Rush Limbaugh the Conservative leader.

[Gtrght77]

Emanual said today that Rush is the leader of the GOP and anyone who offends him has to grovel for his forgiveness. I somewhat agree because he controls the crazies ( Ie. the Supdogs) who control the GOP. They are already in "Praying Obama will fail mode".

Saw a speach where Rush says Conservatives love people. LOL

Except:
Gays, Blacks, Muslims, Athiests, Liberals. :p



GOPs message in all of this.



DO NOTHING. LOL

THey are past more of the same, they just want to do nothing.

[FootballMecca]

Emanual said today that Rush is the leader of the GOP and anyone who offends him has to grovel for his forgiveness


Finally a white Al Sharpton :D

[TheSphinx 2.0]

Emanual said today that Rush is the leader of the GOP and anyone who offends him has to grovel for his forgiveness. I somewhat agree because he controls the crazies ( Ie. the Supdogs) who control the GOP. They are already in "Praying Obama will fail mode".

Saw a speach where Rush says Conservatives love people. LOL

Except:
Gays, Blacks, Muslims, Athiests, Liberals. :p



GOPs message in all of this.



DO NOTHING. LOL

THey are past more of the same, they just want to do nothing.

I am a democrat who voted for him and I don't agree with him. If you are against big government because you think it is actually harmful then you should want his policies to grow government to fail. You can have smart people on both side of the argument who genually see the world differently. Neither of them is a "crazy". They just have different beliefs and they should want the opposite beliefs to not be successful. . (I am not saying Rush is "smart"...because I actually think he is a liar...but I also think Olberman, Matthers, Hannity, Huffington, Coulter, Franken and all the rest of them are liars too).

I am pro-life. I hope he fails at his desire to expand abortion rights. Does that make me a right-wing crazy as well. I am against him bailing out the banks and people who made bad decisions as well. Does that mean I want to do "nothing"? I think that if you let it take its course and all the government does is make sure that the capital market is functioning then we will come of out this better than if we try to cover up the root problem with debt (because that is all this will do...cover it up until it unravels again). Does that mean I want more of the same as before?

I am a democrat and I believe the GOP is right on this one (I believed they were dead wrong on a lot over the last 8 years). If you can provide me with any example of a country that has borrowed its way to prosperity then I will concede defeat. Just like I complained about borrowing endlessly to finance the Iraq war I will argue that borrowing endlessly to bail out banks is a sure way to wreck the underpinnings of the country.

I am not sure why people think doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing. Come on everybody lets run in the wrong direction just so we can say we are running...That just makes no sense.

My main frustration with the people in America is that there world is burning underneath them and they are more interested in taking pot shots at the other political party. I just don't get it. While people and CNN and every other news agency are focusing on who made the latest gaff and who said what about the next person politicians are slowly clawing in more power and more control.

Another thing that frustrates me is that over the last 8 years I was shocked at how some republicans would argue that everything Bush did was right 9even when he was doing things that were 180% opposite of the republican agenda). They didn't care...the answer was if Bush did it it must be right and anybody who disagreed with him hated America. I hoped that when Dems got in power it would be different. But I see it is not. Dems are acting just like the republicans did. If Obama says it it must be true and anybody who disagrees with him is a crazy closeted bigot who just doesn't like him because he is black. I guess the more things change the more they stay the same

Seriously think about it...while hard working people like you and me are losing everything we worked hard for the Chief of Staff of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is talking about radio commentator. How pathetic.

-TS

[dsteve]

gtrght or whatever his name is, youre ignorant. plain and simple. I hate rush. I think hes a loud mouth pill popping hypocrite (his stance on drugs) but everything he said in his speech was RIGHT. did you listen to it or just dub him a crazy person? stop being a bobble head democrap.


and saying he wants the president to fail is wrong? why? this president is doing everything that is directly opposite to a conservative agenda just as bush WAS NOT A CONSERVATIVE AND sPENT WAY TOOOO MUCH! LIke the left didnt call bush an idiot from DAY 1? They set him up to fail and blocked legislation until the reps got more control.


taking money from people who EARN it and giving it to people who do nothing is WRONG. When enough hard working people have had enough of this bull****, get ready for an up rising or a revolution.

[Paydirt404]

Rush still on drugs?

[SUPDOG]

Rush still on drugs?

Obama still on drugs?

[Gtrght77]

Rush is splitting the party in two, we may be seeing the end of the GOP as we know it.


http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/03/steele_vs_rush--sort_of.php

Rush Limbaugh's barn-burner at CPAC this weekend drew a line in the sand, once again, for Republicans: either they want President Obama to fail, or they don't. RNC Chairman Michael Steele, subsequently, walked a tightrope last night in an interview with D.L. Hughley on CNN.

Consertavive and liberal blogs alike Monday picked up on Steele's response, some blasting Steele and others promoting a fight between the two GOP heavyweights. But Steele's answer to Limbaugh, and its political implications, were a bit more complicated.

First came the question of Steele's status as party leader. Hughley challenged the RNC chairman, asserting that Limbaugh is the GOP's de facto leader. "No he's not," Steele responded. "I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party."

On the philosophy behind Limbaugh's "fail" assertion, Steele supported the conservative commentator; on the rhetoric of it, Steele stood opposed to Rush:

"How is that any different than what was said about George Bush during his presidency?" Steele asked, making a point Limbaugh himself made during the CPAC speech, in response to Hughley's blasting of Limbaugh's "incindiary" rhetoric.

"Let's put it in the context here," Steele said. "Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. His whole thing is entertainment...yes, it's incindiary, yes, it's ugly." And that's the line that has gotten the idea of Steele vs. Rush so much play in the blogosphere today.

The complexity of Steele's response stands in stark opposition to that of House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, who, speaking on ABC's "This Week" yesterday, clearly distanced himself from the radio commentator's claim: "Nobody--no Republican, no Democrat--wants this president to fail, nor do they want this country to fail or the economy to fail," Cantor said.

While Cantor and Steele both attacked the rhetoric, there are big differences between their political situations: Cantor, as a prominent leader in the House GOP, has to work with Obama; Steele, as the party's top political officer, has to generate campaign cash, balance the interests of the GOP's base--mmuch of which, evidently, strongly agrees with Limbaugh--all the while asserting himself as political top dog in the GOP against claims that Limbaugh is the party's de facto leader.

Steele has put forth a vision for a more inclusive GOP--not necessarily inclusive to the idea of working with Democrats, but inclusive to new voting demographics--and "incindiary" rhetoric like Limbaugh's may seem to threaten his chance at bringing in new votes. Then again, nothing generates campaign donations like passionate support, and nothing generates passionate support like "incindiary" opposition to Democrats.

The idea of Steele attacking Rush likely isn't one the RNC wants floating around the blogosphere--after all, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) ended up calling Limbaugh to apologize for criticizing him in January--but Steele stood behind Rush's desire for Obama to "fail." He may not be reaping the media-coverage benefits for doing so, but the distinction highlight's Steele's position between Limbaugh, Cantor, and the GOP donor base.

[Paydirt404]

Obama still on drugs?

Aw dont be salty.

[VG_Bert]

Rush is splitting the party in two, we may be seeing the end of the GOP as we know it.

Is Rush to blame for that? Or the fact that the GOP is no longer conservative?

[Nevada_Ballin]

i remember a couple of years ago there were "conservatives" on this site who were calling out everyone who was against the Iraq War as people who were wishing failure upon the USA and the President. This was not the case. The anti-war people were against the policies that got us there but were always in full support of the troops and every mission they were ordered to take. But these conservatives continued to pound the boards with false accusations of "wishing failure" for our country.... even though not one person had said they did. But there was a constant putting the words in mouths of people by these conservatives going on. It was relentless at one point.

Fast forward to the here and now - are these same conservatives openly wishing failure against our same country? They WANT the USA to fail in this "war on recession"? For what reason? Simply so they can say their ideas were better? Are you serious? The wish for failure is all about the egotistical banner of "see, we were right and you were wrong"? That's the shallow depth of their argument not to meet the President halfway and start becoming bipartisan/nonpartisan?

At least the anti-war people had many good reasons to be against the policies that got us into the war in Iraq and none of them were like the party politics we're seeing played during this present mess. It's like the GOP is so sore about losing the White House and congressional control that all they want to do is sit on their bed, pout like a little girl and be uncooperative to the slightest notion of doing anything that helps this country if it isn't their own idea.

Many of these GOPers have elections coming up in 2 years. If they want any chance of gaining some seats back (instead of losing even more) then they may want to think about working with others instead refusing to be a part of anything. The country as a whole has rallied behind Obama. If things have the slightest upturn by the time that election arrives then it's going to be a whole lotta crow eating going on during those campaigns. If things are not on the upturn, the Dems may be able to scapegoat those GOPers as the reason why for not being cooperative.

Tough times for the GOP.


.

[Paydirt404]

i remember a couple of years ago there were "conservatives" on this site who were calling out everyone who was against the Iraq War as people who were wishing failure upon the USA and the President. This was not the case. The anti-war people were against the policies that got us there but were always in full support of the troops and every mission they were ordered to take. But these conservatives continued to pound the boards with false accusations of "wishing failure" for our country.... even though not one person had said they did. But there was a constant putting the words in mouths of people by these conservatives going on. It was relentless at one point.

Fast forward to the here and now - are these same conservatives openly wishing failure against our same country? They WANT the USA to fail in this "war on recession"? For what reason? Simply so they can say their ideas were better? Are you serious? The wish for failure is all about the egotistical banner of "see, we were right and you were wrong"? That's the shallow depth of their argument not to meet the President halfway and start becoming bipartisan/nonpartisan?

At least the anti-war people had many good reasons to be against the policies that got us into the war in Iraq and none of them were like the party politics we're seeing played during this present mess. It's like the GOP is so sore about losing the White House and congressional control that all they want to do is sit on their bed, pout like a little girl and be uncooperative to the slightest notion of doing anything that helps this country if it isn't their own idea.

Many of these GOPers have elections coming up in 2 years. If they want any chance of gaining some seats back (instead of losing even more) then they may want to think about working with others instead refusing to be a part of anything. The country as a whole has rallied behind Obama. If things have the slightest upturn by the time that election arrives then it's going to be a whole lotta crow eating going on during those campaigns. If things are not on the upturn, the Dems may be able to scapegoat those GOPers as the reason why for not being cooperative.

Tough times for the GOP.


.


Wow, that was pretty well thought out. I agree with what you are saying. The whole " I hope his idea fails " mindstate is getting tiresome, I expect better from people who want to see this country come out of tough times, not hope it stays there.

[dsteve]

ignorance, ignorance, ignorance....The spending thats going on right now goes agaisnt core republican values and it went against them when bush was doing the same thing with his wasteful spending. The only thing the reps did wrong was not speaking out against bush when he spent all that money, paid off intrests to get elected etc. The iraq war is something different entirely and while I never agreed with going there specifically or the way the war started off...lol or the fact that the USA is footing the bill dems would have been negative no matter what he did, right or wrong. Its the way it is. TV media is liberal and left (even though fox is the most popular, technically its more centric than any other media outlet but still undoubtedly right leaning), radio media is conservative. FACTS. Dems and reps are gonna be partisan no matter what minus a few exceptions like mccain and ron paul among others, who actually were out spoken. In fact the GOP tried to down play mccain working with the other side when he was a canidate during the primary.


Show me one positive example of massive government spending instead of negative, in a similar economic climate and I'll vote for obama for a second term. know why you wont find one? there isnt one, only negatives examples. Japan, jimmy carters miserable presidency, the new deal etc etc etc..this **** doesnt work, its not about saving the economy is all about a power grab. The reason why the far left loons wanted obama over clinton? They knew clinton would want a second term and wouldnt do all this horse **** right from the word go if at all. She would have done something more feasible for the country because she would want the personal power of a second term. Obama doesnt care. If he gets lucky and the economy stays the way it is and doesnt get much worse, he might have a chance. The stock market closed at a low today that dates back to 1997. Another reason why the spending bill had to passed so quick was the chance that they would lose seats in 2010. Both sides are to blame but we will be in a depression in the near future. I hope it happens quick so we can get this socialist *** CLOWN out of the white house.

[SUPDOG]

Emanual said today that Rush is the leader of the GOP and anyone who offends him has to grovel for his forgiveness. I somewhat agree because he controls the crazies ( Ie. the Supdogs) who control the GOP. They are already in "Praying Obama will fail mode".

Saw a speach where Rush says Conservatives love people. LOL

Except:
Gays, Blacks, Muslims, Athiests, Liberals. :p



GOPs message in all of this.



DO NOTHING. LOL

THey are past more of the same, they just want to do nothing.

Bobble, bobble, bobble bobble.....

Yeah, what a great solution your messiah has Gt. let's introduce a ton of pork spending, rocket the defit to 1.9 trillion and then tax the only ones who can get us out of the mess. You have as much intelligence as a ___________



Anyway, Limbaugh said he wants obama to fail. Amen to that.

Obama= socialism and a depressed economy full of lazy people who want to live off of other's income. Only someone who is without a clue would support someone who proposes that sort of agenda. e.g. the creator of the sad exuse of a thread.
I think a few of those who want to live off the backs of others visit these boards. One of them is even a moderator.....;)

Limbaush has more intelligence than your bam bam ever could.

One can't be to bright if they want to destroy the greatest nation in the world.

Libs just nod. How sad is that.

