Housing bailout, smoke and mirrors????

Well hell, I don't have much sympathy for the jumbo mortgage holders that want in on the mortgage bailout!

None of the stimulus provisions impact my household either...but I am not the problem, so I think that is the right way to do it. If the provisions included the jumbo mortgage people, critics would be saying that there goes government helping out the wealthy again rather than helping the little guy...

Those that have jumbo mortgages had the option of putting down a large enough down payment to get their owed principal under the $417k figure that characterizes a "jumbo mortgage". Failure to do so means that you have the funds to handle a very large mortgage at a premium price or that you are not willing to part with assets to get the mortgage into a normal mortgage.

I for one have no sympathy for the ones screaming...they in most cases are not the people that need the help.
 
That was a blue ribbon panel John...none of the people he asked for a response is unemployed...like the 7+ % of our nation. Consider the source of the data...but he makes a good point...are we supporting failure or should we support success...it is a never ending question.

In business I have often been faced with the question. If you have a super star department and a lagging department...where do you put your resources? Pour more into the superstars or try to prop up the sagging department? The eternal paradox...
 
That clip was pretty good..... Made me laugh....

And the news guy was shrinking back calling it, "mob rule" ....what a wanker.

D
 
Prof said:
That was a blue ribbon panel John...none of the people he asked for a response is unemployed...like the 7+ % of our nation. Consider the source of the data...but he makes a good point...are we supporting failure or should we support success...it is a never ending question.

In business I have often been faced with the question. If you have a super star department and a lagging department...where do you put your resources? Pour more into the superstars or try to prop up the sagging department? The eternal paradox...
Click to expand...



When you go back in time, is it not true that a society flourishes when the people are left alone to succeed or Fail without government intervention?

.
 
the media seems to be stirring the masses and promoting "American against American" At a time when y'all need to stand together! Won't be long before the riot's start...
 
Hucksrt10 said:
the media seems to be stirring the masses and promoting "American against American" At a time when y'all need to stand together! Won't be long before the riot's start...
Click to expand...

thus the reason why im upgrading security measures at my house.
 

A Letter From a Grandpa

Guess you heard that 68% of the youth vote went to Obama. My granddaughter called this morning to tell me she was one of them. I replied with this e-mail:
Dear Granddaughter,
The election of Obama comes down to this. Your grandmother and I, your mother, and other productive, wage-earning tax payers will have their taxes increased and that means less income left over. Less income means we will have to cut back on basic purchases, gifts and handouts. That includes firing the lady who cleans our house twice a month. She just lost her job. We can't afford her anymore.

What is the economic effect of Obama's election on you personally? Over the years, your grandmother and I have given you thousands of dollars in food, housing, cash, clothing, gifts, etc. By your vote, you have chosen another family over ours for help. So in the future, if you need assistance with your rent, money for gas, tires for your car, someone to bring you lunch, etc. ... call 202-456-1111 . That's the telephone number for the Office of the President of the United States. I'm sure Mr. Obama will be happy to send a check from his personal or business accounts, as we have, or leave cash in an envelope taped to his front door for you, as we have.

It's like this. Those who vote for the President of the United States should consider what the impact of an election will be on the nation as a whole and not just be concerned with what they can get for themselves (welfare, stimulus checks, etc.). What Obama voters don't seem to realize is that the government's money comes from taxes collected from tax paying families. Raising taxes on productive people means they will have less money to spend on their families.

Congratulations on your choice. For future reference, you might attempt to add up all you've received from us, your mom, Mike's parents and others and compare it to what you expect to get over the next four years from Mr. Obama. To congratulate Mr. Obama and to make sure you're on the list for handouts, write to:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

Love you Honey, but call the number listed above when you need help.

Granddad



.
 
Hucksrt10 said:
the media seems to be stirring the masses and promoting "American against American" At a time when y'all need to stand together! Won't be long before the riot's start...
Click to expand...




I've been wondering what everyone's been waiting on! (just joking) HeHeHe--






.
 
John he has not been in office even a month and you have spent all of the time degrading him...you are the essence of negativity. You better hope that he does well.
 
Prof said:
John he has not been in office even a month and you have spent all of the time degrading him...you are the essence of negativity. You better hope that he does well.
Click to expand...


Roy, I honest to you know who, was hopeing that he would be the most successful pres; ever.

But I think even you would have to admit that his actions have been worse than even the most conservative "right winger."

It shoud be obvious that he and his administration were even less prepared than his most vocal opponents predicted.

If before the election you had bet me that there would be half the controversy with his appointee's, or that he would endorse such a foolish
so-called stimulus bill without providing people the opportunity to read and debate the bill, I would have jumped on it.

Roy, because of my nature I actually feel bad that these things are happening because it is so embarrassing.

He should have had just the portions of this bill passed that everyone agreed might improve the economy, then allowed time for study and debate on the rest.


.
 
I can accept a lot of what you say...especially that we all hope he is successful. But there is no way that there would be consensus about the way that success is achieved. I also worry about the strategy, but I see lots of the elements that we have all been recommending...incentives for car purchases, relief for those that are about to go under due to the weight of their mortgages, more assistance for those that have lost their jobs...the problem is in the emphasis and the amounts...but we knew that would be a political issue.

