they'd make money if we couldn't pay our mortgage and went into foreclosure. That's what caused the problem. Too many people who know nothing about finance were told they could afford up to $400,000 so they looked for houses up to $400,000 without bothering to think things through.
The article I cited (one of many available) points out that only a tiny percentage of loans made during the mortgage boom were subject to the provisions of the CRA. It also includes the data that shows that the default rate for those loans was lower than average. The whole "CRA was responsible for the economic meltdown" meme is so old and has been so discredited that even republicans don't mention it anymore.
If you want to learn about the subprime mortgage crisis and the tactics used to make it happen, read "The Monster" by Michael Hudson of the Wall Street Journal.
I was agreeing with you dear.
I've also been in finance for 20 years. I know more about the subprime mortgage crisis than I care to. I've had to help numerous people restructure their budgets to try to keep their home or to get out of it without taking too major of a hit. 0 -
Only have a minute so short answer here but do you understand finance? Do you know how IPOs work? They are almost always substantially higher on their IPO/within a few days than they are after even a few weeks.
Obamacare will cost money. However, it costs money to have people treat emergency rooms like clinics. All medical care costs money. I just think it's worth a few dollars to keep people alive. I'm pro choice but pro life after they are born. Too bad RR can't say the same or even be pro life after birth. Instead it's "A zygote is a person who deserves all the rights thereof!" then once it's born it's a welfare leech sho should just hurry up and die already.
And fnally, I'm not a liberal but I do love how the righties like to generalize and exaggerate. It's amusing in a sad, pathetic sort of way. I'm actually an independant. I voted McCain in 08. I woted McCain in the primary in 2000. I lived in AZ for 5 years and voted for him every time. I also voted for Sheriff Joe and I think Brewer has done a pretty decent job. In fact, over the past decade I've voted R much more often than not. But the GOP aren't Republicans anymore. I loved Reagan and voted for him too (my first POTUS election actually) But Republicans have turned away from fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Now they are Gays, Guns, and God. They demand fiscal responsibility from the poor and middle class but love the idea of corporate welfare and tax cuts for millionaires. They Bible thump and claim that this is a Christian nation with laws based on the Bible. Reagan would be a liberal hippie by their standards today. He probably wouldn't even pass their "requirements" to make it through the primaries. Give me a Reagan or Goldwater and I'll vote R again. Keep throwing out Romneys and Cantors and Bachmanns and I may well just pull the D lever and call it a day.
GM's IPO occurred back in 2010 not a few weeks ago. Yes I do understand finance. Do you? For example. Google had an IPO price of 85 dollars and 2 years later it was trading around $370. GM's IPO in 2010 was $33. It is now around $20.
I take it from your statement that you are justifying the government take over of our health system. Question. Where do you propose the government get the additional trillion dollars it is going to take to fund this initiative? Medicare has been sucked dry and taxes are already in play for another half a trillion. He still needs to come up with another trillion to make it solvent.
I'll agree Republicans have not been fiscally responsible. The tea party is changing that. You can preach to me about tax cuts to millionaires when every single working individual is paying there fair share. Half the working population pay no income tax so please don't complain about tax cuts for the rich when so many pay no income tax at all.
If you understand finance, you won't pull the D lever unless you are voting on something other than rational.
To get back on topic, Ryan has ideas to save the entitlement programs which if left unchanged will go bankrupt in a number of years. He has co-sponsored a bill with Senator Wyden (D) on Medicare reform proving he is open to working with Democrats on tackling the real issues.0 -
The Republican tax plan is to increase my taxes so that millionaires can get more tax breaks. It would be irrational if I thought that was actually going to be beneficial. You tak about people who pay no taxes at all. Did you know that a lot of millionaires pay no taxes? Did you know that some multi billion corporations (corporations are people too my friend) not only pay no taxes but have a negative tax rate? I'm not going to fret over a waitress who doesn't make enough to pay rent in a slum not paying taxes when the party you plan to vote for wants to give billionaires that same tax rate. Besides, the poor may not pay income taxes but they do pay sales tax and since they use a much larger percentage of their income to buy food, clothes, gas, etc they are paying a much greater percentage than most people.Only have a minute so short answer here but do you understand finance? Do you know how IPOs work? They are almost always substantially higher on their IPO/within a few days than they are after even a few weeks.