Anyway, don't worry, you and Nevada can be warhawks on the taxpayers dollar for quite a while. Your daddy obama will make sure you get online access for "free" and send you welfare checks so you can buy the lastest warhawk version....YAY!!

Heck, he may even send you both some "free" marijuana cigarrettes to make sure you have a "real good" time!:eek:

Just as long as you keep nodding your head okay? And let us be a bit more genuine with our threads, either that or do some research first. It is embarrassing to watch you belittle yourself like this.

Remember what I told you.

[dsteve]

obama isnt as stupid as you think. wreck the economy, stay in power and present the solution of a one world government/currency or a new world order.

[Nevada_Ballin]

obama isnt as stupid as you think. wreck the economy, stay in power and present the solution of a one world government/currency or a new world order.

wait a second, "new world order"... i've heard that before somewhere... oh yea, George H. Bush...


.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Steele apologizes to Rush today for calling him a radio entertainer (which is what he is). Then Steele says Rush is a "national conservative leader" today..... the GOP is turning its reigns over to a radio shock jock - the so-called leader of the party Steele is apologizing to him for saying something that was actually true....



.

[SUPDOG]

Steele apologizes to Rush today for calling him a radio entertainer (which is what he is). Then Steele says Rush is a "national conservative leader" today..... the GOP is turning its reigns over to a radio shock jock - the so-called leader of the party Steele is apologizing to him for saying something that was actually true....



.


Radio shock jock? Wow.

Anyway, the shock jock has a better understanding of our costitution than your marxist loving chump.

I would take limbaugh as president over your disgusting excuse of a president ANY day.

So would any level minded individual who didn't vote in the "emotional moment", or because they thought they could get some more "free stuff" from the government.

You should listen to Limbaugh's speech at CPAC, you might learn something.

But then again the speech might destroy your Obama love bubble.....:)

[Nevada_Ballin]

Radio shock jock? Wow.

Anyway, the shock jock has a better understanding of our costitution than your marxist loving chump.

I would take limbaugh as president over your disgusting excuse of a president ANY day.

So would any level minded individual who didn't vote in the "emotional moment", or because they thought they could get some more "free stuff" from the government.

You should listen to Limbaugh's speech at CPAC, you might learn something.

But then again the speech might destroy your Obama love bubble.....:)

yea yea, i did see the cpac speech, same old crap he's been spewing (and I've been making fun of) for years... screw Rush Limbaugh, he doesn't care about America, he only cares about his own self-worth and divisive righteousness which seems to mean a lot in GOP circles these days because, let me repeat, the radio shock jock is the leader of the GOP party.

So let me ask YOU - do you hope Obama fails? Are you willing to risk national security at home in the hope that the President fails?


.

[MonoxideChild]

There is no GOP anymore. Conservatives aren't Republicans for the sake of being Republicans anymore. The founders of the Religious Right don't even associate themselves anymore. Hopefully Rush won't get into politics. I'm not going to call him crazy for his thoughts, but he is an inflammatiory character for the sake of being an inflammatory character. Extreme behavior gets extreme attention. The head of the GOP should've stood up and told Rush to get off the pedestal. There's more important things to talk about than wheteher Obama is left/right. How about the fact that we tried it the right wing way and it got us screwed. I can see the ticket now by the way, Limbaugh/ O'Reilly 2012, "Divided We Stand".

[SUPDOG]

yea yea, i did see the cpac speech, same old crap he's been spewing (and I've been making fun of) for years... screw Rush Limbaugh, he doesn't care about America, he only cares about his own self-worth and divisive righteousness which seems to mean a lot in GOP circles these days because, let me repeat, the radio shock jock is the leader of the GOP party.

So let me ask YOU - do you hope Obama fails? Are you willing to risk national security at home in the hope that the President fails?


.

I din't think Limbaugh said anything about national security, did he? Or are you trying to spin the argument? I would bet the latter.

You see, I believe that you, and many like you were hoping for a "mild" terrorist attack before Bush left office, so you could say, "see, see, Bush couldn' keep us safe", but it didn't happen.

I would never wish failure when it comes to national security, but I will say, if Obama doesn't put Bush policies into practice, you are likely to see an attack.

So, to answer your question, I hope Obama fails at attempting to put his ideas on security into practice, and realizes Bush was right, and puts those into practice, get it? Very simple.

To get back on point. Limbaugh stated that he wants socialism, and the agenda of socialism to fail. Who doesn't? Who would want a depressed economy, and a big daddy government? Other than you, and people, like you who live on the emotion of the moment, and bleeding hearts, not too many. I want socialism to FAIL.

That is exactlly what limbaugh said. I can show you video after video of him stating that, but again it would destroy your bubble.

You and GT make up your own reality, and then argue your points based in that reality. How can someone debate with another who uses those tactics?


Just so we are clear (and in case you want to think outside the bubble), LImbaugh said this.....

"if Obama's agenda is socialism, I WANT HIM TO FAIL!". "If Obama's agenda is Reaganomics I want him to succeed."

Are we clear now? Quit being an MSNBC puppet and get your facts straight.

Your friend and "(financial)supporter",

supdog,-- "the no sign reaching for," fisherman;)

[allend]

gtrght or whatever his name is, youre ignorant. plain and simple. I hate rush. I think hes a loud mouth pill popping hypocrite (his stance on drugs) but everything he said in his speech was RIGHT. did you listen to it or just dub him a crazy person? stop being a bobble head democrap.


and saying he wants the president to fail is wrong? why? this president is doing everything that is directly opposite to a conservative agenda just as bush WAS NOT A CONSERVATIVE AND sPENT WAY TOOOO MUCH! LIke the left didnt call bush an idiot from DAY 1? They set him up to fail and blocked legislation until the reps got more control.


taking money from people who EARN it and giving it to people who do nothing is WRONG. When enough hard working people have had enough of this bull****, get ready for an up rising or a revolution.

Exactly how much money has been taken from you and given to someone else? I always hear people say this but they never have an amount.

[bk1998]

Exactly how much money has been taken from you and given to someone else? I always hear people say this but they never have an amount.

Welfare (or whatever program(s) you wanna look at)

Divided by

Total taxes collected by the federal govt.

Times

Total taxes paid by dsteve.

Easy enough.

[allend]

Welfare (or whatever program(s) you wanna look at)

Divided by

Total taxes collected by the federal govt.

Times

Total taxes paid by dsteve.

Easy enough.

What welfare? Did he already pass a new policy on welfare? I want to know how much have your taxes gone up? Give me a %. Not some retreaded line about socialism when your still paying the same amount of taxes. When's the last time there was a shortage in your check and it was forwarded to your neighbor? It's just funny to me to hear people keep crying about this and that and they have no real example to point to.

[Gtrght77]

What welfare? Did he already pass a new policy on welfare? I want to know how much have your taxes gone up? Give me a %. Not some retreaded line about socialism when your still paying the same amount of taxes. When's the last time there was a shortage in your check and it was forwarded to your neighbor? It's just funny to me to hear people keep crying about this and that and they have no real example to point to.

Unless he makes A LOT of money his taxes just went down.

[Paydirt404]

Unless he makes A LOT of money his taxes just went down.

ha ha ha ha......you know when you log on to VG, you are speaking amongst the wealthy here my brother. No one here has a job unless they got it off the Ladders website, where its 100K or better. Oh no.....no no no. Those tax breaks are enough to send you to the poor house, oh lawdie what is we gonna do. Obama gonna break us....Im gonna need a welfare check, some social assistance, and some food stamps to get by, because those breaks just depleted my check to virtually nothing. :rolleyes:

[bk1998]

What welfare? Did he already pass a new policy on welfare? I want to know how much have your taxes gone up? Give me a %. Not some retreaded line about socialism when your still paying the same amount of taxes. When's the last time there was a shortage in your check and it was forwarded to your neighbor? It's just funny to me to hear people keep crying about this and that and they have no real example to point to.

Welfare, as most of the variables in the equation, were examples.

Chill out... ;)

[allend]

ha ha ha ha......you know when you log on to VG, you are speaking amongst the wealthy here my brother. No one here has a job unless they got it off the Ladders website, where its 100K or better. Oh no.....no no no. Those tax breaks are enough to send you to the poor house, oh lawdie what is we gonna do. Obama gonna break us....Im gonna need a welfare check, some social assistance, and some food stamps to get by, because those breaks just depleted my check to virtually nothing. :rolleyes:

These types are funny to me b/c if you listen to them you'd think that the sky was falling down. I am in no way saying that Obama is bringing the change he promised nor am I saying that he's doing a good job. How can anyone know this early if you have to wait and see the results? I'm just saying that he's not doing anything that hasn't been done in the past and it's amazing to me to hear how much people are crying about it now. There were no tears when the banks were bailed out. No talk about socialism. I'm not saying who's wrong or right...I'm just saying lets at least be consistant!!!

[allend]

Welfare, as most of the variables in the equation, were examples.

Chill out... ;)



Welfare was your word not mine. I just thought you knew something I didn't. But anyway, how about giving me an answer to my question?

[TheSphinx 2.0]

i remember a couple of years ago there were "conservatives" on this site who were calling out everyone who was against the Iraq War as people who were wishing failure upon the USA and the President. This was not the case. The anti-war people were against the policies that got us there but were always in full support of the troops and every mission they were ordered to take. But these conservatives continued to pound the boards with false accusations of "wishing failure" for our country.... even though not one person had said they did. But there was a constant putting the words in mouths of people by these conservatives going on. It was relentless at one point.

Fast forward to the here and now - are these same conservatives openly wishing failure against our same country? They WANT the USA to fail in this "war on recession"? For what reason? Simply so they can say their ideas were better? Are you serious? The wish for failure is all about the egotistical banner of "see, we were right and you were wrong"? That's the shallow depth of their argument not to meet the President halfway and start becoming bipartisan/nonpartisan?

At least the anti-war people had many good reasons to be against the policies that got us into the war in Iraq and none of them were like the party politics we're seeing played during this present mess. It's like the GOP is so sore about losing the White House and congressional control that all they want to do is sit on their bed, pout like a little girl and be uncooperative to the slightest notion of doing anything that helps this country if it isn't their own idea.

Many of these GOPers have elections coming up in 2 years. If they want any chance of gaining some seats back (instead of losing even more) then they may want to think about working with others instead refusing to be a part of anything. The country as a whole has rallied behind Obama. If things have the slightest upturn by the time that election arrives then it's going to be a whole lotta crow eating going on during those campaigns. If things are not on the upturn, the Dems may be able to scapegoat those GOPers as the reason why for not being cooperative.

Tough times for the GOP.


.

It really is an interesting situation. I can remember a few years back arguing with my conservative friends that you can support the troops and not the policy. However that was impossible to some of them. I work in the financial services industry (basically "wall street") so most people I deal with are republicans and I was the lone democrat arguing that supporting the troops and supporting the war aren't one in the same. Most of the time I was unsuccessful in convincing them. If you didn't support the war you "hated America" or "hated the troops". I couldn't believe how closemided some people were.

Now I find myself in the same situation except now I am arguing with democrats telling them that you can support the predisent and the country but at the same time not support this policy. Most of them aren't having it. If you don't support Obama you are either a "closetted bigot", or a "sellout" or "the party of nothing". I am none of the above. I am a lifelong democrat who has traveled to enough countries and met enough very senior people in very big global corporations and enough government officials from around the world to know that over long periods of time you cannot tax, spend and borrow you way to prosperity. I don't care who proposes it. The policy is wrong.

Before I start these conversations I always feel it necessary to say the following: I am a lifelong democrat. I voted for Obama. I have always and still do support democratic policies like universal healthcare and a working minimum wage.

However I am 100% against what the Obama administration is doing with its domestic agenda. I couldn't oppose it more. I think these policies will have long-term disasterous consequences for America. I want his policy of bigger government and more bailouts to fail because I am afraid of the consequences if they actually succeed. Just think about it for a second...on a simple level, if tax and spend is successful what is to stop tax increases from hitting next year and the year after that and the year after that. How can we ever get these programs out of the budget now that they are in there? What happens if things don't get better by this time next year (after the initial pop from putting $2t into the economy)...do we tax and spend more. And remember (THIS IS IMPORTANT) taxing people who make $250k or more does not tax the wealthy...it taxes those trying to become wealthy. It taxes prosperity. Really wealthy people don't make the majority of their yearly money via income that is taxed at the individual level. Paris Hiltion will not pay 39% on her "income". The guy with all the medical school loans who has busted his tail for the last 20 years to finally become a doctor and enjoy some the fruits of all his lifelone hard work and who now makes $275k a year will be taxed at 39%. Why are we punishing prosperity. The really rich will find a way out of it.


I hated the republicn attitude of borrow and cut taxes because I thoughut it would be disasterous...just as much as I don't like the idea of borrow and spend. We need to slash spending and develop a surplus.

Do I want the US to fail in the "war against the recession". Of course not, but that doesn't mean that every idea Obama suggests I must blindly agree with. If I do that then I am not better than the neo-cons who just blindly followed Pres. Bush into war. Do I want his policy of bigger government and higher taxes and bigger entitlements to fail. ABSOLUTELY. Because I know that the US is technically insolvant (just like our banks) and all you have to do is look at the stock price of the banks to see what happens when people no longer decided to prop up an insolvent entitiy. The US is living off its "perceived safety" right now and that cannot last forever if we are going to borrow ourselves to death. There are many ways for Obama to attack this problem. He chose the old Dem tax and spend mantra. My hope is that the econocmy does better despite all the "stimulus" efforts (meaning the natural process takes its course) and we can look back and say that all this spending wasn't the reason. Of course this hurts me because if that happens that means the Dems will probably lose in 4 years, which I don't want to see because I desperately believe we need less "trickle down economics" in the WH since it has basically proven that it only works to an extent (at best...a big part of me believe it doesn't work at all, but I am being generous here).

