United States Heading towards a Depression?

Awesome post man!

 

Section 8 Housing

Why do Republicans need to lie to make a point or do you think that they are simply too stupid to calculate things?

 

Gworld, you are either challenged by math or reading comprehension. First off, your quote did not cap the amount paid by the government. It did, however, cap the amount paid by the consumer at 40%. Using the numbers from my story, an income of $22,000 per year would hard cap my contribution to rent at 40% or $8,800, though the norm is closer to 30% or $7,300. Considering rent on a $2000/month unit comes out to $24,000 a year, the government would be subsidizing $12,700. I realize that is short of the $16,800 annual stipend I quoted, so to make things right, I'll make sure to rent a nicer place. With the housing bust, home owners are flooding to section 8 to keep their places rented, which means I'll have lots of nice places to choose from.

 

It seems to me that the real issue here is that people like Breeze Wood and gworld are simply terrified of a world where the government isn't responsible for running their lives -- they simply never grew up and matured into adult human beings who felt comfortable managing their own lives.

They remind me of this guy, who is a living (barely) monument to the death of personal responsibility.

These folks think of the productive classes as their slaves. I am no one's slave.

 

The connection between the displaced and the Chamber of Commerce is only to apparent in comparison to the frugality of earmarks, military industrial complex, dept. of energy.....etc. of gov't expenditures that O-nation, compelled by Islam bestows for himself the retribution for the grievous injustice warented by the homeless for their extravagance and is second by W Spencer - hang them high boys for they are sinners.

 

Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money.

 

Why do Democrats need to lie to make a point or do you think that they are simply too stupid to calculate things?

For example, here's a question to the other small businesses here - have you noticed that we seem to be in the middle of rampant inflation? Anyone who regularly shops in a supermarket has noticed that.

When Bush was President, the price of milk was dropping. But starting with the first time Obama put his hand on the economy the first month be became President, the price of milk has been steadily rising:
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/DA/W

That pretty much sums it up.

When I worked for the Democrats as a consultant in the late 1980's, I was given a book to understand the mindset of the Democratic voter. It's called "The 12 Steps for Adult Children".

 

Corwin and Spencer - Twiddling your thumbs as a remedy for your minority status is about the best you two have to offer for a nation now ending your meaningless war and successfully engaging the overall maleficences of the previous Pub Administration......don't you two cry to much come November, try being men about it this time around and remember, buying, spending and lying your way back is how you got to where you are now.

..............

 

@BW, don't cry too much come November. Try being a man about it this time around - and remember, buying, spending and lying is how Obama got to where he is now. And every poll shows it's going to hurt the Democrats come November.

 

New-home sales drop to record low 276,000 yearly rate

Existing-home sales plunge 27.2%
Inventory of unsold homes jumps to 11-year high

Reality is, if you bought a home with the extra $8000 gift from Obama, which he borrowed from your children, your new home has probably already decreased in value in excess of the $8000 "gift". The money has, in essence, evaporated, yet the debt remains. Too bad the genius didn't think of giving an $8000 payroll tax break for every new employee hired and retained for the fiscal year 2009, 2010, instead of artificially propping up a market that will eventually find it's own bottom, no matter what we do.

At least the man is gifted with in the area of story telling.

What a joke. These people live in fantasy land.



[Edit] Dow Faces Bouncy Ride to 5,000

 

That's hilarious, considering how hard CNBC campaigned to get Obama elected.

 

I heard one more slow down is coming by march 2011 :-(

 

Coming changes to the tax laws effectively guarantee an economic slowdown.

 

The Republicans should have no problem explaining their position that raising taxes on the wealthy will cause an economic slowdown, as the same logic and assurances used for their Iraqi war for choice. After all Clinton not only balanced the budget and was paying down the deficit before the Pubs and Bush demolished the process for the very reason they now, after trillion dollar deficits, site as a clarion call the need for their own wealth over the nations at everyone else's expense as being justified as patriatism......the tea party express, blind in every way possible.

 

The wealthy are not the ones that the democrats raise taxes on. It's everyone else. Once you figure that out, you'll either stop posting all this bs, or change your mind about what part of reality you'd like to exist in.

 

@BW, once again, you denounce the Republicans for partisan policies while spouting noxious partisan rhetoric.

As always, your hypocrisy is sooooooooooo entertaining!

BTW, Obama is no Bill Clinton. Yes, Bill Clinton balanced the budget and grew the economy with a Republican Congress. Obama has a Democratic Congress (for now!) and is spending us into a historic debt slide that appears to be unrecoverable.

 

Er, actually, the 1994 Republican Revolution ushered in by Newt; the Contract With America, etc., is where the budget was balanced and a surplus derived. Clinton had little if anything to do with that - aside from taking credit for it.

 

Each time a dollar is printed up, it is immediately a debt that must be repaid. Debts come with interest, so it is
an immediate deeper hole than just the "trillions" ( sarcasm ) people think it to be.

 

The Democratic Administration under Clinton began with a Democratic Congress that passed the tax structure without a single Republican vote that was the bases for the economic viability that produced not only balanced budgets but began paying down the national debt through both terms of the Clinton Presidency - It was that legislation Bush and the Republican Congress repealed under platitudes of tax reduction that ultimately and inevitably lead to the present trillion dollar deficits. Fiscal irresponsibility will be forever the Republican legacy under George Bush.

Before Newt Gingrich the Congress was held by the Democrats for 40 years without any meaningful deficits nor national debts including the years of the Great Society and the VN War in unison. Only with the onset of Gingrich and a Republican Congress did this country sway from fiscal discipline to political ideology as the foundation for future securities that is represented today by a fiscal calamity equating to the Great Depression that was also caused by a Republican Administration of similar ideolgy......it is ok to have your own opinions, just try and not drag everyone down with you - for a change.

It may not be so much about Obama as the legislation that has passed in the past two years that may separate this President from the others. The next two years will reveal a clearer picture for prosperity.

Yes, there was a Republican Congress with Clinton and perhpse a healthy environment but I believe the better expression would be - George Bush was no Bill Clinton even with a Republican Congress and I really have not much regard for Clinton other than he did use restraint in managing the gov't.

 

Breeze, what you are referring to took place much later into Bill's term. The "Economic Viability" that you are referring to during that previous period was the result of 12 years of Reagan/Bush.

You're time line might be correct, its just the people in charge and policies during that period that you are confused about.

FYI, the consequences of the policies enacted during that 40+ years of being unchecked (democratic rule) are what have been felt now by way of the Housing Market and our economy as a whole. I suggest you look at FDR, Fannie/Freddie, Johnson, then Carter the CRA, Fannie/Freddie again, and then Clinton, the CRA again... And of course, Fannie/Freddie.