Check out the DP Picture thread. There are literally hundreds of them there. Sounds like a personal attack... Yes, I've listened to him. I tend to watch a lot of CNN and read his articles when he was with CNN. Oh, he does not like him because he works for that there Fox News. But he used to work for CNN. In other words, if Joe moved his "Morning Joe" to Fox, suddenly, he'd be hated on too. Pot, meet kettle.
How so? Can you be a bit more specific? Are you saying everyone with a mortgage is rich? I do not understand what you mean. Please elaborate. I'm all ears here.
Absolutely. Don't you know how lucky you need to be to have a nice roof over your head? You wanna try the street for a while. If you were foolish enough to pay too much for your house, as many were in the last few years, then you deserve to lose it. The dream of owning one's home was getting further and further away. Either wages needed to rise dramatically, along with homes, or homes needed to come down to match wages. By giving $17,000 to every mortgage holder, all that would do is help to keep house prices 'artificially' high. By not handing out free money to mortgagees, more & more people will lose their homes and more and more house prices will drop to their real worth. We'll all be able to afford them again.
Lucky? Luck has little to do with it my friend. Its called hard work and patience. Could not agree more. But this is not about giving the tax cut or stimulus to people that are in foreclosure, this is about giving it to mortgage holders in good standing. No, the dream of home ownership has and had never been more easier to obtain. Thanks to great incentives, the first time home buyers credits. and the Bush tax cuts, more Americans than ever were able to buy homes, long before the housing bubble and poor lending practices started to really get out of control. ? huh? How so. What it does in fact is give those of us that have an interest in our homes and equity, the ability to pay down more debt and in turn pump that debt pay down and cash into the system so that people that do NOT have a home can get financing. Its not free money man. Its OUR money. The taxpayer. Is it not time that we the tax payer held onto our own money and spent it as WE see fit? How on earth does paying down debt and pumping money into the economy inflate housing prices? Again, can you clarify your previous statement that this would cause the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer?
Yeah right, nice try. I still call it stupidity, people paying much more than the neighbours. - i've worked hard for almost thirty years now, should I be given a house too? If the taxpayer pays for your debts, and they are YOUR debts, then many others who can't afford it will see that it's fine to continue paying twice the real value of a home. When buyers can't afford to pay their loans, the government will pay them. Sounds too easy and I believe is the only thing keeping them still high atm. People see how easy it is & then how the government will pay for their mistakes so why not pay twice as much as its worth. Kinda like a credit card. Do you understand how a credit card works, and at 18% interest? Easy credit makes people pay a lot more than they should. - Same deal as houses it seems, people will gladly pay twice as much next Tuesday as long as they can have their house today. When Tuesday comes around, what happens? The rich get richer because under your plan, their assets increase whilst the poor get nothing. I don't mind the asset increasing if the value is there but your plan of giving NOTHING to the poor people whilst giving home owners reward for their stupidity is ridiculous & not moral. Let's face it, the only one's who can't afford their mortgage now are the people who shouldn't have got a loan in the first place. Interest rates at record lows means it should be easier now than ever.
I'm really not quite sure what you are talking about. I think you completely missed the point. We're not talking about tax payer debt. The point is, the taxpayer knows best what to do with what is THEIR money, not the governments. I really don't think we are on the same page here. Dude, you are all over the place. We're not talking about the housing bubble, the over-valuations, or foreclosed on dimwits here. Nor are we talking about credit cards. What "credit" does, is afford people the opportunity to purchase an asset (appreciable) asset over time. In that time, that asset (when housing follows the rate of inflation) is worth more than the payments made on it over time, including interest. Credit, good credit that is, generates a return. No. Sorry, the point here is these monies are spent, on goods and services, or paying down debt. That translates into jobs, credit, and poor people getting rich. BTW, it's not my plan. It's Glenn Becks. Do you own a home? Do you own any real estate? Not everyone that bought a home is stupid, and not everyone that bought a home overpaid. The point of Becks' plan is this. Do you take 1 trillion dollars that does not exist and give it to pet projects like funding abortion and buying furniture for government offices, and things like funding hollywood? Or do you give it to people that will actually spend that money in the economy buying cars, that will keep people who make the cars employed. Investing their money in savings, which will put money in the banks so they can lend to people that would like to buy their first home? If we are going spend money, why not let the tax payer decide where it goes. Interest rates are not what qualifies people for credit. And interest rates don't mean squat when lending institutions do not have money or credit themselves to extend. I think you're way too overly concerned with people that lived beyond their means and have confused them with people who can and do actually make the economy grow. What's your alternative to the democrats plan? Do you think funding abortion with monopoly money is more intelligent than letting tax payers spend their money?
