Political Discussion thread

Home ownership is something Americans consider almost universally as a good thing. A government program to help low income people achieve the goal of home ownership is a laudible idea. How many of the WWII generation wouldn't have been able to buy a home, or go to college, without government help( loans). What wasn't an intention of the repeal- of the glass steagall act was for financial institution to create instruments so complex that no one knew who owned and was owed what. Consumers expecting 10 to 20% appreciation in the value of their homes while putting nothing down certainly made the situation worse. The collusion between the lending and appraisal industry alone had more of a negative effect on the housing market than the loans made to low income people.




Do you think it's fair we tax work at a higher rate than investment?




If a better deal isn't reached, the expiration of bush tax cuts will bring in about $500 billion in new tax revenue and the agreed to spending cuts would be $130 billion. This would cut the deficit in half without considering the benefits of an improving economy. The tax rates would be back to the clinton era, When we ran a surplus. Seems like a pretty good Idea to me, what do you think?
Originally Posted by drluv1

I wish I knew how to duplicate quotes. But here goes.


First point regarding the housing market collapse, it has been debated what happened to cause it. Best info shows low income earners buying houses with bidding wars driving up prices because it was the same as paying their rent so why not. It was a crazy time. When the bubble burst and rent was lower due to less demand people left causing the massive decline and correction. having rental property out of state this is what happened to me.




I do think it's ok for earned vs unearned income to be taxed at different rates. Some Liberals want the rates to be the same. For Romney who has no earned income to pay 35% of investment income. His investments are from after tax dollars and help make this country grow. he takes the investment risk. When they lose money it's limited to a net 3000 / year deduction with the balance of the net losses carried forward. If you bought your house for 50,000 and sold it years later for 150,000 should you pay 35,000 in federal taxes? I do believe in Obamacare there is a home sale federal sales tax that goes into effect if not this January 1st then 2014




On this last point I have said to quite a few people let them expire. Let the social security reduction expire. (that one never made sense to me). Lets see that fiscal cliff. We would be a stronger nation. Maybe not with the defense cuts but they will survive. For me to agree with your idea must have you rethinking that.


But I do have a question. Last time the Bush cuts were discussed and Obama kept them as is, he stated the recovery and economy were too slow to increase taxes. The economy data is worse now than it was back then but now it's ok to raise rates on the wealthy. Interesting.

I wish I knew how to duplicate quotes. But here goes.


First point regarding the housing market collapse, it has been debated what happened to cause it. Best info shows low income earners buying houses with bidding wars driving up prices because it was the same as paying their rent so why not. It was a crazy time. When the bubble burst and rent was lower due to less demand people left causing the massive decline and correction. having rental property out of state this is what happened to me.




I do think it's ok for earned vs unearned income to be taxed at different rates. Some Liberals want the rates to be the same. For Romney who has no earned income to pay 35% of investment income. His investments are from after tax dollars and help make this country grow. he takes the investment risk. When they lose money it's limited to a net 3000 / year deduction with the balance of the net losses carried forward. If you bought your house for 50,000 and sold it years later for 150,000 should you pay 35,000 in federal taxes? I do believe in Obamacare there is a home sale federal sales tax that goes into effect if not this January 1st then 2014




On this last point I have said to quite a few people let them expire. Let the social security reduction expire. (that one never made sense to me). Lets see that fiscal cliff. We would be a stronger nation. Maybe not with the defense cuts but they will survive. For me to agree with your idea must have you rethinking that.


But I do have a question. Last time the Bush cuts were discussed and Obama kept them as is, he stated the recovery and economy were too slow to increase taxes. The economy data is worse now than it was back then but now it's ok to raise rates on the wealthy. Interesting. Originally Posted by montana1958