You say the GOP has elections in 2 years. You think in order to win they have to cave to Obama. That to me is silly. If they want to win they better stand their ground. Being an imintation of the other party is the surest way to lose. Conservative fiscal policies are not bad. Conservative family values are not bad. This is the time to draw a line in the sand if you are a Republican or a fiscally conservative democrat. On a purely politcal basis if Obama is successful in the short-term (which he will be...I mean we are putting over a $2t into the economy so that will have some short-term impact, even if the long-term cost are way over $2t) then the dems can take credit for it not the republicans. What will their campaign slogan be..."we followed the Democrats and their policies worked so now vote for us". That won't work. The only way they can hope to get back in power is to hope that the Dems policy are proven to not be as effective as the ones they are suggesting or for the Dem party to have a collasal meltdown akin to the ones the republicans had over the last eight years.

I remember when the Dems lost in 2000. The party was supposedly in shambles. I mean how could you lose the White House after 8 of the best years of economic growth in the world. They then tried to copy the republicans after 9/11. Then they lost in 2002 and 2004. I remember the talking heads saying that the Dems needed a southern strategy (just like they are now saying the repubs need a northern strategy). The republicans screwed up and the Dems got back in power in 2006 and 2008. Everytime a party loses there is someone to say "Oh no the party better get on board with the other side or all is lost forever". Actually the winning party usually finds a way to screw themselves up.

So you see the conundrum I face. I am a Dem, I want Dems to succeed, but I hate this plan. I want to country to do well, but the plan to fail...but that means Dems get booted out in 4 years.

Sometimes I wish I was just one of those "a dem said it so it must be right" guys because all fo this wouold be easier... :)

-TS

[Paydirt404]

It really is an interesting situation. I can remember a few years back arguing with my conservative friends that you can support the troops and not the policy. However that was impossible to some of them. I work in the financial services industry (basically "wall street") so most people I deal with are republicans and I was the lone democrat arguing that supporting the troops and supporting the war aren't one in the same. Most of the time I was unsuccessful in convincing them. If you didn't support the war you "hated America" or "hated the troops". I couldn't believe how closemided some people were.

Now I find myself in the same situation except now I am arguing with democrats telling them that you can support the predisent and the country but at the same time not support this policy. Most of them aren't having it. If you don't support Obama you are either a "closetted bigot", or a "sellout" or "the party of nothing". I am none of the above. I am a lifelong democrat who has traveled to enough countries and met enough very senior people in very big global corporations and enough government officials from around the world to know that over long periods of time you cannot tax, spend and borrow you way to prosperity. I don't care who proposes it. The policy is wrong.

Before I start these conversations I always feel it necessary to say the following: I am a lifelong democrat. I voted for Obama. I have always and still do support democratic policies like universal healthcare and a working minimum wage.

However I am 100% against what the Obama administration is doing with its domestic agenda. I couldn't oppose it more. I think these policies will have long-term disasterous consequences for America. I want his policy of bigger government and more bailouts to fail because I am afraid of the consequences if they actually succeed. Just think about it for a second...on a simple level, if tax and spend is successful what is to stop tax increases from hitting next year and the year after that and the year after that. How can we ever get these programs out of the budget now that they are in there? What happens if things don't get better by this time next year (after the initial pop from putting $2t into the economy)...do we tax and spend more. And remember (THIS IS IMPORTANT) taxing people who make $250k or more does not tax the wealthy...it taxes those trying to become wealthy. It taxes prosperity. Really wealthy people don't make the majority of their yearly money via income that is taxed at the individual level. Paris Hiltion will not pay 39% on her "income". The guy with all the medical school loans who has busted his tail for the last 20 years to finally become a doctor and enjoy some the fruits of all his lifelone hard work and who now makes $275k a year will be taxed at 39%. Why are we punishing prosperity. The really rich will find a way out of it.


I hated the republicn attitude of borrow and cut taxes because I thoughut it would be disasterous...just as much as I don't like the idea of borrow and spend. We need to slash spending and develop a surplus.

Do I want the US to fail in the "war against the recession". Of course not, but that doesn't mean that every idea Obama suggests I must blindly agree with. If I do that then I am not better than the neo-cons who just blindly followed Pres. Bush into war. Do I want his policy of bigger government and higher taxes and bigger entitlements to fail. ABSOLUTELY. Because I know that the US is technically insolvant (just like our banks) and all you have to do is look at the stock price of the banks to see what happens when people no longer decided to prop up an insolvent entitiy. The US is living off its "perceived safety" right now and that cannot last forever if we are going to borrow ourselves to death. There are many ways for Obama to attack this problem. He chose the old Dem tax and spend mantra. My hope is that the econocmy does better despite all the "stimulus" efforts (meaning the natural process takes its course) and we can look back and say that all this spending wasn't the reason. Of course this hurts me because if that happens that means the Dems will probably lose in 4 years, which I don't want to see because I desperately believe we need less "trickle down economics" in the WH since it has basically proven that it only works to an extent.

You say the GOP has elections in 2 years. You think in order to win they have to cave to Obama. That to me is silly. If they want to win they better stand their ground. Being an imintation of the other party is the surest way to lose. Conservative fiscal policies are not bad. Conservative family values are not bad. This is the time to draw a line in the sand if you are a Republican or a fiscally conservative democrat. On a purely politcal basis if Obama is successful in the short-term (which he will be...I mean we are putting over a $2t into the economy so that will have some short-term impact, even if the long-term cost are way over $2t) then the dems can take credit for it not the republicans. What will their campaign slogan be..."we followed the Democrats and their policies worked so now vote for us". That won't work. The only way they can hope to get back in power is to hope that the Dems policy are proven to not be as effective as the ones they are suggesting or for the Dem party to have a collasal meltdown akin to the ones the republicans had over the last eight years.

I remember when the Dems lost in 2000. The party was supposedly in shambles. I mean how could you lose the White House after 8 of the best years of economic growth in the world. They then tried to copy the republicans after 9/11. Then they lost in 2002 and 2004. I remember the talking heads saying that the Dems needed a southern strategy (just like they are now saying the repubs need a northern strategy). The republicans screwed up and the Dems got back in power in 2006 and 2008. Everytime a party loses there is someone to say "Oh no the party better get on board with the other side or all is lost forever". Actually the winning party usually finds a way to screw themselves up.

So you see the conundrum I face. I am a Dem, I want Dems to succeed, but I hate this plan. I want to country to do well, but the plan to fail...but that means Dems get booted out in 4 years.

Sometimes I wish I was just one of those "a dem said it so it must be right" guys because all fo this wouold be easier... :)

-TS

I had this discussion with my wife last night. People who couldnt afford houses shouldnt be living in them, and if that means me, well back to an apartment we go.

[bk1998]

Welfare was your word not mine. I just thought you knew something I didn't. But anyway, how about giving me an answer to my question?

Exactly, and it was an example.

Why would I want to answer your question? I didn't even read it, honestly.

I don't have an opinion on the matter.

[Nevada_Ballin]

It really is an interesting situation. I can remember a few years back arguing with my conservative friends that you can support the troops and not the policy. However that was impossible to some of them. I work in the financial services industry (basically "wall street") so most people I deal with are republicans and I was the lone democrat arguing that supporting the troops and supporting the war aren't one in the same. Most of the time I was unsuccessful in convincing them. If you didn't support the war you "hated America" or "hated the troops". I couldn't believe how closemided some people were.

Now I find myself in the same situation except now I am arguing with democrats telling them that you can support the predisent and the country but at the same time not support this policy. Most of them aren't having it. If you don't support Obama you are either a "closetted bigot", or a "sellout" or "the party of nothing". I am none of the above. I am a lifelong democrat who has traveled to enough countries and met enough very senior people in very big global corporations and enough government officials from around the world to know that over long periods of time you cannot tax, spend and borrow you way to prosperity. I don't care who proposes it. The policy is wrong.

Before I start these conversations I always feel it necessary to say the following: I am a lifelong democrat. I voted for Obama. I have always and still do support democratic policies like universal healthcare and a working minimum wage.

However I am 100% against what the Obama administration is doing with its domestic agenda. I couldn't oppose it more. I think these policies will have long-term disasterous consequences for America. I want his policy of bigger government and more bailouts to fail because I am afraid of the consequences if they actually succeed. Just think about it for a second...on a simple level, if tax and spend is successful what is to stop tax increases from hitting next year and the year after that and the year after that. How can we ever get these programs out of the budget now that they are in there? What happens if things don't get better by this time next year (after the initial pop from putting $2t into the economy)...do we tax and spend more. And remember (THIS IS IMPORTANT) taxing people who make $250k or more does not tax the wealthy...it taxes those trying to become wealthy. It taxes prosperity. Really wealthy people don't make the majority of their yearly money via income that is taxed at the individual level. Paris Hiltion will not pay 39% on her "income". The guy with all the medical school loans who has busted his tail for the last 20 years to finally become a doctor and enjoy some the fruits of all his lifelone hard work and who now makes $275k a year will be taxed at 39%. Why are we punishing prosperity. The really rich will find a way out of it.


I hated the republicn attitude of borrow and cut taxes because I thoughut it would be disasterous...just as much as I don't like the idea of borrow and spend. We need to slash spending and develop a surplus.

Do I want the US to fail in the "war against the recession". Of course not, but that doesn't mean that every idea Obama suggests I must blindly agree with. If I do that then I am not better than the neo-cons who just blindly followed Pres. Bush into war. Do I want his policy of bigger government and higher taxes and bigger entitlements to fail. ABSOLUTELY. Because I know that the US is technically insolvant (just like our banks) and all you have to do is look at the stock price of the banks to see what happens when people no longer decided to prop up an insolvent entitiy. The US is living off its "perceived safety" right now and that cannot last forever if we are going to borrow ourselves to death. There are many ways for Obama to attack this problem. He chose the old Dem tax and spend mantra. My hope is that the econocmy does better despite all the "stimulus" efforts (meaning the natural process takes its course) and we can look back and say that all this spending wasn't the reason. Of course this hurts me because if that happens that means the Dems will probably lose in 4 years, which I don't want to see because I desperately believe we need less "trickle down economics" in the WH since it has basically proven that it only works to an extent (at best...a big part of me believe it doesn't work at all, but I am being generous here).

You say the GOP has elections in 2 years. You think in order to win they have to cave to Obama. That to me is silly. If they want to win they better stand their ground. Being an imintation of the other party is the surest way to lose. Conservative fiscal policies are not bad. Conservative family values are not bad. This is the time to draw a line in the sand if you are a Republican or a fiscally conservative democrat. On a purely politcal basis if Obama is successful in the short-term (which he will be...I mean we are putting over a $2t into the economy so that will have some short-term impact, even if the long-term cost are way over $2t) then the dems can take credit for it not the republicans. What will their campaign slogan be..."we followed the Democrats and their policies worked so now vote for us". That won't work. The only way they can hope to get back in power is to hope that the Dems policy are proven to not be as effective as the ones they are suggesting or for the Dem party to have a collasal meltdown akin to the ones the republicans had over the last eight years.

I remember when the Dems lost in 2000. The party was supposedly in shambles. I mean how could you lose the White House after 8 of the best years of economic growth in the world. They then tried to copy the republicans after 9/11. Then they lost in 2002 and 2004. I remember the talking heads saying that the Dems needed a southern strategy (just like they are now saying the repubs need a northern strategy). The republicans screwed up and the Dems got back in power in 2006 and 2008. Everytime a party loses there is someone to say "Oh no the party better get on board with the other side or all is lost forever". Actually the winning party usually finds a way to screw themselves up.

So you see the conundrum I face. I am a Dem, I want Dems to succeed, but I hate this plan. I want to country to do well, but the plan to fail...but that means Dems get booted out in 4 years.

Sometimes I wish I was just one of those "a dem said it so it must be right" guys because all fo this wouold be easier... :)

-TS

Great post as always by you TS. I understand what you are saying and man I'm glad I'm just a plain ol' non-affiliated indendent :)

I certainly don't agree with everything Obama has on the table. I definitely have issue with a few things. But as I try to understand his big picture, I don't believe he is headed towards that big goverment/socialist corner that everyone likes to point to. Considering a lot of the economic people on his staff and the other consultants he has, I think he's trying to get the country in a position to shift gears into Clintonomics - since most of those people surrounding him came from that.

As much as I disagreed with Bush's policies, I never wanted him to fail as a President. I may as well shoot myself in the face if i wished that for any President. There were many times I wanted him to prove me wrong but he only managed to do so a couple times.


Supdog ~ wishing failure on a POTUS, even if it's his domestic policy, is a national security concern.


.

[TheSphinx 2.0]

Unless he makes A LOT of money his taxes just went down.