The point I guess is many of the things on Obama's list that you posted are quite valid. Many will address the more important things such as climate change, employment, yada yada. You're saying he should instead give you $17,000 to help you pay off your home, which 'probably' contributes more to climate change than not. I'd rather spend my money on saving the planet if I had a choice, rather than keeping homes artificially inflated which as I stated is what I believe has been happening.
Spending money on pet projects in "stimulus plan"? No, nothing on the list belongs there. Best thing the government can do is leave shit alone for a while. Stop feeding the fire!!! BTW, Obama has little if anything to do with this plan. This is all Pelosi and Reid. No, I'm saying allow tax payers to spend the money themselves. I think I know best how to spend my money. And believe me, nothing has ever been GIVEN to me. Its not about paying off anything. Its about allowing tax paying mortgage holders in good standing to infuse the economy with money by purchasing cars, hiring workers, and investing in the market/banks so lenders can extend credit to those that have none. Hugging a tree and going Al Gore and humping polar bears is not gonna save the economy. It might make a bunch of lunatic global warmer fanatics feel all warm and fuzzy, but it will do little else. Want to help the planet? Ask those same mortgage holders to change all the light bulbs in their home to compact fluorescent light bulbs. Doing that would reduce the carbon footprint of each of those homes by 50 tons per year. BTW, I already did. As a result I not only reduced my carbon footprint but realize a $30/mo. electric bill savings. Buddy, you really need to realize that government is not here to run your life for you. You need to start doing for yourself. Let government lead you and you'll end up no different than Jews in a concentration camp, Soviets without blue jeans, and Chinese without labor laws. Liberals and Conservatives stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The Liberal, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The Conservative, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should strive to have as much.'
I agree 100%. But by doing so, it will all fall down to realistic values. Not sure YOU want that now. Never has, never will. Never have, never will.
I listen to Glenn Beck every so often, and I believe that giving money directly to mortgage holders would probably be a better way to stimulate the economy than the current plan. Although, I think he would prefer no bailouts whatsoever, allow the economy to work itself out even if it means a depression, and not to allow the government to have so much control. Even though so many Republicans claim to be against this, I'm sure it will pass and Obama will get whatever he wants. I may sound skeptical, but it almost seems like the voting thing is just a formality anymore, just for show. In the end, what the public or the average citizen wants, almost seems to be irrelevant. I was listening to Glen Beck the other day and he was suggesting if there were a revolution here, it would be more like the French revolution. He said in the American revolution it wasn't so motivated by anger, as it was a love for this country. He says, now what he notices are that people are just plain angry, and if there were a revolution it wouldn't be pretty. I was on my way to work though, and had to get out of my car in the middle, so I missed the rest of his speech. If this nearly 1 trillion bailout happens what is the worse scenario? Do you think we are moving more towards socialism-government control? Will it help our economy? Any thoughts on how things might get worse? What are the details on how this will hurt us?
The Senate has adopted the 'Mia Plan' and voted to give a $15,000 credit to home buyers. The $15k is going to came in handy in order to stimulate my economy. I'm thinking energy stocks and companies like alcoa will do well in an inflationary environment. http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/02/senate_oks_15000_tax_break_for.html
Ah, well.. Of course I do. I don't believe in overvaluations. Never have. I've been in the internet business a LONG time, well through the dot com bubble, before and after. I remember when I was doing dialup back in the 90's and AOL customers were valued at $4400 per customer. It was insanely over valued. All I really want is for government to stay out of my way. I own a small business. 85% of all the taxes that this government collects comes from us, the small businesses. Fuck with us, and it'll come back to bite them.
Mia for President! Oh, and when you get in there if you could kill the Federal Reserve too that would be great!
Sorry, I'm all for Rob Jones for President. I've not cheated on my taxes, so perhaps he'll consider me for a cabinet position. I'd like to be positioned right by the cabinet that has the Jack in it.
Hey, if some of you are in disagreement with this bailout, please contact your Senators: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/usa.php - easy place to find a list of your Senators
Socialism or Chicago style politics? Wait to people have to start paying back the bijillion dollars we have borrowed from China.