I worry that it is not enough. Sorry, but in my mind I would have preferred that we pass a package that everyone agreed would turn the economy around, regardless the price, and then start the process of finding a way to pay for it as the economy gets back on its feet. In business we used to refer to this approach as massive over-kill of a potentially lethal problem.

But that would not have set well with anyone but me.
 

My problem is this. When BO says we are going to invest in this or that, or SAVE this group or that group of people, it sounds great on the surface, I presume that's why he received so much of the youth vote.

The problem is,(and I know this is an extreme example) that these promises
are sort of like when a certain group of Germans told a certain group of people who had just come off a train, that they were going to be, "DISINFECTED,"which probably sounded good after being packed like sardines for several days on the train. Afterwards they were definitely disinfected alright, but not in the manner they thought.

The point is, no matter how much one would hope otherwise, history has shown that you can't spend your way out of debt, and that taking from haves by force and giving to have nots, only results in more have nots and fewer haves.







.
 
But all of the modern day experts are saying we have to spend our way out...none are disagreeing with this approach...they just differ on what we spend on...tax reduction is spending...no matter how you try to spin it...reduction of resources at the national level is spending.

Investing in infrastructure is spending...

Subsidizing an industry is spending...

And I disagree with your hypothesis...nearly every time we have gone to war it has been a huge spending binge and the economy usually reacts in a positive manner.
 
Prof said:
But all of the modern day experts are saying we have to spend our way out...none are disagreeing with this approach...they just differ on what we spend on...tax reduction is spending...no matter how you try to spin it...reduction of resources at the national level is spending.

Investing in infrastructure is spending...

Subsidizing an industry is spending...

And I disagree with your hypothesis...nearly every time we have gone to war it has been a huge spending binge and the economy usually reacts in a positive manner.
Click to expand...


1. I will never understand the concept of letting people keep more of the money they earned as spending if said money is not for a constitutionally valid purpose in the first place.

2. I am certainly not an economist, but I read that in war the massive amounts of money spent stays in the U.S. but :dontknow:

3. I do give O credit for finally admitting he scewed up the other day, however I forcast that is going to be an all too often utterance based on his actions so far.


.


.
 
Sorry I have read your #1 over and over and just do not understand what you have written...
 
Roy, his point is that allowing people to keep what they have earned is the way it should be. Taking the money and giving it to "x" is spending. People keeping their earned income is not government spending. Giving a "tax credit" to people who pay no taxes is spending.

A major war has boosted the economy in the past. WWII for example. I don't think the US could compete in a war like that again as we no longer have the factories to build ships, tanks, planes, etc by the hundreds or thousands. An example my grandfather and great grandfather owned and operated a shipyard in Savannah Ga before and during WWII. Before the war they had ~100 employees. They bid for and won a contract to build minesweepers and subchasers for the Navy. In less than one year they had 800+ employees. Fast forward to today, the yard is still there, in fact it's for sale. Several companies have owned it since my family but ship building is no longer profitable in the states and the yard sits empty.

Maybe the US could compete in a war on that scale, but I seriously doubt it. That is the scale required. No amount of government spending on infrastructure or programs moves that fast and because of the speed needed there isn't enough time for the politicians to screw it up with political garbage like who can and cannot bid for the work. Also the volume of commodities needed immediately spreads the increase around the country. The government is completely incapable of doing this artificially, too many favors, asses to kiss, pork to waste vast amounts of money on.... just look at the so called stimulus bill.
 
Prof said:
Sorry I have read your #1 over and over and just do not understand what you have written...
Click to expand...



Funds taken for any purpose other than national defence etc; that are not necessary to fund the costitutional responsibilities of government should not have been taken in the first place, and should be returned to the citizens that it was taken from.





.
 
Scrambler1 said:
Roy, his point is that allowing people to keep what they have earned is the way it should be. Taking the money and giving it to "x" is spending. People keeping their earned income is not government spending. Giving a "tax credit" to people who pay no taxes is spending.

A major war has boosted the economy in the past. WWII for example. I don't think the US could compete in a war like that again as we no longer have the factories to build ships, tanks, planes, etc by the hundreds or thousands. An example my grandfather and great grandfather owned and operated a shipyard in Savannah Ga before and during WWII. Before the war they had ~100 employees. They bid for and won a contract to build minesweepers and subchasers for the Navy. In less than one year they had 800+ employees. Fast forward to today, the yard is still there, in fact it's for sale. Several companies have owned it since my family but ship building is no longer profitable in the states and the yard sits empty.

Maybe the US could compete in a war on that scale, but I seriously doubt it. That is the scale required. No amount of government spending on infrastructure or programs moves that fast and because of the speed needed there isn't enough time for the politicians to screw it up with political garbage like who can and cannot bid for the work. Also the volume of commodities needed immediately spreads the increase around the country. The government is completely incapable of doing this artificially, too many favors, asses to kiss, pork to waste vast amounts of money on.... just look at the so called stimulus bill.
Click to expand...




Thank's Brother scrambler, my head is foggy this morning, good example!:rock:

I guess another way of putting it Roy is, if the Government has funds that can be returned to the citizens, it should be returned to the citizens that earned it.






.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Support Us

Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Random Media

PICT0040
Looks good in my driveway.
003
05 06 2012 011
Back
Top