Are we a supure power or not

Now when this whole down turn in the usa econ we to hell alot of people wanted to blame it on hard working who say a chance to buy a home. Now the after math shows that the whole world is fucked up fin. What say you. Still blame the people wanted better for the dollar they spend mind you if you rent a apt its about what you pay if you buy. However want % you get to pay for the you pay at least 2 times what you agreed to pay for the home. What say you

The USA is still the only superpower in the world. The current administration, as per the direction most liberals and socialists tend to do, want to bring the USA down to the level of the other nations of the world, rather than encouraging the other nations of the world to come up to our level. If the Bamster succeeds, then the USA will no longer be a superpower - but unlike other nations, we use our superpower status for the betterment of the world and to help nations that are not as powerful as ours, rather than to seize territory and suppress. Pardon my idealized view of the USA, but that's how I see the USA. The Bamster is quickly changing that view.

The USA is still the only superpower in the world. The current administration, as per the direction most liberals and socialists tend to do, want to bring the USA down to the level of the other nations of the world, rather than encouraging the other nations of the world to come up to our level. If the Bamster succeeds, then the USA will no longer be a superpower - but unlike other nations, we use our superpower status for the betterment of the world and to help nations that are not as powerful as ours, rather than to seize territory and suppress. Pardon my idealized view of the USA, but that's how I see the USA. The Bamster is quickly changing that view. Originally Posted by fritz3552

Couldn't agree more!

What a load of crap!

We are and we will remain the world's leader because of our focus on freedom and our entreprenurial spirit. This has not and will not ever change.

This Socialist crap is just carping and a lot of superficial background noise. If there was no TARP, Stimulus package, Health Care, Financial Reform and all the other initiatives we would be sitting here just as they did under Herbert Hoover. Roosevelt took the same crap in his time too.

Corporate earnings are setting records this quarter, GM and Chrysler are saved, banks are paying back the bailout and when the GM IPO goes out they will make money on the stock warrants. Just put $30 billion of the TARP for small regional banks with incentives to loan to small businesses to generate jobs and growth.

Winding down in IRAQ, and Afghanistan has a chance. Check out how the counterinsurgency tactics are removing Taliban and Al Qaida leadership. Gotta love those drones.

Not everything worked. But in times of crisis you throw a lot of shit on the wall and hope some sticks. A lot more positive than negative in my opinion.

You guys have got the "malaise" that Carter talked about and I tend to think in more positive terms.

We're still a superpower, but for the first time in my life, I can see a time coming where we will not be.

"If there was no TARP, Stimulus package, Health Care, Financial Reform and all the other initiatives we would be sitting here just as they did under Herbert Hoover"

Seriously, Healthcare and Financial Reform have not had enough time to save us from Hoovervilles yet...good grief, Financial Reform was signed earlier this week, so its a little early to declare that it saved us.
In fact, I have a little hunch that those will prove to be very counter-productive.

"Roosevelt took the same crap in his time too"...yep, and he deserved every single bit of it.

Roosevelt deserved crap for trying to pack the Supreme Court but it is hard to fault the public works projects that gave employment to many including my father who was a logger, apple picker, and truck driver until he got a regular job.

The path is upward in my opinion.

Wish I could figure out jobs but I can't.

I read or heard the other day that in the Fortune 500 group they have accumulated over $3 Trillion dollars of cash in the bank. Waiting for a clearer picture before they invest or spend it.

Better than 3 times the stimulus amount and if they let it go we will see jobs.

my only comment on this is: GM paid back its loan (supposedly), why does the government still own 51 of GM, if they are not interested in owning private business why do they still own it and more importantly why hasnt someone asked them why they still own it. I did not check the percentage of ownership, so if its not 51% chalk it up to not taking the time to check.

"I read or heard the other day that in the Fortune 500 group they have accumulated over $3 Trillion dollars of cash in the bank"

I read that too...and that is a very bad thing. Assuming our money supply hasn't ballooned last week, this means there is $3 trillion Not in the economy. Uncertainty has caused this: banks are nervous to lend, and small businesses are nervous to borrow. Ex Congressman J.C. Watts gave a good presentation on this concept several years ago in Topeka. His theory is that capital runs away from uncertainty. (Watts btw was an AA republican congressman who backed Obama).

What is causing this uncertainty? Methinks when the speaker of the house makes statements like 'we'll have to wait until we pass the healthcare bill, before we can see whats in it', it creates uncertainty. Lots of little nuggets are now coming out of the healthcare bill...and most expect the recently passed financial reform bill will have even more (btw, how did we pass a reform bill that ignored Fannie and Freddie completely?). And the 'blue ribbon deficit commission' is scheduled to make its report conveniently right after the mid term elections...hello VAT. And of course, portions of the Bush tax cuts will expire, and others will be retained...and this all seems to be scheduled to be done by executive fiat, rather than congressional action...you guessed it, uncertainty.

So, yes, banks have alot of money...but that is not a good thing. Predictability in the economy would get this money released to the economy, which would be a good thing.

A superpower is a nation that can project its power, both militarily and economically, anywhere in the world. The United States is the only nation on Earth (not "The Planet," there are at least 7 other planets out there) that meets that definition. China is coming up fast, but they aren't there yet. But not even a superpower can project power everywhere in the world simultaneously. After the Cold War ended the Clinton Administration wanted a "Peace Dividend" to come out of the DOD budget. The result was the end of the "two wars" model of military staffing/weapons needs. Prior to that we kept enough troops and firepower on hand to fight two major regional conflicts simultaneously; this model shifted to one war and one holding action. We've paid the price for that drawdown in Iraq & Afghanistan.