In response to your question, What is "back then"? the economy is at it's strongest point since 2008. If you mean the deficit, I guess you don't realize the deficit from bush's last budget, ending oct 2009, was 1.2 trillion. The deficit numbers increased because of the recession and because Obama is being honest about the numbers. Remember bush didn't include the cost of the wars in his numbers because they weren't"ongoing expenditures".
I guess you don't think when middle and class people pay less in taxes, that their extra spending power doesn't translate into economic growth. How much do romney's foreign investments and sheltered income in the cayman's help US economic growth? Moreover, how much does his company's movement of jobs overseas contribute to US economic growth? To me it seems like people like romney are a net loss for the US economy.
It appears you made a miscalculation in the out of state housing market. Don't feel bad, a lot of people did. It is agreed that the low income purchasers did drive up demand and thus prices. Speculators,such as yourself, drove up prices much more. Banks made it very easy to do so,but also did it in a very irresponsible way. Not too long ago, banks wanted at least 5% down. Before the crash they were doing no income verification loans,that doesn't seem like a very wise business practice to me. Of course they didn't care, they knew the government would bail them out.
"Maybe not with the defense cuts"? There is more waste in the defense dept than in all the rest of the government combined. I'm surprised all of the anti-socialism crowd never wants reform in the defense procurement process. Guaranteed profit margins and insurance from cost overruns, that's hardly free market. While republicans where whinning about the bad $500 million to solandra(sp?), they said nothing about the 1billion cost overrun on a warship that happened at about the same time. What ever happened to that $12 billion in cash that was shipped to Iraq at the beginning of the war? last I heard it still wasn't accounted for. I saw tom coburn, sen from OK, on tv a few weeks ago, outlining 1 trillion in defense cuts over 10 years. I say that's a good start. Even better would be to reduce it to 2000 levels like reps want to do with the rest of the budget. Defense and war spending have been the biggest driver's of the debt since reagan started the defense build-up over 30 years ago.
Still can't give me the greatest force in economic growth in the last 30 years? I'll give you a hint, you're using some form of it right now.

In response to your question, What is "back then"? the economy is at it's strongest point since 2008.






It appears you made a miscalculation in the out of state housing market. Don't feel bad, a lot of people did. It is agreed that the low income purchasers did drive up demand and thus prices. Speculators,such as yourself, drove up prices much more.





"Maybe not with the defense cuts"?





Still can't give me the greatest force in economic growth in the last 30 years? I'll give you a hint, you're using some form of it right now.
Originally Posted by drluv1

Job creation and economic growth are both weaker now than they were in 2010 when Obama said the economy was to fragile to raise taxes on anyone. You can't look at the first reported numbers, you need to look at when they are corrected the next week when they are lowered. So back then was 2010


I've had properties in two hard hit areas but have owned them for 15 years so I was ok. I was very very happy when they increased in value and am confident at some point they will return to pre crash values. But rentals were affected but have returned to a good level. I consider myself an investor not a speculator. I almost did sell one of them to get the inflated price and kick myself now for not doing it but will remember for next time.



As for the defense cuts did you read what I said? I agree let the fiscall cliff reduce the defense budget. It may harm them some but they will survive and learn to cut the waste.



Can you give me another hint?





.

Job creation and economic growth are both weaker now than they were in 2010 when Obama said the economy was to fragile to raise taxes on anyone. You can't look at the first reported numbers, you need to look at when they are corrected the next week when they are lowered. So back then was 2010


I've had properties in two hard hit areas but have owned them for 15 years so I was ok. I was very very happy when they increased in value and am confident at some point they will return to pre crash values. But rentals were affected but have returned to a good level. I consider myself an investor not a speculator. I almost did sell one of them to get the inflated price and kick myself now for not doing it but will remember for next time.



As for the defense cuts did you read what I said? I agree let the fiscall cliff reduce the defense budget. It may harm them some but they will survive and learn to cut the waste.



Can you give me another hint?