Obamacare will cost money. However, it costs money to have people treat emergency rooms like clinics. All medical care costs money. I just think it's worth a few dollars to keep people alive. I'm pro choice but pro life after they are born. Too bad RR can't say the same or even be pro life after birth. Instead it's "A zygote is a person who deserves all the rights thereof!" then once it's born it's a welfare leech sho should just hurry up and die already.
And fnally, I'm not a liberal but I do love how the righties like to generalize and exaggerate. It's amusing in a sad, pathetic sort of way. I'm actually an independant. I voted McCain in 08. I woted McCain in the primary in 2000. I lived in AZ for 5 years and voted for him every time. I also voted for Sheriff Joe and I think Brewer has done a pretty decent job. In fact, over the past decade I've voted R much more often than not. But the GOP aren't Republicans anymore. I loved Reagan and voted for him too (my first POTUS election actually) But Republicans have turned away from fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Now they are Gays, Guns, and God. They demand fiscal responsibility from the poor and middle class but love the idea of corporate welfare and tax cuts for millionaires. They Bible thump and claim that this is a Christian nation with laws based on the Bible. Reagan would be a liberal hippie by their standards today. He probably wouldn't even pass their "requirements" to make it through the primaries. Give me a Reagan or Goldwater and I'll vote R again. Keep throwing out Romneys and Cantors and Bachmanns and I may well just pull the D lever and call it a day.
GM's IPO occurred back in 2010 not a few weeks ago. Yes I do understand finance. Do you? For example. Google had an IPO price of 85 dollars and 2 years later it was trading around $370. GM's IPO in 2010 was $33. It is now around $20.
I take it from your statement that you are justifying the government take over of our health system. Question. Where do you propose the government get the additional trillion dollars it is going to take to fund this initiative? Medicare has been sucked dry and taxes are already in play for another half a trillion. He still needs to come up with another trillion to make it solvent.
I'll agree Republicans have not been fiscally responsible. The tea party is changing that. You can preach to me about tax cuts to millionaires when every single working individual is paying there fair share. Half the working population pay no income tax so please don't complain about tax cuts for the rich when so many pay no income tax at all.
If you understand finance, you won't pull the D lever unless you are voting on something other than rational.
To get back on topic, Ryan has ideas to save the entitlement programs which if left unchanged will go bankrupt in a number of years. He has co-sponsored a bill with Senator Wyden (D) on Medicare reform proving he is open to working with Democrats on tackling the real issues.
Google? Your example is Google? How about something not so extreme? Yes, GM has gone down. Whoop de freakin do. So have a lot of stocks. Many have done very well though. When Obama took over the DOW was about half what it is now.
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will generate around $4 trillion in revenue. Ending corporate welfare would generate around another $167 billion. Give tax breaks to companies who don't outsource and you'll have more jobs and that will create more tax revenue as well (probably why the GOP voted against it. They don't care about the middle class anymore.) Reform welfare. Make it so you have to work or go to school but don't just tell the poor they are f*d because Romney needs a new car elevator. Don't tell teachers they need to pay more in taxes so Romney's rate can fall to that of a kid making min wage part time. Obama has ended the tax havens Romney is so fond of. It was always the law that that money had to be reported. Obama just "gave it teeth" to use a previously used phrase. Romney hiding money in foreign countries is tax evasion. That's why he won't release his tax records - he'd be admitting to a crime. It was never OK to hide money in foreign countries and not declare it.
The TEA party are a bunch of crack pots. They haven't got a plan. They cry that they are "Taxes Enough Already!" as a rally to oust Obama (who cut their taxes) and they want to put in Romney (who will raise their taxes.)
And FYI, Medicare and Social security aren't "entitlement programs" they are things people pay into their etire working lives. Incidentally, another way to raise revenue would be to increase the cap on social security payroll tax.
I would love to hear how you think it's rational to vote for someone who fully intends to raise my taxes so he can pay a lot lower percentage than me though. You seem reasonably intelligent so hopefully you can tell me why I should vote Romney. I've asked a lot of people and the answer is always gays/guns/God or cries of welfare leeches who never return when I start to talk about corporate welfare or Ryan's plan to have Romney pay less than 1% by raising their taxes.0 -
...
And fnally, I'm not a liberal but I do love how the righties like to generalize and exaggerate.