Not true. Tobacco taxes are regressive (he just passed that)...eliminating deductions on mortage interest and are regressive (he is trying to pass that)...elimiating charitable contributions deductionc is regressive too (even though that is probably a more of a higher income bracket issue)...lumping debt onto country has a cost and that cost is regressive. Everybody owns stock nowadays with 401k and the like...cap gains are going up...that is regressive (but to be fair for of an issue for the wealthy who own more stock). Believe me everybody's taxes are going up.

The problem is you can't tax the "rich" and expect to pay for all this stuff. Eventually you have to tax the "not so rich" and the "not so well off" too. (like a tobacco tax).

Also you are not cutting taxes for people who don't pay taxes. You are just giving them money...i.e. redistributing wealth. That sounds great if you are the ones receiving it but when you are the ones itis being taken from then it kinda sucks. There needs to be some wealth redistribution in any country so the concept in and of itsself is not wrong it is just this variation of it that I think is off.

Finally, there is now talk about "stopping the corporate tax haven abuse" meaning making it so companies can have their "headquarters" in Ireland but all of their business elsewhere to take advantage of the 15% tax rate. If corporate taxes go up then that is a tax increase FOR EVERYBODY, because corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.

When it is all said and done, nobody is getting a true tax deduction.

Many people just repeat what he says and don't look to see if it is true.

It was the same thing under Bush. When he said cutting the taxes on dividends would help the economy. HA! It would help the rich. Then when it was passeed, every company started hiking dividends aggressively. Republicans cheered how this was helping everyone, but what it was really doing was giving big executives massive pay raises since most of them make their money off the dividends from the stock. A 15% savings from the tax cut plus a 25% raise in the dividend was a nice way to sneak in a pay raise for executives while the economy was in the tank but to pass it off as a benefit for everyone (it was but it was MASSIVELY skiwed to the rich).

No one is innocent here...

-TS

[Gtrght77]

All I know is that within the last year I went from having a stable job that was growing into a career all the way back down to an entry level position and then unemployed.


A lot of people say what he is doing is bad and a lot of people say what he is doing is good. This entire situation is a little over my understanding, to many things happening at once with this economy.


Its getting so bad here in Vegas that jobs I am applying for are being cut instead of them hiring someone.

[TheRealist]

The discussions that need to be taking place should be focusing on "why" the policies in question are either good or bad.

As has been the case, most discussions just turn into pissing matches of opinion which generally negate the facts. Thank god we're finally trying to deviate from this sort of mentality. (at least I see it a little now)

I have a problem whenever politics sticks its head into economic issues.

How can a group of men and women make sound economic policy when effectually, the "right" economic policy may serve in their disinterest?

I think this is valid question when considering Smith's number one point in The Wealth of Nations. We are a nation of individuals, therefore people will act in ways that promote their self-interests to attain overall betterment. A collective group of people acting in their self-interest WILL achieve individual betterment, therefore society as a whole will attain a level of overall betterment.

Valid theory, but is it entirely practical?

Enter our current problem. If you are the President, a Senator or a House member and it is in your interest to stay in office (which is the case for every person, much less a politician), how can sound economic policies be made for the long term for which they have negative short term reprecussions?

If you believe in a do nothing approach (for the most part) and this turns out to be the correct course of action, but you know that it will lose you your job...will you act against your self-interest in defense of overall welfare of the people in the long term?

In my experiences, people will DO what is best for THEM.

Should we really believe that our all of our politicians are immune to this fundamental economic law? I doubt it and so should you...THIS is what gets us into trouble in my opinion.

Just a little mini-rant that I'm sure I'll have to expand on...

[resnor]

i remember a couple of years ago there were "conservatives" on this site who were calling out everyone who was against the Iraq War as people who were wishing failure upon the USA and the President. This was not the case. The anti-war people were against the policies that got us there but were always in full support of the troops and every mission they were ordered to take. But these conservatives continued to pound the boards with false accusations of "wishing failure" for our country.... even though not one person had said they did. But there was a constant putting the words in mouths of people by these conservatives going on. It was relentless at one point.

Fast forward to the here and now - are these same conservatives openly wishing failure against our same country? They WANT the USA to fail in this "war on recession"? For what reason? Simply so they can say their ideas were better? Are you serious? The wish for failure is all about the egotistical banner of "see, we were right and you were wrong"? That's the shallow depth of their argument not to meet the President halfway and start becoming bipartisan/nonpartisan?

At least the anti-war people had many good reasons to be against the policies that got us into the war in Iraq and none of them were like the party politics we're seeing played during this present mess. It's like the GOP is so sore about losing the White House and congressional control that all they want to do is sit on their bed, pout like a little girl and be uncooperative to the slightest notion of doing anything that helps this country if it isn't their own idea.

Many of these GOPers have elections coming up in 2 years. If they want any chance of gaining some seats back (instead of losing even more) then they may want to think about working with others instead refusing to be a part of anything. The country as a whole has rallied behind Obama. If things have the slightest upturn by the time that election arrives then it's going to be a whole lotta crow eating going on during those campaigns. If things are not on the upturn, the Dems may be able to scapegoat those GOPers as the reason why for not being cooperative.

Tough times for the GOP.


.

1. The arguments about the war in Iraq were in no way, shape, or form the same. I, like Rush, am against Obama's policies because they go against everything I believe in. I do not believe that socialism will work. I do not believe that redistribution of wealth will work. I do not believe that taxing the crap out of the rich will make it any better for the poor. People were against the war in Iraq because they were invested in defeat for Bush. It had nothing to do with the country, or Iraq, or our soldiers. It was all about seeing Bush fail. That's why when it was looking bad in Iraq, it was all over the news, but when it got better, it was nowhere to be found. The problem with the anti-war people was them calling for immediate withdrawal...which would have caused all the casualties of U.S. troops to have been for naught...by the way, what do you think about Obama not immediately withdrawing, and him also saying he's gonna leave 50,000 troops there? Perhaps there was a good reason for the troops being there...

2. It's not that I, or Rush, or other conservatives wish to see Obama fail. The FACT is, socialism doesn't work. If he implements it, it WILL fail, whether it's in my lifetime, or my son's lifetime, or my grandkids lifetime. Socialism is proven to never work. So, if a President wishes to institute socialism in this country, you're freaking correct I want him to fail in that attempt. Kinda like, if my son decided to try to parachute off my roof with a blanket...I'd hope that he'd fail in his attempt to get up on the roof, so that he didn't go smashing to the ground when his parachute didn't work.

3. The country "as a whole" has NOT "rallied" behind Obama. You may recall the election...Obama won by what, 6 or 10%? Given the extremely weak GOP candidate, and the hate for Bush, Obama should have won by more. The stock market CERTAINLY hasn't rallied around Obama...but, I guess the stock brokers and Wall St people don't count as Americans.:D

4. I certainly don't want Republicans to meet Obama halfway, if meeting him halfway means that they have to give up the conservative principles that they need to get back to...the same principles that have been proven to work. You may remember a man named Reagan...HE took over a worse economy than this, despite Obama and the media telling everyone that this is "the worst economy since the Great Depression." Reagan had double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and some other bad things. He CUT the tax rate on businesses from 75% to 28%, and tax revenue to the government went through the roof. The 80's were perhaps the greatest economic times of our country. We, conservatives, need GOP leaders to get back to Reaganesque policies. Our country needs it.

[McMadden]

Not true. Tobacco taxes are regressive (he just passed that)...eliminating deductions on mortage interest and are regressive (he is trying to pass that)...elimiating charitable contributions deductionc is regressive too (even though that is probably a more of a higher income bracket issue)...lumping debt onto country has a cost and that cost is regressive. Everybody owns stock nowadays with 401k and the like...cap gains are going up...that is regressive (but to be fair for of an issue for the wealthy who own more stock). Believe me everybody's taxes are going up.

The problem is you can't tax the "rich" and expect to pay for all this stuff. Eventually you have to tax the "not so rich" and the "not so well off" too. (like a tobacco tax).

Also you are not cutting taxes for people who don't pay taxes. You are just giving them money...i.e. redistributing wealth. That sounds great if you are the ones receiving it but when you are the ones itis being taken from then it kinda sucks. There needs to be some wealth redistribution in any country so the concept in and of itsself is not wrong it is just this variation of it that I think is off.

Finally, there is now talk about "stopping the corporate tax haven abuse" meaning making it so companies can have their "headquarters" in Ireland but all of their business elsewhere to take advantage of the 15% tax rate. If corporate taxes go up then that is a tax increase FOR EVERYBODY, because corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.

When it is all said and done, nobody is getting a true tax deduction.

Many people just repeat what he says and don't look to see if it is true.

It was the same thing under Bush. When he said cutting the taxes on dividends would help the economy. HA! It would help the rich. Then when it was passeed, every company started hiking dividends aggressively. Republicans cheered how this was helping everyone, but what it was really doing was giving big executives massive pay raises since most of them make their money off the dividends from the stock. A 15% savings from the tax cut plus a 25% raise in the dividend was a nice way to sneak in a pay raise for executives while the economy was in the tank but to pass it off as a benefit for everyone (it was but it was MASSIVELY skiwed to the rich).

No one is innocent here...

-TSMe thinks as a Democrat it's a shame that you are parroting word for word the Rushes, Hannitys, Becks, Dobbs, O'Really's. Word for freaking word on the airwaves. :confused:

We did it Bush's way for 8 years, Obama has just barely been on the job for 8 weeks :eek:

[dsteve]

Me thinks as a Democrat it's a shame that you are parroting word for word the Rushes, Hannitys, Becks, Dobbs, O'Really's. Word for freaking word on the airwaves. :confused:

We did it Bush's way for 8 years, Obama has just barely been on the job for 8 weeks :eek:




how many times are idiots gonna say "we did it bushes way" blah blah blah. BUSH SPENT TOOOOOOOO MUCH MONEY and now dip **** obama is spending EVEN MORE mother****ing money that is not his.

SOCIALISM DOESNT WORK! obama is trying to turn the USA into a socialist state. Eventually hes gonna push for a one world currency/government/NWO.


things will get worse, trust me.

[bk1998]

Me thinks as a Democrat it's a shame that you are parroting word for word the Rushes, Hannitys, Becks, Dobbs, O'Really's. Word for freaking word on the airwaves. :confused:

We did it Bush's way for 8 years, Obama has just barely been on the job for 8 weeks :eek:

I think as a Dem, it's a great thing that he's able to get past the whole partisan thing and see things without an outside influence.

In no way is that a shame. In fact, if we want American politics to actually get back to accomplishing things, we need MORE people like TS.

Everything doesn't always have to be "us vs. them."

Also, who cares about Bush? What does Bush have to do with the path ahead?

[Nevada_Ballin]

1. The arguments about the war in Iraq were in no way, shape, or form the same. I, like Rush, am against Obama's policies because they go against everything I believe in. I do not believe that socialism will work. I do not believe that redistribution of wealth will work. I do not believe that taxing the crap out of the rich will make it any better for the poor. People were against the war in Iraq because they were invested in defeat for Bush. It had nothing to do with the country, or Iraq, or our soldiers. It was all about seeing Bush fail. That's why when it was looking bad in Iraq, it was all over the news, but when it got better, it was nowhere to be found. The problem with the anti-war people was them calling for immediate withdrawal...which would have caused all the casualties of U.S. troops to have been for naught...by the way, what do you think about Obama not immediately withdrawing, and him also saying he's gonna leave 50,000 troops there? Perhaps there was a good reason for the troops being there...

2. It's not that I, or Rush, or other conservatives wish to see Obama fail. The FACT is, socialism doesn't work. If he implements it, it WILL fail, whether it's in my lifetime, or my son's lifetime, or my grandkids lifetime. Socialism is proven to never work. So, if a President wishes to institute socialism in this country, you're freaking correct I want him to fail in that attempt. Kinda like, if my son decided to try to parachute off my roof with a blanket...I'd hope that he'd fail in his attempt to get up on the roof, so that he didn't go smashing to the ground when his parachute didn't work.

3. The country "as a whole" has NOT "rallied" behind Obama. You may recall the election...Obama won by what, 6 or 10%? Given the extremely weak GOP candidate, and the hate for Bush, Obama should have won by more. The stock market CERTAINLY hasn't rallied around Obama...but, I guess the stock brokers and Wall St people don't count as Americans.:D

4. I certainly don't want Republicans to meet Obama halfway, if meeting him halfway means that they have to give up the conservative principles that they need to get back to...the same principles that have been proven to work. You may remember a man named Reagan...HE took over a worse economy than this, despite Obama and the media telling everyone that this is "the worst economy since the Great Depression." Reagan had double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and some other bad things. He CUT the tax rate on businesses from 75% to 28%, and tax revenue to the government went through the roof. The 80's were perhaps the greatest economic times of our country. We, conservatives, need GOP leaders to get back to Reaganesque policies. Our country needs it.

There's a lot of misconceptions in that post but i don't feel like addressing them at the moment, i'm trying to keep my opinions as brief as possible so things don't sway too far off topic.

I'm looking forward to seeing the details to Obama's forclosurre prevention plan that he's going to talk about in 40 minutes or so. This housing problem is a cornerstone to turning things around. From what I'm seeing on CNN right now, I think a lot of people may look at this plan now and say "ok, this plan still puts the responsibility on the individual".

Looks like those who got into houses they shouldn't have with loans they never should have gone after are going to be renting again. The others who are just bad-off because things got bad will get the opportunity to refinance (peeps underwater with house/loan) but there are stipulations.

We'll see the details soon. But this (housing issue) is where things really need to start according to just about every economist you could talk to.