. Originally Posted by montana1958

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, I thought I pretty much gave it away with my hint, but advancements in computer technology have been the single greatest positive factor for economic growth since the time of reagan. Cutting taxes and unwise spending have lead to nothing but debt and if you've ever been in trouble with your credit cards(or bookie), you know how quickly things can get out of control. If the economy hadn't crashed, Obama still would have inherited $7 to 800 billion deficits,with 2 wars to still pay for(read an ONGOING expense). Our soldiers sacrificed for the country, but god forbid the rest of us should.
If the voices of fiscal conservatism had voiced themselves half as loud 10 years ago as they do today, the country would be in much better shape. Remember the days of $250 surpluses? Remember when paying off the debt was a realistic goal? I wasn't stupid enough to believe that we would never have a downturn, but with a surplus, we could at least absorb some of the shock of one.Then came hurricane bush and it all got blown away.

i don't have all the details memorized, but the mortgage crisis was a result of people getting a second loan in addition to the mortgage to support a down payment on house to avoid having to pay addition mortgage insurance, and the mortgage brokers aided the process... if there was mortgage insurance, the banks would have been fine when foreclosures occurred

you will see a correlation of rising gas prices preceding mortgage failures, as people maxed out mortgages and when the fuel prices increased, and other economic pressures, foreclosures occurred at a higher rate, and rapidly falling real estate values, and the % of those without mortgage insurance, the banks took a beating, and their political power the banks had, got a bail out.

The housing market/banking crisis was created by the Carter administration, exacerbated by the Clinton administration, and came to fruition during the Bush and Obama administrations. Not a democrat or republican thing, but any time the government intervenes in private business, it ALWAYS seems to go to shit.

I found the following on another website and thought I would rip it off and share.



What did the Framers of the U.S. Constitution consider the role of government to be?

original role of federal government - United States


Having experienced mistreatment at the hands of the British government, writers of the United States Constitution were careful to limit the powers of government and protect the rights of individuals. The primary purpose of federal government was to:


1. Defend the shores

2. Establish a system of currency

3. Deliver the mail

4. Protect individual rights

Consider Amendment X, the last in the Bill of Rights:

Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

both parties have contributed to the debt, bush and the wars and the free medicaid prescription plan that alll republicans in the house and senate voted for, free spending because thier guy was in charge.
then obama came in a collpase of the markets 401ks declining and the free market u republicans love to talk about the banks go to the government and say bail us out or ur economy is gone, so no choice but corporate welfare hits us taxpayers and we bail them out and yes you republicans love that and say its ok, and then we have an economy improving slowly but at least were not losing jobs per month like we were at the end of the bush term,but i dont agree with all of obamas policys harldy many actually but the man inherited a friggin mess, but i dont think raising tax rates is going to fix the debt, reform the whole tax rate and cut the loop holes out and cut all foreign spending and then cut every govt program by 10 percent for 4 years, and youll see the debt we have go down, get out of the middle east and take that money and pay off the debt and lets move on.
clinton raised tax rates and had a surplus but i dont think were in a .com era of jobs and tech right now, so i would lower all tax rates and get more people working and of course fix the immigration get everyone on the books and paying taxes if they are not criminals, if they have a criminal record send them back home
things will get better, this country always prevails, and we will continue, but the constand bickering of both parties is what is hurting us, compromise is a part of life, and they both need to do it.

look at whats going on now, number one issue is our debt crisis and u got war hongers mccain and graham want to have hearings on libya right away, u can get your hearings but not until i get a debt deal other wise stop waisting our money on burecratic bs because the president is not from your party, ie, when bush was in charge the republicans would not allow iraq hearings after powell was lied to about wmd and of course the dems wanted them because it wasnt thier guy in charge.
enough of the bs and get a debt deal, that is all that matters right now, we can get to libya after that.

Obama's Southeast Asia Trip All Style, No Substance <click here>

I found this article interesting.

as usual:

what else is there to do ?

Bush fucked up this country so bad ,

obama cant fix it, so mies well go on vacation

enough of the bs and get a debt deal, that is all that matters right now, we can get to libya after that.
Originally Posted by bjwstw