...
haha.. maybe at least one self proclaimed independent likes to generalize as well
0 -
That's not at all what the CRA did. Banks were still discriminating despite it being illegal. The CRA merely gave the Fed some teeth (as you put it) to make sure that a balck couple and a white couple were treated the same. It didn't make the banks give loans to minorities with bad credit unless they would give loans to whites in the same situation. Bottom line - the banks were greedy and wanted the money. They knew that if someone defaulted it worked out to their benefit so they lent money to anyone.The Community reinvestment act came way before the housing bubble.
Indeed it did. 30 years and four recessions before. Blaming the housing bubble on a bill passed 30 years before is what Einstein called "Spooky Action at a Distance." Somehow a bill passed in 1977 has no negative impact for 30 years then suddenly causes a huge bubble. Makes as much sense as believing the universe was created in seven literal days in 4004 BC.
You fail to mention the changes that were made to the CRA in 1995 by President Clinton that strengthened the Federal reserves ability to investigate banks who were not compliant with their CRA performance. The Fed grew teeth during this time and were conducting fair lending reviews while simultaneously conducting CRA evaluations(which were made public). Talk about coercion. The government was strong arming the banks into bad loans. Once Glass-Steagull was partly repealed in 99, the perfect storm was created.
So, in summary, the housing inferno was ignited by Clinton, who pushed for these changes in 1995, and fueled by signing the bill in 1999 repealing Glass-Stegull. Wrap it up with some good ole mortgage backed securities and you have armageddon.
In 2004 we moved from MI to AZ. We had a home in MI that we refinanced so we could put a down payment on a home in AZ. When we were looking for a house we had excellent credit but already had 1 mortgage, a line of credit, and no jobs (hubby had just gotten back from being deployed to Iraq and his company laid him off when they found out he'd likely be activated.) I thought we'd have a hard time getting loan approval. Instead we were approved for up to $450,000. That had nothing at all to do with a law from 1977 or a law from 1995. It had everything to do with banks who knew they'd make money if we paid our mortgage and they'd make money if we couldn't pay our mortgage and went into foreclosure. That's what caused the problem. Too many people who know nothing about finance were told they could afford up to $400,000 so they looked for houses up to $400,000 without bothering to think things through.
The article I cited (one of many available) points out that only a tiny percentage of loans made during the mortgage boom were subject to the provisions of the CRA. It also includes the data that shows that the default rate for those loans was lower than average. The whole "CRA was responsible for the economic meltdown" meme is so old and has been so discredited that even republicans don't mention it anymore.
If you want to learn about the subprime mortgage crisis and the tactics used to make it happen, read "The Monster" by Michael Hudson of the Wall Street Journal.
I was agreeing with you dear. I've also been in finance for 20 years. I know more about the subprime mortgage crisis than I care to. I've had to help numerous people restructure their budgets to try to keep their home or to get out of it without taking too major of a hit.
It took me a minute to realize you were calling me "dear". :blushing: Sorry, I wasn't disagreeing with you--I was agreeing--adding on to your comment disagreeing with the earlier commments--obviously, I did not make that clear enough.
0 -
The Republican tax plan is to increase my taxes so that millionaires can get more tax breaks. It would be irrational if I thought that was actually going to be beneficial. You tak about people who pay no taxes at all. Did you know that a lot of millionaires pay no taxes? Did you know that some multi billion corporations (corporations are people too my friend) not only pay no taxes but have a negative tax rate? I'm not going to fret over a waitress who doesn't make enough to pay rent in a slum not paying taxes when the party you plan to vote for wants to give billionaires that same tax rate. Besides, the poor may not pay income taxes but they do pay sales tax and since they use a much larger percentage of their income to buy food, clothes, gas, etc they are paying a much greater percentage than most people.Only have a minute so short answer here but do you understand finance? Do you know how IPOs work? They are almost always substantially higher on their IPO/within a few days than they are after even a few weeks.
Obamacare will cost money. However, it costs money to have people treat emergency rooms like clinics. All medical care costs money. I just think it's worth a few dollars to keep people alive. I'm pro choice but pro life after they are born. Too bad RR can't say the same or even be pro life after birth. Instead it's "A zygote is a person who deserves all the rights thereof!" then once it's born it's a welfare leech sho should just hurry up and die already.