[MonoxideChild]

Dsteve, when you say socialism doesn't work, do you mean like the whole concept? Because that's certainl;y not true. The fact of the matter is, we are not a democracy, we are a hybrid type of government. A lot of our country is already socialized and has been for quite some time. Think about all teachers unions, the police departments, the fire departments, yes, even Wall Street, you know the "Free Marketists", it's all already socialized. Socialism isn't the problem, handing off too much power to a small group of people is.

And yes, can we PLEASE stop bringing up Bush in every post? We all know he sucked, his advisors sucked, he got us into a lot of problems, but now we just have to deal with it. This is where i don't get the whole republican lets argue thing. we tried it one way it diudn't work, now let's try it another way.

[resnor]

Teachers unions have been one of the biggest issues with our current education problem, IMO. Also, I don't think you can compare fire and police to a national socialist system. Also, you probably realize, only in very small towns are firefighters volunteer...they are usually paid town employees, and police are always paid. I'm not really sure how they are socialist. Is having a mayor of your town socialist?

Bottom line, socialism does not work. It didn't work here when the Pilgrims got her. It doesn't work overseas, without having capitalist influence (so why have socialism if you have to use capitalism to make it work...might as well just be capitalist). I would argue that the problem with many programs and departments of our government is that they have become socialistic.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Teachers unions have been one of the biggest issues with our current education problem, IMO. Also, I don't think you can compare fire and police to a national socialist system. Also, you probably realize, only in very small towns are firefighters volunteer...they are usually paid town employees, and police are always paid. I'm not really sure how they are socialist. Is having a mayor of your town socialist?

Bottom line, socialism does not work. It didn't work here when the Pilgrims got her. It doesn't work overseas, without having capitalist influence (so why have socialism if you have to use capitalism to make it work...might as well just be capitalist). I would argue that the problem with many programs and departments of our government is that they have become socialistic.

Seems to be working for China very well...... so well that WE need to borrow money from THEM .... lol

[TheRealist]

Seems to be working for China very well...... so well that WE need to borrow money from THEM .... lol

So I guess the answer is to sign more government bailouts and to leverage ourselves more to the Chinese, Germans, and other net lenders around the world...

And socialism isn't working for China really well...a brief glance at their history will show that government deregulation in the 90's has more than earned them their double digit GDP growth. This is also the case with India. Embracing capitalist ideology has done nothing but aid in the development of those countries.

The more that the state disintegrates itself with their private sector, the more benefit China will receive in the long run...the rewards of which will make it the new #1...and I'm not kidding.

[MonoxideChild]

The unions aren't the problem, the problem is anytime anyone hears "socialism", their panties get bunched. The point I was trying to make is that we don't conform to one ideology. We're not just, capitalist, we're not just socialist, we're not just democratic, we are a changing Republic that utilizes different methods to conform to our needs at the time. The thing is, everytime we talk about socialism, we really mean communism under some totalitarian government. Completely different then what's going on now.

[Gtrght77]

Socialism is the new "Fire" word for the GOP. It was Terror now its Socialism. Though I dont think what Obama is trying to do would be socialism all we need to do is look north and see how well Canadas Banks are doing now compared to ours.



Socialism doesnt work? Well right now capitalism and greed doesnt work.

[TheRealist]

Socialism is the new "Fire" word for the GOP. It was Terror now its Socialism. Though I dont think what Obama is trying to do would be socialism all we need to do is look north and see how well Canadas Banks are doing now compared to ours.



Socialism doesnt work? Well right now capitalism and greed doesnt work.

As we've seen, greed goes a long way in both the building up and the eventual collapse of "both" systems.

Interventionist approach versus invisible hand though? I still believe that the latter dominates when recovery is the issue. Perhaps such is not the case when things are too good though.

[Nevada_Ballin]

So I guess the answer is to sign more government bailouts and to leverage ourselves more to the Chinese, Germans, and other net lenders around the world...

And socialism isn't working for China really well...a brief glance at their history will show that government deregulation in the 90's has more than earned them their double digit GDP growth. This is also the case with India. Embracing capitalist ideology has done nothing but aid in the development of those countries.

The more that the state disintegrates itself with their private sector, the more benefit China will receive in the long run...the rewards of which will make it the new #1...and I'm not kidding.

I was kind of tongue-in-cheek with the China comment but you can't help but sit back and think about it for a minute - here we are, the biggest capitalist democracy on the planet and we've had to borrow money from the biggest socialist country in the world - several times.

What we need to do is get past all of this "labeling" and simply start looking at what works and what doesn't, regardless of what ideology it comes from. Once we do that, we can start approaching our problems with clear open minds and actually find some solid long-term solutions. There is a common ground somewhere - we just need to have people who aren't afraid to walk on it.


.

[dsteve]

Government spending on massive levels for things they should have no part in is what wrecks the economy and tramples on your freedoms. Fire and police? what are you talking about? those are things the government should fund. Roads, public transportation and defense are also in the realm of government spending. Everything else is overreching.

Bush spent massively and thats why he failed. Obama is spending even more on even more wasteful pork products and its gonna eventually cause inflation, wreck the dollar and all of a sudden the answer is gonna be, "lets globalize everything and had our army over the UN! HOOORAY NEW WORLD ORDER!"

[MonoxideChild]

Government spending on massive levels for things they should have no part in is what wrecks the economy and tramples on your freedoms. Fire and police? what are you talking about? those are things the government should fund. Roads, public transportation and defense are also in the realm of government spending. Everything else is overreching.

Bush spent massively and thats why he failed. Obama is spending even more on even more wasteful pork products and its gonna eventually cause inflation, wreck the dollar and all of a sudden the answer is gonna be, "lets globalize everything and had our army over the UN! HOOORAY NEW WORLD ORDER!"

lol, you just said that Socialism doesn't work. Then you said that some things should be socialized. Which is it? If it's some of the time, then just say it works some of the time. Bush didn't fail because he spent wildly, he failed because he took advice from one person instead of many. Yeah, I know, we wouldn't wanna wreck the dollar right? We wouldn't wanna be looked at as a joke right? And you can't hand an army over to the U.N. That's not how it works. Anything else?

[dsteve]

Socialized? no, certain things should be handled by the government or there would be no government, it would be anrachy. If you wanna call the government paying for police and fire socialism then go ahead but obviously when people talk about socialism theyre talking about the government overreaching by lets say...paying for everyones health care or bailing out banks when they fail because they ****ed up.

[resnor]

lol, you just said that Socialism doesn't work. Then you said that some things should be socialized. Which is it? If it's some of the time, then just say it works some of the time. Bush didn't fail because he spent wildly, he failed because he took advice from one person instead of many. Yeah, I know, we wouldn't wanna wreck the dollar right? We wouldn't wanna be looked at as a joke right? And you can't hand an army over to the U.N. That's not how it works. Anything else?

Talking about police and fire and roads, and linking it to a socialist federal government, because fire, police, and roads are handled at state and local levels. Sure, there are federal funds that states receive to help with those things, but the decisions on how the money is spent, and stuff like that, is determined at the state and local level. It's completely different than the federal government making those decisions.

Socialism can sort of work in small areas, if people are willing. The problem with socialism is that soon people figure out that they can do almost nothing, i.e., not pull their load, but still get paid the same. China, as a purely socialist country, was not the powerhouse that they are becoming today. They had to adopt capitalist ideas to become successful. One wonders how successful they could be if they completely abandoned socialism.

[maddenbowl62]

Radio shock jock? Wow.

Anyway, the shock jock has a better understanding of our costitution than your marxist loving chump.

I would take limbaugh as president over your disgusting excuse of a president ANY day.

So would any level minded individual who didn't vote in the "emotional moment", or because they thought they could get some more "free stuff" from the government.

You should listen to Limbaugh's speech at CPAC, you might learn something.

But then again the speech might destroy your Obama love bubble.....:)

Rush Limbaugh doesn't have an understanding of the constitution. Patriot act, warrantless wiretapping, etc. does not show an understanding for the constitution.

[sideoutshu]

Fast forward to the here and now - are these same conservatives openly wishing failure against our same country? They WANT the USA to fail in this "war on recession"? For what reason? Simply so they can say their ideas were better? Are you serious? The wish for failure is all about the egotistical banner of "see, we were right and you were wrong"? That's the shallow depth of their argument not to meet the President halfway and start becoming bipartisan/nonpartisan?

At least the anti-war people had many good reasons to be against the policies that got us into the war in Iraq and none of them were like the party politics we're seeing played during this present mess. It's like the GOP is so sore about losing the White House and congressional control that all they want to do is sit on their bed, pout like a little girl and be uncooperative to the slightest notion of doing anything that helps this country if it isn't their own idea.
.

Horrible statement and there is no comparison. Who is "wishing failure"? Who?

You think that since I believe that hard working Americans who lived within their means and were fiscally responsible for the last 20 years shouldn't have to bail out the idiots who lived beyond their means and were stupid enough to take mortgages they couldn't afford, that equates to "wishing for failure".

This "stimulus" plan is beyond stupid, and it speaks to every problem I had with Obama and the democrats during the elections. The Democrats have proven once again that they are the party of no personal responsibility.

I don't yet own a home, even though I work harder then 99% of the people who are getting a mortgage bail out. You know why I don't own a home? Because IO am not a moron who takes a mortgage he can't afford. Be cause I am not a moron who lives beyond my means. These irresponsible dimwits are the people championed by the democratic party.

Why the hell should my taxes dollars go to bail out some idiot who refinanced his home to take a vacation to the bahamas? Why should I sit in my rented apartment while my tax dollars bail out some a$$hole who signed a mortage with a $15,000 balloon payment in 12 months when HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY WAY TO GET $15,000?

Disagreeing with stupid policies is "wishing for failure"? COME THE F*CK ON!

[sideoutshu]

Socialism is the new "Fire" word for the GOP. It was Terror now its Socialism. Though I dont think what Obama is trying to do would be socialism all we need to do is look north and see how well Canadas Banks are doing now compared to ours.



Socialism doesnt work? Well right now capitalism and greed doesnt work.

Have you actually looked north? Do you actually understand what goes on up there. My buddy who lives in Ontario just had to wait over 6 months for a knee surgery because it "wasn't life threatening". Freakin awesome!

I'm glad I am sitting here at work on Sunday so that some a$$hole sitting at home getting a welfare check can have universal healthcare.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Horrible statement and there is no comparison. Who is "wishing failure"? Who?



See your party leader, Rush Limbaugh..... and his 2nd Lieutenent SupDog :)

[Gtrght77]

Have you actually looked north? Do you actually understand what goes on up there. My buddy who lives in Ontario just had to wait over 6 months for a knee surgery because it "wasn't life threatening". Freakin awesome!

I'm glad I am sitting here at work on Sunday so that some a$$hole sitting at home getting a welfare check can have universal healthcare.

In a perfect world lawyers would be the first to go in a bad economy. ;)

[sideoutshu]

In a perfect world lawyers would be the first to go in a bad economy. ;)

Thankfully, I actually have the #1 recession proof job in America according to the NY times. Too bad, cause I might be able to get in line for the Obama handout jamboree if I didn't.

[TheSphinx 2.0]

Why the hell should my taxes dollars go to bail out some idiot who refinanced his home to take a vacation to the bahamas? Why should I sit in my rented apartment while my tax dollars bail out some a$$hole who signed a mortage with a $15,000 balloon payment in 12 months when HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY WAY TO GET $15,000?

This is basically where I am with this. The idea that I am being punished for being fiscally prudent while those who were finacially profilagate are being made out to be the victim infuriates me.

I just don't think you can privatize gains and socialize losses and expect the system to function properly in the future. But this is where we are at so lets hope that the outcome is one that is better for all of us.

-TS

[Nevada_Ballin]

This is basically where I am with this. The idea that I am being punished for being fiscally prudent while those who were finacially profilagate are being made out to be the victim infuriates me.

I just don't think you can privatize gains and socialize losses and expect the system to function properly in the future. But this is where we are at so lets hope that the outcome is one that is better for all of us.

-TS

I dunno if everyone knows what HR 3221 really consists of by reading some of the comments in here. Has anyone else read any of it besides me?

Contrary to popular belief, this does NOT help people who got into housing loans they should not have.

Who's not eligible? Part 1
Homeowners whose property values have dipped severely, putting them underwater by more than 5% are out of luck.

Those with "jumbo" mortgages also don't qualify. Only those who took out "conforming" loans - currently defined as mortgages of less than $417,000, except in certain high-cost areas such as New York City - from Fannie or Freddie would be able to refinance.

All borrowers will have to prove they have sufficient income to be able to keep up their loan payments.


Who's not eligible? Part 2
Speculators, those who bought homes for investment purposes, do not qualify for help because the property must be owner-occupied. No investor, vacant or condemned properties are eligible. Occupancy will be verified through a credit report and other documentation.

The program will also not reward homebuyers who were irresponsible in their borrowing. All applicants will be closely examined by lenders and those who acted unscrupulously by, for example, misrepresenting their incomes in no-doc loan applications, would not qualify.

To protect taxpayer money, modifications must make sound financial sense. Servicers are required to apply a "net present value test" on the loans at risk of immediate default or that are 60 days or more delinquent. If the test determines that the value of the loan is enhanced by doing a modification compared with allowing the loan to go into foreclosure, the lender will proceed with the workout.