Will we ever have a President again? We have a re-elected Obama who is still campaigning. Three weeks after the election he does have his pen in hand to sign a bill. He still campaigns on raising taxes on the wealthy but never discusses the cuts that need to be made. During a debate it was asked if a 10 to 1 spending cuts to raising taxes bill was put forward would Republicans support it. We all remember the answer was no. Now Republicans are leaning towards more revenue but where is the leadership from our President to lead the debate on those 10 to 1 cuts. Or 5 to 1 cuts. Or 3 to 1 cuts. Going from 35% to 39% is a drop in the deficet bucket. He never mentions cuts of any kind. Tax increases are immediate while in the past cuts were in the future and never happen. Does everyone realize the 2% tax holiday is ending on 12/31? That means for everyone earning it's estimated for 2013 under $112,500 will be taxed an extra 2%. There is no mention of continuing this rate cut. They say this fiscal cliff is approaching. I believe it has come and gone many years ago. I understand the two big ticket items are the huge military spending cuts and the tax rate increase we will all face if the current tax rates are raised, but I think the unfunded liability of over 85 trillion is and will be our downfall if not addressed. There is no money on hand to pay next years social security recipients their monthly check. No money for the year after. And the year after that. Into the future as far as we know.

So how do we get a debt deal when our leader is not leading. He is the President. Not a Senator or Congressman. The President. Pin your ears back and come up with some ideas. Taxing more and keep spending will not work.


.

Will we ever have a President again? We have a re-elected Obama who is still campaigning. Originally Posted by montana1958

Still paying heed to the truth-tellers who had you convinced that it would be Romney in a landslide, i see.

They say this fiscal cliff is approaching. I believe it has come and gone many years ago. Originally Posted by montana1958

I am right there with ya brother! Too little too late I say. I think we hit the fiscal cliff back somewhere between 1985 and 1995.

Doove will love that one. I put a range when there was both parties in the oval office. Chew on that!

Will we ever have a President again? We have a re-elected Obama who is still campaigning. Three weeks after the election he does have his pen in hand to sign a bill. He still campaigns on raising taxes on the wealthy but never discusses the cuts that need to be made. During a debate it was asked if a 10 to 1 spending cuts to raising taxes bill was put forward would Republicans support it. We all remember the answer was no. Now Republicans are leaning towards more revenue but where is the leadership from our President to lead the debate on those 10 to 1 cuts. Or 5 to 1 cuts. Or 3 to 1 cuts. Going from 35% to 39% is a drop in the deficet bucket. He never mentions cuts of any kind. Tax increases are immediate while in the past cuts were in the future and never happen. Does everyone realize the 2% tax holiday is ending on 12/31? That means for everyone earning it's estimated for 2013 under $112,500 will be taxed an extra 2%. There is no mention of continuing this rate cut. They say this fiscal cliff is approaching. I believe it has come and gone many years ago. I understand the two big ticket items are the huge military spending cuts and the tax rate increase we will all face if the current tax rates are raised, but I think the unfunded liability of over 85 trillion is and will be our downfall if not addressed. There is no money on hand to pay next years social security recipients their monthly check. No money for the year after. And the year after that. Into the future as far as we know.

So how do we get a debt deal when our leader is not leading. He is the President. Not a Senator or Congressman. The President. Pin your ears back and come up with some ideas. Taxing more and keep spending will not work.


. Originally Posted by montana1958

Obama still campaigning? explain

You must be an american, because you want it both ways. On one hand you complain that the 2% temporary SOCIAL SECURITY tax cut is going to expire and on the other hand you warn of 85trillion in unfunded liabilities which SS is a considerable part. Do you see the relationship between the two?
From time to time you hear moments of candor from politicians. Over the years I've heard many, from both sides of the aisle, say that americans are going to have to take their medicine, you can take it now or later. We've consistently put it off. going off the cliff would contract the economy 4 or 5%, raise unemployment by a percent or so. But the deficit would be cut in half. And there not talking HUGE cuts, 110 billion out of 3.5 trillion, 3%. They could easily cut that from the military alone. Hopefully some serious cuts, with the military taking their fair share, result from this so taxes don't get raised too much to get our deficit under at least managable level. But if we get one of these deals where the reign in future growth and promise to cut spending in the future, We'd probably be better off going off the cliff.
Simpson-boles is a pretty good plan, too bad any republican that supports it would have to break their pledge to grover norquist and that's the biggest reason it was never really taken seriously and why we are facing this fiscal cliff.