And fnally, I'm not a liberal but I do love how the righties like to generalize and exaggerate. It's amusing in a sad, pathetic sort of way. I'm actually an independant. I voted McCain in 08. I woted McCain in the primary in 2000. I lived in AZ for 5 years and voted for him every time. I also voted for Sheriff Joe and I think Brewer has done a pretty decent job. In fact, over the past decade I've voted R much more often than not. But the GOP aren't Republicans anymore. I loved Reagan and voted for him too (my first POTUS election actually) But Republicans have turned away from fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Now they are Gays, Guns, and God. They demand fiscal responsibility from the poor and middle class but love the idea of corporate welfare and tax cuts for millionaires. They Bible thump and claim that this is a Christian nation with laws based on the Bible. Reagan would be a liberal hippie by their standards today. He probably wouldn't even pass their "requirements" to make it through the primaries. Give me a Reagan or Goldwater and I'll vote R again. Keep throwing out Romneys and Cantors and Bachmanns and I may well just pull the D lever and call it a day.
GM's IPO occurred back in 2010 not a few weeks ago. Yes I do understand finance. Do you? For example. Google had an IPO price of 85 dollars and 2 years later it was trading around $370. GM's IPO in 2010 was $33. It is now around $20.
I take it from your statement that you are justifying the government take over of our health system. Question. Where do you propose the government get the additional trillion dollars it is going to take to fund this initiative? Medicare has been sucked dry and taxes are already in play for another half a trillion. He still needs to come up with another trillion to make it solvent.
I'll agree Republicans have not been fiscally responsible. The tea party is changing that. You can preach to me about tax cuts to millionaires when every single working individual is paying there fair share. Half the working population pay no income tax so please don't complain about tax cuts for the rich when so many pay no income tax at all.
If you understand finance, you won't pull the D lever unless you are voting on something other than rational.
To get back on topic, Ryan has ideas to save the entitlement programs which if left unchanged will go bankrupt in a number of years. He has co-sponsored a bill with Senator Wyden (D) on Medicare reform proving he is open to working with Democrats on tackling the real issues.
Google? Your example is Google? How about something not so extreme? Yes, GM has gone down. Whoop de freakin do. So have a lot of stocks. Many have done very well though. When Obama took over the DOW was about half what it is now.
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will generate around $4 trillion in revenue. Ending corporate welfare would generate around another $167 billion. Give tax breaks to companies who don't outsource and you'll have more jobs and that will create more tax revenue as well (probably why the GOP voted against it. They don't care about the middle class anymore.) Reform welfare. Make it so you have to work or go to school but don't just tell the poor they are f*d because Romney needs a new car elevator. Don't tell teachers they need to pay more in taxes so Romney's rate can fall to that of a kid making min wage part time. Obama has ended the tax havens Romney is so fond of. It was always the law that that money had to be reported. Obama just "gave it teeth" to use a previously used phrase. Romney hiding money in foreign countries is tax evasion. That's why he won't release his tax records - he'd be admitting to a crime. It was never OK to hide money in foreign countries and not declare it.
The TEA party are a bunch of crack pots. They haven't got a plan. They cry that they are "Taxes Enough Already!" as a rally to oust Obama (who cut their taxes) and they want to put in Romney (who will raise their taxes.)
And FYI, Medicare and Social security aren't "entitlement programs" they are things people pay into their etire working lives. Incidentally, another way to raise revenue would be to increase the cap on social security payroll tax.
I would love to hear how you think it's rational to vote for someone who fully intends to raise my taxes so he can pay a lot lower percentage than me though. You seem reasonably intelligent so hopefully you can tell me why I should vote Romney. I've asked a lot of people and the answer is always gays/guns/God or cries of welfare leeches who never return when I start to talk about corporate welfare or Ryan's plan to have Romney pay less than 1% by raising their taxes.
Couple things...
Obama removed the work requirement for Welfare.
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is an actual middle class tax hike which you seem to be against.
Romney's tax plan lowers the tax rate on everyone. It is supposed to be revenue neutral. In order to be revenue neutral, biased groups have surmised that he will achieve this by removing so many deductions that the middle class ends up with a tax increase. Anyone who actually believes Romney would raise taxes on the middle class while lowering taxes on the rich is crazy. It would guarantee he would only get one term assuming he actually got elected. It fits in with the liberal talking point that republicans hate the middle class so that is why we keep hearing it. What is more likely to happen is Romney either removes the revenue neutral requirement or he cuts spending. That doesn't sound as good as ROMNEY HATES THE MIDDLE CLASS OMG>!