That will disqualify many borrowers who simply can't afford any reasonable mortgage payment.

"[The plan] will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford," said Obama, when he announced the program two weeks ago. "In short, this plan will not save every home."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/04/real_estate/Obama_foreclosure_plan/index.htm?postversion=2009030512

.

[TheSphinx 2.0]

My friend, Nevada what is interesting is my gut tells me we would agree on most social policies but we couldn't be more apart on this one.

I dunno if everyone knows what HR 3221 really consists of by reading some of the comments in here. Has anyone else read any of it besides me?

I have.

Contrary to popular belief, this does NOT help people who got into housing loans they should not have.

Gotta stop you right there, my friend. Anybody who can no longer pay back their loan got into a loan they should not have. That is a fundamental disagreement you and I have.


Who's not eligible? Part 1...
Who's not eligible? Part 2...

Trying to parcel up the deadbeats into "deadbeat we feel sorry for" and "deadbeat who deserves what he/she is getting" is a moot point to me. I also believe it is destructive to the basic underpinnings of how capitalism works and will cause more issues longer-term. The fact is if people didn't get into loans they couldn't afford then we wouldn't have this issue. Bailing out anybody who made a bad decision gets back into the privatizing gains and socializing losses that I have talked about previously. The only way I can benefit from a good decision is if you suffer for a bad one. If you don't believe me just look at Japan. The stock market is close to a 30 year low. They already tried this and it did not work. Why would we go down the same path. At least I have history on my side her. The people on the other side are acting as if the whole Japan thing didn't happen.

To use a bad example that might hit close to home. It would be like if a competitor in the "grip" business borrowed money and invested in what he thought was going to be the killer technology in gaming grips. Unfortunately for him the technology wasn't as game breaking as he thought and he now can't pay back the loan. Now that is hasn't panned out and he is belly up he goes and asks the government to force you to subsidize him. The government feels sorry for him and decides that he shouldn't be allowed to fail. Now if he went away you could benefit by sopping up all his customers. This would allow you to benefit from making the smart decision (not going with the supposed new technology) and him to deal with the consequences of his bad decision. However now not only will he be able to benefit from his mistake, but you are subsidizing it and in the future when he is back to making profits he will then use those profits to compete for money making ideas with you (and you will have no way of claiming any of those profits even though it is your capital that is made it possible for him to get them)

Back to housing: There also are many questions that need to be resolved. For instance what happens in 10 years after I bail you out and now you can sell your house for a profit? Do you get to keep that profit or do you have to give it back to those who kept you afloat? There is no provision that I have read that makes it so if there is a gain on your house you have to pay back the taxpayer (i.e. a 1st lien that is owned by the taxpayer). So under the current plan not only am I paying your mortgage but I am also acting as your "angel investor" because I am fronting the capital for your future gains but, unlike a real angel investor, I am not reaping any of the benefit of the future gains. That doesn't make any sense but under the plan that is what I am doing.

Also do we really want a few people in government (whose ideas are swayed by popular opinion) deciding who is worthy of a bailout and who is not. We didn't bail out those poor people workers who got screwed in Enron and Worldcom or Lehman or Bear. Not the top brass but the rank and file worker who was just doing their job everyday. Nobody seemed to care about them.

Also using my money to help the people in loans they can't afford goes way beyond this part of the bailout. The fact that interest rates are at 0% was done, in part, to help those with resets coming up. So you take the underlying fed funds rate down 300bps and the floating rate mortgage should come down in tandem making it easier to deal with the reset. However my money is now earning nothing. So I am being screwed over for keeping myself in liquid safe investments while others are getting rewarded for doing the opposite.

What bothers me is that these people are seen as victims when in fact they are the reason for the problem. It is amazing in that you can (1) sign papers and borrow too much money then (2) blame it on somebody else then (3) come crying to me to help you out and (4) if I don't want to subsidize your bad decision making I am now the bad guy. None of this would have happened if the guy signing the loan would have said "I can't afford this" and walked away. What happened to personal responsibility?

-TS

[SUPDOG]

My friend, Nevada what is interesting is my gut tells me we would agree on most social policies but we couldn't be more apart on this one.



I have.



Gotta stop you right there, my friend. Anybody who can no longer pay back their loan got into a loan they should not have. That is a fundamental disagreement you and I have.



Trying to parcel up the deadbeats into "deadbeat we feel sorry for" and "deadbeat who deserves what he/she is getting" is a moot point to me. I also believe it is destructive to the basic underpinnings of how capitalism works and will cause more issues longer-term. The fact is if people didn't get into loans they couldn't afford then we wouldn't have this issue. Bailing out anybody who made a bad decision gets back into the privatizing gains and socializing losses that I have talked about previously. The only way I can benefit from a good decision is if you suffer for a bad one. If you don't believe me just look at Japan. The stock market is close to a 30 year low. They already tried this and it did not work. Why would we go down the same path. At least I have history on my side her. The people on the other side are acting as if the whole Japan thing didn't happen.

To use a bad example that might hit close to home. It would be like if a competitor in the "grip" business borrowed money and invested in what he thought was going to be the killer technology in gaming grips. Unfortunately for him the technology wasn't as game breaking as he thought and he now can't pay back the loan. Now that is hasn't panned out and he is belly up he goes and asks the government to force you to subsidize him. The government feels sorry for him and decides that he shouldn't be allowed to fail. Now if he went away you could benefit by sopping up all his customers. This would allow you to benefit from making the smart decision (not going with the supposed new technology) and him to deal with the consequences of his bad decision. However now not only will he be able to benefit from his mistake, but you are subsidizing it and in the future when he is back to making profits he will then use those profits to compete for money making ideas with you (and you will have no way of claiming any of those profits even though it is your capital that is made it possible for him to get them)

Back to housing: There also are many questions that need to be resolved. For instance what happens in 10 years after I bail you out and now you can sell your house for a profit? Do you get to keep that profit or do you have to give it back to those who kept you afloat? There is no provision that I have read that makes it so if there is a gain on your house you have to pay back the taxpayer (i.e. a 1st lien that is owned by the taxpayer). So under the current plan not only am I paying your mortgage but I am also acting as your "angel investor" because I am fronting the capital for your future gains but, unlike a real angel investor, I am not reaping any of the benefit of the future gains. That doesn't make any sense but under the plan that is what I am doing.

Also do we really want a few people in government (whose ideas are swayed by popular opinion) deciding who is worthy of a bailout and who is not. We didn't bail out those poor people workers who got screwed in Enron and Worldcom or Lehman or Bear. Not the top brass but the rank and file worker who was just doing their job everyday. Nobody seemed to care about them.

Also using my money to help the people in loans they can't afford goes way beyond this part of the bailout. The fact that interest rates are at 0% was done, in part, to help those with resets coming up. So you take the underlying fed funds rate down 300bps and the floating rate mortgage should come down in tandem making it easier to deal with the reset. However my money is now earning nothing. So I am being screwed over for keeping myself in liquid safe investments while others are getting rewarded for doing the opposite.

What bothers me is that these people are seen as victims when in fact they are the reason for the problem. It is amazing in that you can (1) sign papers and borrow too much money then (2) blame it on somebody else then (3) come crying to me to help you out and (4) if I don't want to subsidize your bad decision making I am now the bad guy. None of this would have happened if the guy signing the loan would have said "I can't afford this" and walked away. What happened to personal responsibility?

-TS

Will you manage my company? :)

[Nevada_Ballin]

My friend, Nevada what is interesting is my gut tells me we would agree on most social policies but we couldn't be more apart on this one.



I have.



Gotta stop you right there, my friend. Anybody who can no longer pay back their loan got into a loan they should not have. That is a fundamental disagreement you and I have.



Trying to parcel up the deadbeats into "deadbeat we feel sorry for" and "deadbeat who deserves what he/she is getting" is a moot point to me. I also believe it is destructive to the basic underpinnings of how capitalism works and will cause more issues longer-term. The fact is if people didn't get into loans they couldn't afford then we wouldn't have this issue. Bailing out anybody who made a bad decision gets back into the privatizing gains and socializing losses that I have talked about previously. The only way I can benefit from a good decision is if you suffer for a bad one. If you don't believe me just look at Japan. The stock market is close to a 30 year low. They already tried this and it did not work. Why would we go down the same path. At least I have history on my side her. The people on the other side are acting as if the whole Japan thing didn't happen.

To use a bad example that might hit close to home. It would be like if a competitor in the "grip" business borrowed money and invested in what he thought was going to be the killer technology in gaming grips. Unfortunately for him the technology wasn't as game breaking as he thought and he now can't pay back the loan. Now that is hasn't panned out and he is belly up he goes and asks the government to force you to subsidize him. The government feels sorry for him and decides that he shouldn't be allowed to fail. Now if he went away you could benefit by sopping up all his customers. This would allow you to benefit from making the smart decision (not going with the supposed new technology) and him to deal with the consequences of his bad decision. However now not only will he be able to benefit from his mistake, but you are subsidizing it and in the future when he is back to making profits he will then use those profits to compete for money making ideas with you (and you will have no way of claiming any of those profits even though it is your capital that is made it possible for him to get them)

Back to housing: There also are many questions that need to be resolved. For instance what happens in 10 years after I bail you out and now you can sell your house for a profit? Do you get to keep that profit or do you have to give it back to those who kept you afloat? There is no provision that I have read that makes it so if there is a gain on your house you have to pay back the taxpayer (i.e. a 1st lien that is owned by the taxpayer). So under the current plan not only am I paying your mortgage but I am also acting as your "angel investor" because I am fronting the capital for your future gains but, unlike a real angel investor, I am not reaping any of the benefit of the future gains. That doesn't make any sense but under the plan that is what I am doing.

Also do we really want a few people in government (whose ideas are swayed by popular opinion) deciding who is worthy of a bailout and who is not. We didn't bail out those poor people workers who got screwed in Enron and Worldcom or Lehman or Bear. Not the top brass but the rank and file worker who was just doing their job everyday. Nobody seemed to care about them.

Also using my money to help the people in loans they can't afford goes way beyond this part of the bailout. The fact that interest rates are at 0% was done, in part, to help those with resets coming up. So you take the underlying fed funds rate down 300bps and the floating rate mortgage should come down in tandem making it easier to deal with the reset. However my money is now earning nothing. So I am being screwed over for keeping myself in liquid safe investments while others are getting rewarded for doing the opposite.

What bothers me is that these people are seen as victims when in fact they are the reason for the problem. It is amazing in that you can (1) sign papers and borrow too much money then (2) blame it on somebody else then (3) come crying to me to help you out and (4) if I don't want to subsidize your bad decision making I am now the bad guy. None of this would have happened if the guy signing the loan would have said "I can't afford this" and walked away. What happened to personal responsibility?

-TS

1. I cannot, in good conscience, call someone a "deadbeat" who had that ability to afford the home they got the loan for when they applied for it. Who's to say what happens in the future? Lost that job dring a time when other jobs are hard to find, got that disease, had that heart attack, had to take care of a sick parent, etc. It's extremely unfair to generalize the people in the situations they are in in the manner you have. That's just saying no one should ever apply for any kind of loan for any kind of reason because crap happens in life.

2. Funny that you brought up a grip competitor. I actually found one a little while back and I bought their product so I could compare to mine. Personally this product doesn't concern me, it's extremely thick foam, feels like something that was added to the controller and the adhesive stopped sticking the next day - it's just not in the same league as what I have. If he fails and gets some gov help, i can't sit here and worry about that. I've got my own business and customers to take care of. (Just like Ford who didn't get goverment help does not complain about GM getting it). But if there was a failing grip business that had worhtwhile products, I'd buy his business before he had a chance to do anything else. That's how that is done. Entrepreneurs gobble up the competiton.

3. Back to housing - no one is getting "bailed out", the government isn't giving these people money and saying "here, go pay your mortgages". That's a gross misrepresentation of what is going on. These people are getting the opportunity - if they qualify - to refinance their existing loans. Refinancing loans is nothing new.

[bk1998]

3. Back to housing - no one is getting "bailed out", the government isn't giving these people money and saying "here, go pay your mortgages". That's a gross misrepresentation of what is going on. These people are getting the opportunity - if they qualify - to refinance their existing loans. Refinancing loans is nothing new.

This is not correct. Some homeowners will have their principle reduced by the gov't. This is not a simple "refinancing."

Reduction in principle = addition to the bottom line.

So no, the government isn't saying "here's money, go pay your mortgages" rather, in some instances they're saying "here, take this free wealth we're handing out."

[Nevada_Ballin]

This is not correct. Some homeowners will have their principle reduced by the gov't. This is not a simple "refinancing."

Reduction in principle = addition to the bottom line.

So no, the government isn't saying "here's money, go pay your mortgages" rather, in some instances they're saying "here, take this free wealth we're handing out."

Some = not all, nor most. Even then, the loss absorbed by the write-down would be far less than if the mortgage was defaulted on altogether.


.

[bk1998]

Some = not all, nor most. Even then, the loss absorbed by the write-down would be far less than if the mortgage was defaulted on altogether.
.

Handouts for free wealth are what I take issue with, first and foremost.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Handouts for free wealth are what I take issue with, first and foremost.

what's the "handout" and what is the "free wealth"? Again, the government isn't giving people money or vouchers for them to pay their mortgages.

[bk1998]

what's the "handout" and what is the "free wealth"? Again, the government isn't giving people money or vouchers for them to pay their mortgages.