DD - if you read the terms under which GM repaid the loan it was from Tarp funds. All they did was take the tarp funds and pay off the formal loan. They still owe the same amount they did the previous day. It is just out of one bucket an into another. the commercials are word games.

As far as super power I would agree that we are the only one left but i would offer the thought that its only because we still have nukes pointed at people and we send so much aid around the world. If we took all that aid and brought it home to pay off the debt the world wouldn't think the same about us. As with most thing its all about the money and how much you can give.

"DD - if you read the terms under which GM repaid the loan it was from Tarp funds. All they did was take the tarp funds and pay off the formal loan. They still owe the same amount they did the previous day. It is just out of one bucket an into another. the commercials are word games."

Well I really knew that but didnt want to start a debate over that when my point was the Gov still owns the company but they dont believe in a socaliam. Its funny though how they played up for the press to demostrate how the bail out were working LOL. I think I am going to open a checkign account at commerce bank, borrow money from Bank of American, use the commerce account to pay the Bank of American loan, of course there will be no money in the Commerce account. Man I love government accounting, I am going to be rich.

Roosevelt deserved crap for trying to pack the Supreme Court but it is hard to fault the public works projects that gave employment to many including my father who was a logger, apple picker, and truck driver until he got a regular job. Originally Posted by catnipdipper

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was one of the very few programs that Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) did that worked to a limited degree. Significant National Park infrastructure was built that has lasted a very long time. FDR also created the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) authorized to build a hydroelectric plant providing inexpensive power to fuel economic recovery. He deserves credit for those programs.

But the negatives of the FDR legacy VASTLY outweigh the positives.

Entitlement Programs (and the interest from the debt they caused) make up 94.2% of our current income. Worse, those programs are "untouchable" by our career politicians. Those programs including Social Security and Food Stamp Program (aka Welfare) implemented by FDR and have eaten our economy from the inside out over several decades. The damage was not only in the money spent and unfathomable debt amassed, but in creating a "Me First" society who has become hopelessly dependent on those financially devastating programs.

FDR also abandoned the gold standard, allowing the US Government to "print money" for free, starting the process of deflating the value of the US dollar over time.

Obamacare has the potential to become the final nail in the coffin, but only because FDR's programs have already destroyed our society's willingness to work hard and make the sacrifices necessary to recover.

The single greatest harm to the US economy in history lies directly at the feet of Democrat Franklin D Roosevelt. Everything else pales in comparison.

Damn I love when I post a thread that brings out the minds keep posting let me get drunk & think of the next thread.

... the people wanted better for the dollar they spend mind you if you rent a apt its about what you pay if you buy. However want % you get to pay for the you pay at least 2 times what you agreed to pay for the home. What say you Originally Posted by Cheaper2buyit

Depending on the interest rate and the length of the loan, you are correct. You pay roughly double the price of the house over the course of the loan.

However, as you point out your monthly payment is the same for the mortgage as the rent. And you get two important benefits (a) you can deduct the mortgage interest on your taxes, and (b) once you pay to the end of the term (15, 20, 30 years) you own it and don't have to make rent or mortgage payments.

But not everyone can see that far ahead.


AND NOW FOR THE DETAILS OF HOW IT'S DONE:

If you are moving in the next 5 years (most people do now) you are better off renting. Interest rates are the lowest they've been in decades. If you plan to stay in your current city for more than 5 years, then determine your current monthly rent amount (say $800/mo) and see what house price you can afford for a 15 year loan with that mortgage payment. For example, a $633/mo mortgage payment will allow me to buy a $80,000 house in 15-years at 5% interest. If insurance and taxes are $167/mo, the the payment is $800/mo. Then figure out how to minimize your lifestyle to live in a house of that price and find it and buy it. You get the income tax deduction for the interest and after the 15 years, you own the house!

Then instead of that $800/mo current payment, you only pay the insurance and taxes (about $167/mo). FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE!

And by doing it over 15-years, your total payment is 180 months x $633 = $113,940 which is only $33,940 more than the $80,000 instead of the double ($160,000 total) you indicated.

I'm not trying to be argumentative (and I know the topic has strayed), but keep an eye on the standard deduction, when purchasing a house. Here in the midwest, housing costs so much less than on the coasts, that many homeowners do not pay enouth interest and taxes to exceed even the standard deduction - especially somebody in a 15 year loan.

And another consideration: the mortgage interest deduction is on the 'chopping block', and frankly I don't see it being here ten years from now.

Add to this the outlook that home values are not expected to outpace inflation (as they did for nearly 15 years) in the foreseeable future.

I do agree with Biggest - if you can't swing a 15 year loan in today's environment...wait until you can.

Now I think Cheaper's original comments were that people were being blamed for trying to own their own home. The banks didn't help this situation, and congress didn't either with the winks and nods that Fannie and Freddie were guaranteed...but we also went through a period of time where home buyers were very 'unspophisticated'. By that I mean, many people entered into mortgage agreements with no idea how high the ARM could go, no idea what the ultimate payoff for the home could be, no clear idea of what the real tax implications of home ownership were...and most importantly, no understanding that the value of the home could actually go down, as time progressed. I'd love to see these types of real life subjects be covered in high school....instead of classes on how to 'build your credit'.