The rich pay a lower effective tax rate then the middle class generally because they derive so much of their income from capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate the income. If you have a problem with the rich paying a lower effective rate then ***** about capital gains taxes. By the way, no tax plan from republicans or democrats makes the capital gains rate equal with the income tax rate so the rich will continue paying a lower effective rate under Obama.0 -
Couple things...
Obama removed the work requirement for Welfare.
This is a lie.0 -
Couple things...
Obama removed the work requirement for Welfare.
This is a lie.
Yes. Right up there with republicans hate the middle class. 0 -
However, you may be a die hard Obama hater in which case let me ask how was your life better under Bush and how do you think it will change from it's present state under Romney?
Why does it have to be compared to Bush? Why does someone have to be a Bush supporter if they don't like Obama? Aren't there just more "generalizations"?
Can't someone simple say Bush screwed me and Obama said he would make it better and is actually making things worse??0 -
However, you may be a die hard Obama hater in which case let me ask how was your life better under Bush and how do you think it will change from it's present state under Romney?
Why does it have to be compared to Bush? Why does someone have to be a Bush supporter if they don't like Obama? Aren't there just more "generalizations"?
Can't someone simple say Bush screwed me and Obama said he would make it better and is actually making things worse??
I make the comparisons soley on the basis that most conservatives who either supported Bush policies or stayed silent oppose Obama for doing a much of the same stuff. The level of hypocrisy is astounding. Also, they are linked because they were both pioneeers politically, being the first of their kind to occupy the White House. Obama was the first black man and Bush was the first retard.0 -
However, you may be a die hard Obama hater in which case let me ask how was your life better under Bush and how do you think it will change from it's present state under Romney?
Why does it have to be compared to Bush? Why does someone have to be a Bush supporter if they don't like Obama? Aren't there just more "generalizations"?
Can't someone simple say Bush screwed me and Obama said he would make it better and is actually making things worse??
I make the comparisons soley on the basis that most conservatives who either supported Bush policies or stayed silent oppose Obama for doing a much of the same stuff. The level of hypocrisy is astounding. Also, they are linked because they were both pioneeers politically, being the first of their kind to occupy the White House. Obama was the first black man and Bush was the first retard.
I particularly annoyed with the hypocrisy HERE in this group. There are plenty of liberals here who rag on Bush yet praise Obama, even when he continues Bush's policies.
We are doomed as a country. BOTH sides are hypocrites and until everyone can move on from that and quite the jabs and name calling (You must watch Fox News because you don't agree with my liberal agenda crap or the Obama birther crap) we will never be able to recover as a country..0 -
I would not even call my job relatively secure, and I get so tired of hearing the notion that Capitalists are heartless, insensitive, money grubbers who want everyone else to suffer.
Like Mandy, I simply believe that my money is mine to keep and do what I choose to do with it. ..
I understand, WildCat. No job is secure these days. And, I too enjoy the routine of American worklife, as it is suppose to be lived and when that work is rewarded appropriately - I don't care if it is peeling a sweet potatoe (the only kind of spud I enjoy these days) or project managing a spaceship. I like having a regular paycheck, being able to drive a decent (not perfect) car, and going an a vacation now and then, same as I like having smooth roads to drive said car, a job to contribute to everyday, on-demand electricity so that I can peel my own spuds, and regular trash pick up to haul the peelings away. What irks me is capitalism run amuck - companys that make a handsome profit but still layoff workers and outsource because they desire, not need, to make more profit. That stinks and it is wrong.
The trouble with Mittens* side-kick Paul Ryan is that while he SAYS he wants to give us more control over our own money, what he ACTS on is giving the corporations more control of your money in the way of deregulation, lack of oversight in all kinds of areas including safety, and all of that. He's NOT working for the middle class but against it. That's why effective wages have gone down down down and people are working more and at lower skill levels than their experience would dictate. Hell, my former company outsourced it's production and then three years later brought it back but without the health benefits and at just above minimum wage. That might be legal but it's far from ethical in my books. Do those workers - either the ones that were laid off during the original outsourcing or the new ones hired when the work was resourced at lower wages and nil benefits - have more or less control over "their" money under these types of laizzes-faire unfair, neoliberal stingy business and government philosophies?