Free wealth: An overnight addition to one's "personal wealth" based on the government's decision to decrease principle.

By decreasing principle, the homeowner now "owns" more of the home's (asset) value.

It's a handout of wealth, plain and simple.

I'm assuming you understand the concept of equity, right? You are a business *owner*, right?

[Nevada_Ballin]

Free wealth: An overnight addition to one's "personal wealth" based on the government's decision to decrease principle.

By decreasing principle, the homeowner now "owns" more of the home's (asset) value.

It's a handout of wealth, plain and simple.

I'm assuming you understand the concept of equity, right? You are a business *owner*, right?


For these people, who again are not "most", we're talking about what, appox $3,500 a year off the reduced principle ($291 a month)? I don't see that as really generating "free wealth" for these people. Yes, they get to keep their homes and retain the equity but so what? It's still better than the loss absorbed by absolute default of the loan. Maintaining that equity also helps the rest of the homeowners in that area.

I'd much rather see Americans, those who are stout in work ethic, self-responsibility and pride who have come across a hard time for some reason or another beyond their contorl, get back on their feet than kick them while they are down. There has to be a level of compassion here for those who have not gamed the system. I have no problem being labeled as compassionate to my fellow man. I'd definitely be guilty as charged.

[sanantonio]

For these people, who again are not "most", we're talking about what, appox $3,500 a year off the reduced principle ($291 a month)? I don't see that as really generating "free wealth" for these people. Yes, they get to keep their homes and retain the equity but so what? It's still better than the loss absorbed by absolute default of the loan. Maintaining that equity also helps the rest of the homeowners in that area.

I'd much rather see Americans, those who are stout in work ethic, self-responsibility and pride who have come across a hard time for some reason or another beyond their contorl, get back on their feet than kick them while they are down. There has to be a level of compassion here for those who have not gamed the system. I have no problem being labeled as compassionate to my fellow man. I'd definitely be guilty as charged.

Nevada don't you understand most people would rather bail out the financials than the common man. Plus how else are they going to be able to continue to give bonuses for failure and give elaborate parties and perks. You need to adjust your priorties Mr. and stop worrying about the middle class. :rolleyes: I'm out!!!!

[Nevada_Ballin]

Nevada don't you understand most people would rather bail out the financials than the common man. Plus how else are they going to be able to continue to give bonuses for failure and give elaborate parties and perks. You need to adjust your priorties Mr. and stop worrying about the middle class. :rolleyes: I'm out!!!!

lol......... i can't help it, sometimes the common citizen needs to be championed when he is down on his luck. :)

[Gtrght77]

Handouts for free wealth are what I take issue with, first and foremost.

Tax Cuts for home owners.

[sideoutshu]

1. I cannot, in good conscience, call someone a "deadbeat" who had that ability to afford the home they got the loan for when they applied for it. Who's to say what happens in the future? Lost that job dring a time when other jobs are hard to find, got that disease, had that heart attack, had to take care of a sick parent, etc. It's extremely unfair to generalize the people in the situations they are in in the manner you have. That's just saying no one should ever apply for any kind of loan for any kind of reason because crap happens in life.


So if someone signs a loan document with a $20,000 balloon payment in a year it is ok that they don't have the $20,000, as long as they can afford the monthly payments now? huh?

These people were stupid! Plain and simple. They wre gambling that the housing market would continue to skyrocket and WERE WRONG. You know what smart people do when they take loans? They have contingency plans. If I lost my job tommorrow, do you think I would instantly be kicked out of my home to the street? Of course not. If you take a loan, you should probably make sure you have a way to get the money to pay it back if something bad happens.

Sure, it is the PC thing to say that "crap happens in life", but what you are really saying is "crap happens in life and the government/other taxpayers should have to insure against it." That isn't America man. I don't want to subsidize YOUR bad decisions. If you make bad decisions, YOU should pay for them, not me. I have been paying premiums for life insurance, helath insurrance, disability insurance etc. for YEARS at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars to make sure that if "crap happens in life" myself and my family don't end up on the street. Everyone else has the same oppurtunity to insure against 'crap', being too stupid to do so does not entitle you to government help.



3. Back to housing - no one is getting "bailed out", the government isn't giving these people money and saying "here, go pay your mortgages". That's a gross misrepresentation of what is going on. These people are getting the opportunity - if they qualify - to refinance their existing loans. Refinancing loans is nothing new.

Firstly, you are wrong. Obama's plan is giving cash incentives to both borrowers and banks who refinance. Secondly,

Accruing an undeserved benefit for making a bad decision at the cost of others who made the right decisions = bailout.

[sideoutshu]

For these people, who again are not "most", we're talking about what, appox $3,500 a year off the reduced principle ($291 a month)? I don't see that as really generating "free wealth" for these people. Yes, they get to keep their homes and retain the equity but so what? It's still better than the loss absorbed by absolute default of the loan. Maintaining that equity also helps the rest of the homeowners in that area.


So what? Are you freakin kidding me?

What the hell have I been doing living within my means and renting for the past 5 years if these deadbeat numbskulls get to keep their homes they can't afford and continue to build equity because Obama thnks he is Robin Hood?

This isn't helping honest hard working Americans.....it is a slap in the face to honest, hard working Americans. Why the hell have I been scrimping and saving for an ADEQUATE down payment for the past 5 years so that some jackass who refinanced his home to go to Mardi Gras can get bailed out? GTFOH.

[Gtrght77]

Yeah!!!



Its much better to have entire neighborhoods of foreclosed abandoned houses. :eek:


I am so glad I didnt buy a house when everyone else was.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Sideout~

1. You're blowing smoke up a chimney that doesn't exist, making an hypothetical argument against a plan that isn't even there, creating a false environment for your view so you think you have made a valid point.

2. Let me repeat from "Who's Not Eligible #2" > The program will also not reward homebuyers who were irresponsible in their borrowing. All applicants will be closely examined by lenders and those who acted unscrupulously by, for example, misrepresenting their incomes in no-doc loan applications, would not qualify.

3. That's nice that you have a contingency plan if you lost your job. What if you lost your job, your wife became terminally ill and you have 2.5 kids to raise? How long does your contingency plan last in that scenario? You can't apply your personal well-being and say that eveyrone should be like you. Everyone's life takes different roads, some good, most average, some not so good. "Crap happens" isn't some PC cliche, it's a reality that happens everyday. I saw a story on the news today where a little girl had a tumor inside her body and she had to have 7 organs removed to get that tumor out. Do you have a contingency plan if something like that happens in your life? Yea man, crap happens, even to the good people in this world.

[Nevada_Ballin]

So what? Are you freakin kidding me?

What the hell have I been doing living within my means and renting for the past 5 years if these deadbeat numbskulls get to keep their homes they can't afford and continue to build equity because Obama thnks he is Robin Hood?

This isn't helping honest hard working Americans.....it is a slap in the face to honest, hard working Americans. Why the hell have I been scrimping and saving for an ADEQUATE down payment for the past 5 years so that some jackass who refinanced his home to go to Mardi Gras can get bailed out? GTFOH.


Again, more smoke up a chimney that doesn't even exist.

Check back when you know what you're talking about ( my version of gtfoh)

[bk1998]

This discussion has become straight up retarded. It's pointless to argue with anyone who doesn't understand equity (NB and Gtright420).

Under their logic, it's ok to just give away equity to those dumb enough to sign into bad investments/horrible loans.

Getowdahere.

[TheSphinx 2.0]

This is a bailout. If you don't believe that then you don't understand economics. There is no other way around it. I have given an example of a bank's balance sheet to help people get it. I have given an example of the impact on the rest of the currency. I have given an example of how it undermines free markets. If you don't understand by now you are either choosing not to or you just don't get finance (which is fine).

Everybody who keeps telling me it is not a bailout, please explain to me where the money is coming from to make these uneconomical deals economic?? Thanks.

BTW for all the people who believe that bailing these people out is what needs to be done, there is a bankruptcy system in America that is very forgiving and that lets people get out from under their debt. It is one of the better systems around the world. The problem is people don't want to do that because it has consequences. Every person behind on their mortgage could file and get the debt wiped out. Sure they would have to adjust their lives but that is what happens. People act like there is no way out for them other than me funding them. That is not true at all. The problem is all the other options actually require some sacrifice on their part...and that is too much to ask. Instead of doing the responsible thing in filing and starting over they want to have it all. Reduce my payment...refi my mortgage at uneconomical levels...make it so there is as little disruption to my life as possible. That is just childish and it is symptomatic of what is wrong with this country now (gets off soapbox).

Why can't these people just file bankruptcy?? I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why that option isn't feasible.

(back on soapbox) Everybody wants the good but nobody wants the bad. As soon as something bad happens here come the excuses..."oh I got sick...I didn't know I would lose my job...I got a divorce"...blah blah blah. Frankly, who cares, that is life. You plan for a rainy day. Crap happens everyday. You put 40% down, you don't buy unless you can afford to still make the payments if you are unemployed for a year. You buy a house that you can afford on half you income. You get a roommate (even if that is another couple). That is what responsible people do. But if you do all that and things still don't work out, you man up and deal with it. You file bankruptcy and try to start over. You move back home. You get a job working at McDonalds. You grind it out and try to get back on your feet. You don't come crying to me because you are in a pinch, because you definitely wouldn't come to me sharing the gain if it was successful.

Oh yeah and what about that...do I get some of the upside since I am protecting you from the downside. I haven't heard anybody talk about that. Because sharing the upside would mean you don't get something for nothing and that would be unacceptable. I would be more willing to put out the money if there was some mechanism to get it back, but there is nothing. I hate the bank bailout but at least there the taxpayers are getting some equity and a pretty nice fee for the insurance we are providing. We at least have a chance to make some of our money back. With this homeowner bailout we have no chance to get any money back because there is nothing in the contract that makes us whole.

I have two couple friends. Both married with no kids with husband and wife both working. Both worked on Wall Street and both bought houses in late 2005 early 2006. One bought a house in Queens that they could afford on just one income while the other bought an apartment in Manhattan that needed both incomes to support. The Queens couple put a ton down while the Manhattan couple put the regular amount (I assume, I don't know for sure). Both took out 30 year fixed loans (or at least they are both on 30-year fixed now...not sure if anybody refied over last 3 years) The Queens house was "nice" but it definitely wasn't something to brag to your friends about. The neighborhood was decent but not "good". The Manhattan apartment was gorgeous and the location was considered a really good one. Both lost their jobs in the middle of 2008 when the massive bank layoffs started. The couple that bought a house based on one income is still OK. Sure they had to adjust their lifestyle (drastically) and they can't save as much (or anything at all) but they still can make the payments and they aren't in dire straits. They are stressed and worried but not unable to meet their obligations. They have enough liquid investments to buffer them even if the wife loses her job as well. They have also been actively looking to sell or rent the house and move into something even smaller. They planned prudently and are now benefitting from their prudence. The other couple is falling apart because they can't afford the place anymore. They are complaining about hard times and how they should be helped and how they were "prudent" and blah blah blah. Sure the house wasn't too expensive when they bought it but that is because they assumed nothing bad ever happens. Their assumptions were wrong and now they are dealing with the consequence. They should have said" can I afford this on one income...what if I lose my job". They should have had more savings in place. They should have bought a smaller place. They weren't FORCED to buy the house they did, they CHOSE to. Now that things are going badly why should I be FORCED to support them? They were adults and made an adult decision. Two couples going through the same thing and yet two different outcomes. I applaud my Queens friends and have told my Manhattan friends that they should file and move on. They don't want to because they think they deserve to be saved (and think they will be). The 2nd couple reminds me of so many people. They think that what is happening to them is not their fault because who can predict losing your job or getting sick or what ever bad things happen. They just caught a bad deal and they shouldn't be held responsible for that because if you have to plan for the worst then who would ever buy anything. That is not how it works. You have to plan for bad scenarios and work that into you thinking. Sure that means that you won't have the nicest or newest stuff but it also means when it hits the fan you aren't on the soup line.

I don't own a home and for good reason. Because I did the math over the last 6 years and said that the prices in the Northeast made no sense and I wasn't going to pay what people were asking for the type of house I wanted...(yes I wanted a McMansion). I walked away from houses in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. From 2002 to 2006 I looked like an idiot because prices kept going up (but I was willing to look like one) and at times I questioned my analysis of the market. But I kept saying this is unsustainable. Friends and colleagues were buying places, watching them appreciate, selling them and moving into bigger houses while my wife and I were just renting away. We didn't have the big 5,000 sq ft house to show off. We wanted it but every time we went to look at a house it was higher than I wanted to pay. Could I have paid what people were asking? Sure. I could have paid much more than people were asking, but I was being prudent and asking questions like "what if I lose my job how long can I keep the mortgage" or "what if the value drops by 20%". Brokers were telling me that asking those types of questions was silly because "house prices always go up over the long term so even if you lost your job you could sell it for more than you bought it". The market was insane. I would bid on a house and would be outbid by a person making 1/3rd of what I make. I would see a house I like and need time to run some numbers and brokers would tell me "you gotta get in right now because the prices will continue to go up"...and it did. Land was being valued at millions of dollars per acre. It was just unbelivable. I wouldn't take any other loan than a 30-year fixed. I must have told the broker a thousand times "if I can't afford it with a 30-year fixed then I can't afford it". When I said that brokers would tell me I am never going to find a place because that is the outdated way to finance a house. Now fast-forward to 2009 and I am looking pretty good. I saved a ton of money renting vs. buying over the last 7 years. Many people are drowning in debt and now I can pick off the properties I want at fire sale prices. That is how the market should work. Those who didn't buy over the lat 7 years should be able to buy houses now at prices that make sense, not at inflated prices that are being propped up by unecomonic bailouts. This concept that we should help keep people in homes they can't afford has just been made up recently.