All of the politicians that make it to the top are neoliberals, even beloved Obama, but at least he and his team desire controls and boundaries for the powerful, whereas Mittens and his team want to remake the Wild West out of the business climate. It seems that no politician has been able to run this country since the inroads the Goldwater campaign made that was not a neoliberal, facist, oligarch! :sad: To me this sad fact is less hypocritical than deceptive. We are deceived into thinking we live something entirely different than we do (harken back to the Founding Fathers anyone!), thanks in large part to the relative peace and prosperity this country enjoys.
-Debra
*Thank you SwanneySez for that nickname - I will never look at Romney the same way ever again!!! He's a lot less scary when I call him Mittens. 0 -
However, you may be a die hard Obama hater in which case let me ask how was your life better under Bush and how do you think it will change from it's present state under Romney?
Why does it have to be compared to Bush? Why does someone have to be a Bush supporter if they don't like Obama? Aren't there just more "generalizations"?
Can't someone simple say Bush screwed me and Obama said he would make it better and is actually making things worse??
I make the comparisons soley on the basis that most conservatives who either supported Bush policies or stayed silent oppose Obama for doing a much of the same stuff. The level of hypocrisy is astounding. Also, they are linked because they were both pioneeers politically, being the first of their kind to occupy the White House. Obama was the first black man and Bush was the first retard.
I particularly annoyed with the hypocrisy HERE in this group. There are plenty of liberals here who rag on Bush yet praise Obama, even when he continues Bush's policies.
We are doomed as a country. BOTH sides are hypocrites and until everyone can move on from that and quite the jabs and name calling (You must watch Fox News because you don't agree with my liberal agenda crap or the Obama birther crap) we will never be able to recover as a country..
Oh, I'm in agreement. I have often said here in this group and else where that the Libs have given Obama a pass where the called Bush a Facist for basically the same foreign policy decisions.0 -
Only have a minute so short answer here but do you understand finance? Do you know how IPOs work? They are almost always substantially higher on their IPO/within a few days than they are after even a few weeks.
Obamacare will cost money. However, it costs money to have people treat emergency rooms like clinics. All medical care costs money. I just think it's worth a few dollars to keep people alive. I'm pro choice but pro life after they are born. Too bad RR can't say the same or even be pro life after birth. Instead it's "A zygote is a person who deserves all the rights thereof!" then once it's born it's a welfare leech sho should just hurry up and die already.
And fnally, I'm not a liberal but I do love how the righties like to generalize and exaggerate. It's amusing in a sad, pathetic sort of way. I'm actually an independant. I voted McCain in 08. I woted McCain in the primary in 2000. I lived in AZ for 5 years and voted for him every time. I also voted for Sheriff Joe and I think Brewer has done a pretty decent job. In fact, over the past decade I've voted R much more often than not. But the GOP aren't Republicans anymore. I loved Reagan and voted for him too (my first POTUS election actually) But Republicans have turned away from fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Now they are Gays, Guns, and God. They demand fiscal responsibility from the poor and middle class but love the idea of corporate welfare and tax cuts for millionaires. They Bible thump and claim that this is a Christian nation with laws based on the Bible. Reagan would be a liberal hippie by their standards today. He probably wouldn't even pass their "requirements" to make it through the primaries. Give me a Reagan or Goldwater and I'll vote R again. Keep throwing out Romneys and Cantors and Bachmanns and I may well just pull the D lever and call it a day.
GM's IPO occurred back in 2010 not a few weeks ago. Yes I do understand finance. Do you? For example. Google had an IPO price of 85 dollars and 2 years later it was trading around $370. GM's IPO in 2010 was $33. It is now around $20.
IPOs (and stocks in general, for that matter) have little bearing in a company's actual value, but rather, a perceived value. It's this perceived value that is a big catalyst for these economic issues. (Remember, it was the crashing of the stock market on Black Tuesday, that started the Great Depression to begin with. The week prior was rocky, which started prompting people to sell, the more people sold, the more others sold, and it spiraled from there.)
Case in point - Facebook. They IPO'd at $38. Today's stock price (as of this writing)? $19.80. The IPO was based on a perceived value, but has declined as shareholders realize that Facebook already has a very high market saturation, which means it doesn't have much growth potential with its current strategy, even though, as a private company, Facebook is hugely successful. I suspect it will continue to decline until they can come up with a revenue model that will make the shareholders happy.
Another good example - Apple. Prior to the Windows Vista launch, they were somewhere around $50. After Vista launch, they were in the $200 ballpark. I suspect we'll see a similar jump when WIndows 8 launches. It also fluctuated when Jobs passed away. The change had nothing to do with any changes in the company's quality of product, or actual performance, but a speculation of how well it will do in the coming months.0 -
To get back on topic, Ryan has ideas to save the entitlement programs which if left unchanged will go bankrupt in a number of years. He has co-sponsored a bill with Senator Wyden (D) on Medicare reform proving he is open to working with Democrats on tackling the real issues.
Ryan is not interested in "saving" anything--his plans are nothing more than the first (and not so first) steps at dismantling them completely. You are free to agree with that position, but it is dishonest IMO to pretend that it is anything different.
And recent comments by Senator Wyden differ substantially (like 180 degrees) from your last statement. When Romney recently stated that Ryan and Wyden has co-sponsored legislation, Wyden replied:“Governor Romney is talking nonsense," Wyden said in an emailed statement Saturday night. "Bipartisanship requires that you not make up the facts. I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.' I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare."
In an earlier piece, Wyden also disabused the notion that he was working with Ryan on any legislative approach:In the opinion piece, the Oregon senator clearly stated that the Wyden-Ryan approach was “simply a policy paper intended to start a conversation about how Democrats and Republicans might work together to uphold the Medicare Guarantee" and made it clear the proposal would in no way eliminate the traditional Medicare plan.0 -
Talking ealier about why we vote and for what made me think of this old Bill Hicks video talking about GHWB.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j_2pHFlDgY 0 -
But here is the interesting question, one I find myself facing often in politics. If Ryan is offering you a tax cut, but is opposite of you socially like with gay marriage or a seperation of church and state....are you willing to to trample civil liberties for some cash?
Thank you for bringing this up - I'm genuinely interested in responses, especially of fiscal conservatives that may not be so socially conservative.
Bottom line, is that if that money were back in my hands and I wanted to use it to help Planned Parenthood provide services for women without the means to do it themselves, I could.
I also write my congresspeople, local and state level, and let them know how I feel about the job they are doing. Typically they are asking for them to remain focused on the economic issues facing our country over the social issues.
Libertarians believe in personal liberty more than any other party. And for me personally, I know it would take a LOT for Roe-v-Wade to ever be overturned in the Supreme Court. I also feel that abortion and immigration issues should be decided at the state level. I'm more of a Statist. If those social issues were decided at the state level, we could focus more on those elections that affect us day to day.0 -
Also, they are linked because they were both pioneeers politically, being the first of their kind to occupy the White House. Obama was the first black man and Bush was the first retard.
Wow. Do we really go here on this site?
What rock do you live under that you don't understand that is not an acceptable word to use flippantly?
I'm pretty un-PC as they come, but this statement crosses a line. I cannot take anything you say seriously after seeing you write this.0 -
Also, they are linked because they were both pioneeers politically, being the first of their kind to occupy the White House. Obama was the first black man and Bush was the first retard.
Wow. Do we really go here on this site?
What rock do you live under that you don't understand that is not an acceptable word to use flippantly?
I'm pretty un-PC as they come, but this statement crosses a line. I cannot take anything you say seriously after seeing you write this.
I appologize. I'll rewrite it do appease your sensitivity.
Also, they are linked because they were both pioneeers politically, being the first of their kind to occupy the White House. Obama was the first African-American man and Bush was the first retard.0 -
Also, they are linked because they were both pioneeers politically, being the first of their kind to occupy the White House. Obama was the first black man and Bush was the first retard.
Wow. Do we really go here on this site?
What rock do you live under that you don't understand that is not an acceptable word to use flippantly?
I'm pretty un-PC as they come, but this statement crosses a line. I cannot take anything you say seriously after seeing you write this.
I appologize. I'll rewrite it do appease your sensitivity.
Also, they are linked because they were both pioneeers politically, being the first of their kind to occupy the White House. Obama was the first African-American man and Bush was the first retard.
Oh. My. :laugh: I just about choked on my water.. You make me speechless.
Wildcat, you and Adrian are two of my favorites on my friends list! I hate that we all can't agree on everything.
0
This discussion has been closed.