I don't think I will ever change anyone's mind on this one. You either believe economics or you don't. You either believe that you can only prosper from good decisions if people suffer from bad ones or you don't. You either believe your problems are not my responsibility or you don't. You either believe history or you don't.

You can't have it both ways. I would love to only have upside in my ventures but I can't. You see there are two people involved in every deal. One is buying and one is selling. One of them is going to make out and the other is going to do poorly. That is the market. When you say that one can't do poorly you are saying the other can't do well.

I give up on this one fellas. At this point you either know it or you don't. Good luck and I hope the market never actually turns out they way you guys are hoping it does. Because my gut tells me you have no idea how bad it would actually be...

-TS

[SUPDOG]

Can't argue with reason.

Wehn i started my business 4 years ago I was just coming out of college and had nothing.

I got some high interest loans to start. I made a stupid move in bringing in my brother to invest, and got in over my head from the get go.

I could have given up. I could have asked for bailouts from friends and the like.

I just worked harder and now have turned it around. My company is likely #1 or #2 in the area and I am well respected. I use my God given talents, integrity and great customer service. I am thankful to say that debt doesn't own me anymore. I am in control of where my money goes.

America gave me the room to succeed. The free market works to my advantage because I know my product, I know how to sell it to my customers, and they prefer me over any other,(most of them anyway)

What Obama and the socialist agenda are bringing to the country is rewards for failure. My brother, is bankrupt because he lived his life on credit. He got me into credit as well, for a good 2 years. $20,000+ in debt I accumulated as a result of listening to the lie, "credit is your friend", etc.

Anyway, my brother was rewarded for his spend, spend spend lifestyle by "borrowiing" money from close freinds and family. 10,000 here, 8,000 there, and ALL OF THAT MONEY IS GONE! GONE!

I guarentee you that he would borrow and borrow some more if he had the chance. Why? Because people stepped in and bailed him out! And guess what IT DIDN'T WORK! WE ALL LOST!! The only lesson learned by my brother is that if he gets in debt again, he can just hold out his hand and someone will grease his palms.And that is what the government is FORCING on people like me! THAT is what this bailout is teaching those who recieve it. Just go out and do stupid stuff and daddy government will take care of you. THINK BEYOND YOUR EMOTIONS!

That is why you liberals make me sick with your class baiting garbage. Nevada, "9 million homeless people" and GT "neighborhoods shut down". Unreal how Obama has put a spell on you people. YOU ARE NOT HELPING THESE PEOPLE!! TEACH THEM A LESSON, SO THEY CAN BE PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY!!!! GO RENT AN APARTMENT AND LEARN YOUR LESSON!

Finally, let us no longer use the phrase "government bailout", because it is not genuine. Let us rather replace it with the phrase, "other people who are being forced to give their money to others who live follishly or who are mostly lazy". There, that's better.

[resnor]

Here's another question concerning bailouts of mortgages...I was discussing this with one of the women I work with...

Why shouldn't RESPONSIBLE people get a better loan rate? Why shouldn't people with loans with banks OTHER THAN Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get a better loan rate? I mean, this woman I work with, she's married, and has three kids. Her and her husband both work, and they pay their bills. If THEY could get THEIR interest dropped from 7 or 8% to 3%, that would be thousands in savings for them. They would like to get a newer car, but can't right now...if they had that savings, they COULD get their car. Wouldn't it make sense for the government to be helping those who are currently able to pay their mortgages, too? I mean, if you want to stimulate the economy, give people the opportunity to have more money, so that they have more to spend. Bailing out people who have no money isn't going to stimulate the economy.

Nevada, you talk about buying out a competitor who had a quality product, but a failing business. That's really no different than the housing market. You have millions of people with a quality product (house), but a failing business (loan that's too expensive). With the market down, house prices are down, and now people that WANT TO BUY, can buy houses at a reasonable rate. That's capitalism, that's economics.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Here's another question concerning bailouts of mortgages...I was discussing this with one of the women I work with...

Why shouldn't RESPONSIBLE people get a better loan rate? Why shouldn't people with loans with banks OTHER THAN Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get a better loan rate? I mean, this woman I work with, she's married, and has three kids. Her and her husband both work, and they pay their bills. If THEY could get THEIR interest dropped from 7 or 8% to 3%, that would be thousands in savings for them. They would like to get a newer car, but can't right now...if they had that savings, they COULD get their car. Wouldn't it make sense for the government to be helping those who are currently able to pay their mortgages, too? I mean, if you want to stimulate the economy, give people the opportunity to have more money, so that they have more to spend. Bailing out people who have no money isn't going to stimulate the economy.

Nevada, you talk about buying out a competitor who had a quality product, but a failing business. That's really no different than the housing market. You have millions of people with a quality product (house), but a failing business (loan that's too expensive). With the market down, house prices are down, and now people that WANT TO BUY, can buy houses at a reasonable rate. That's capitalism, that's economics.


1. There's nothing stopping responsible people who are not facing possible foreclosure from refinancing their loans. The woman you work with can absolutely shop her present loan around to get a better deal.

2. The difference between the business and housing is that if the failing business goes under, it doesn't affect the value of its surrounding businesses. Neighbors aren't "competitiors", there aren't many times when someone is going to buy the house next door to them to keep the value of their house/neighborhood from declining. Apple and orange.

TS2 ~
I don't know how many ways I can say it but people who took out loans they couldn't afford in the first place are not going to get help. Your Queens/Manhatten reference are perfect examples that support what I'm saying (and what the program now in place does). That couple in Mahatten probably will not qualify because they should have never took out that loan in the first place. Your tax dollars are not going to save them.

One thing that's being overlooked by everyone is this: those who qualified for the refinanced payments down to 31% would only that for five years and then gradually revert back to the conforming loan rates in place at the time. This is not some permanent deal for these people, it's just a little help.

Also, "in order to protect taxpayers from excessive expenses, no loans will be modified unless it results in a net savings compared with the costs of foreclosing."

The whole bankruptcy thing was a little weird, on one hand you're saying people shouldn't be able to get "bailed out" and on the other hand you are saying they should try to release their responsibility for their debt altogether by filing bankruptcy.



.

[TheSphinx 2.0]

TS2 ~
I don't know how many ways I can say it but people who took out loans they couldn't afford in the first place are not going to get help. .

You keep saying this silly "those who were irresponsible won't get a bailout" because the adminstration is telling you that, but you have no way to prove it and we have no way to monitor it. However history has shown us many many times that when the goverment gets involved in things like this there is wide spread abuse. History has also proven that what the goverment tells us is in many cases not true. Lets see just in the last year:

1. The goverment told us there would be no need for a TARP 2...there was. 2. The goverment told us there would be oversight and accontability to how they gave the money out...there wasn't.
3. The goverment told us there were no earmarks in the stimulus bill...there were.
4. The government told us they wouldn't need to nationalize FNM and FRE and AIG and Citi...they did (Citi is all but nationalized since the goverment owns 40% of it).
5. The government told us bills would be put up on the internet for 5 dyas to view before they were passed...they weren't.
6. The goverment told us the economy was falling apart to get the stimulus passed then told us less than a week later that the economy would grow 3% to get the budget done...one of them is a lie...
7. The government told us with the new capital banks would get back to lending...they haven't.

Now the goverment is telling us only the good people will get help. But instead of looking back less than a year and saying "you know you guys have had a really bad track record on this stuff can you walk me through in detail how you are going to monitor this program" you are instead saying "Obama said it so it must be true" and then telling it to me as if I am the crazy one for doubting it. The government will say anything to get something passed and the way they get people to buy into that foolishness is by having other people just parrot what current administration says. "Oh Obama/Bush said it so it must be true. I have no earthly way to verify it and all the evidence is to the contrary but since he said it and I like him I will pretend as if it is gospel". So you can keep kidding yourself with this silly "nobody who was irresponsible with get help" garbage if you want I will glady take the other side of that bet since it has turned out to go that way 100% of the time. BTW the adminstration's own "guru" on this stuff is saying that it will be hard to truly police who was good and who was bad (heard that from a talking head...can't verify it but I have heard them explain why monitoring TARP is almost impossible to do so this statement wouldn't suprise me). So I can almost gaurantee that in 12 - 24 months we will be hearing of widespread abuse and how people were getting money for 2nd homes and all types of stuff. Then the argument will be "we wanted to get the money out quickly and some bad apples got in, but that is worth it to save the ones we determined weren't bad apples...blah blah blah". In the end more of my hard earned money thrown in the trash.


Also, "in order to protect taxpayers from excessive expenses, no loans will be modified unless it results in a net savings compared with the costs of foreclosing."

Are you kidding me. I have come to the conclusion that politicians think the average American is an idiot and that is why they put stuff like this out. Anybody who believes has absolutely no understanding of the math involved with all this. Please tell me how I calculate the "net savings"??? What exactly does that mean??? Where is the formula for that so I can verify if the analysis is good or not on a home by home basis??? I want one consitent formula that I can use. I am waiting. Before you try I will tell you...it is a made up number. It has no basis in reality. I can say if you let me foreclose then the house will go down by 90% but if you keep me in it then the value won't go down at all. Look at the "net savings" you have by keeping me in the house. That is just garbage. If there truly is a real "net savings" number then why don't we use it everyday and decide who to keep in houses all the time. If we can actually "save" by keeping people in their homes this should be a permanant program. You know why it is not....you know why this isn't done anywhere on the planet...you wanna know why...I will tell you way...wait for it...BECAUSE IT IS GARBAGE. Come on guys, this is basic level finance here.

TS2 ~
One thing that's being overlooked by everyone is this: those who qualified for the refinanced payments down to 31% would only that for five years and then gradually revert back to the conforming loan rates in place at the time. This is not some permanent deal for these people, it's just a little help.

What if conforming loan rates are 1,000bps higher at the time and they can't afford it? Will we let them go bust then? What does gradually mean? What if they sell the house for a $100k profit? Will the taxpayer get any of it? Can we stop them from putting another mortgage on the house in this 5 years? Can they rent out the place and make a profit while we are subsidizing them over the next 5 years?

The goverment is supposed to be the steward of our tax dollars. The fact that they can present a program that I can pick apart in the span of 10mins as a prudent use of our capital is shameful. The fact that people buy into it and promote it is laughable.

TS2 ~
The whole bankruptcy thing was a little weird, on one hand you're saying people shouldn't be able to get "bailed out" and on the other hand you are saying they should try to release their responsibility for their debt altogether by filing bankruptcy.

No what I am saying is there is already something in the system that allows people to get from under their debt. We pay for it in every purchase we make and it is called bankruptcy. When you buy anything you are paying a small portion for the risk that some %tage of the people out there won't live up to their obligations. Since we already are paying for that why can't people use it. Why are we now paying for another bailout that actually doesn't have any consequences for those we are bailing out. At least with bankruptcy there is some payback mechanism in place but with this there is nothing. This is just a pure cash giveaway with no strings attached and no way to get some of the money back on the other side if they sell the house for a profit. And that is why people want this...becuase it is consequence free cash . They want a giveaway. They don't want to take the route that has any consequences at all.

I could see if there was no bankruptc system. I could see if there was no way to get from under the debt. But we have a system. The big issue is people don't want to have to give up the house they can't afford. They think it is somehow theirs even though they can't afford it and can't pay the debt they took out to get it. They think that while some Americans are living in apartments and others are living with parents while they save they should be able to stay in the house they bought that they can't pay for. Because in their mind it is all about them and for some reason they "deserve" a little help off the backs of everybody else.

-TS

[Nevada_Ballin]

TS - there's a lot of 2-way assumptions here form both of us and the only way we'll find out if anything changes is to revisit this in about 12 months and see where things stand.

At that time we'll look to see who got what, how things really shook out and how badly it hurt everyone else here who keep insisting that they are going to have to pay for those who got in over their heads :)

.

[SUPDOG]

TS - there's a lot of 2-way assumptions here form both of us and the only way we'll find out if anything changes is to revisit this in about 12 months and see where things stand.

At that time we'll look to see who got what, how things really shook out and how badly it hurt everyone else here who keep insisting that they are going to have to pay for those who got in over their heads :)

.

Translation: Since I am getting it handed to me on every front I am going to punt the ball until a later date when I hope you are no longer around. :)


Hmmm, this is kind of like Obam bam and the Gitmo/Iraq issues, no?

[Gtrght77]

You guys may disagree but you have no results yet to show. If we can get through 8 years of the idiot Bush nothing Obama can do will be worse.


This thread was about that idiot Rush and how he is leading the crazies.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Translation: Since I am getting it handed to me on every front I am going to punt the ball until a later date when I hope you are no longer around. :)


Hmmm, this is kind of like Obam bam and the Gitmo/Iraq issues, no?

Real translation > everything everyone has said about this is nothing more but speculation about what's going to happen. I know, you have issues with reality but it's all good :)

btw, nothing been handed to me since nothing we've talked about has been proven to be the case on either side at this time. We'll revisit in 12 months, cya then Gov Jindal! lol