| Author | Post |
|---|
azcats_01
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 05:35 pm |
|
Funny stuff!
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3489 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 05:23 pm |
|
Azcats. In reference to that Brain. I went to that site and it does have some funny stuff.
Check this out.
 Obama promises free lipstick if elected
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 04:47 pm |
|
JJohnson wrote:
Which is more important to America, the resurgence of a healthy middle class (Obama) or the continued export of American jobs, American wealth and American opportunities to competing economies (McCain)? On November 4th, we all get a chance to be heard.
As only could be said by a true liberal. Let's face a few undisputable FACTS ... 1) The rich are those that produce goods/services and employee people. 2) The rich willalways keep their wealth and lifestyles by passing on increased expenses inthe form of higher prices of their goods/services. 3) The poor don't have any money to buy goods and services. 4) The middle class is the largest consumer group in terms of purchasing good/services.
Given the undisputable facts above the middle class effectively pays 100% of all taxes in the US. Increasing the taxes on the wealthy will only result in one of two things...1) Fewers workers being hired by the wealthy or 2) Costs of goods purchased will be higher due to the increased expenses of the wealthy.
The only difference is that some people will "feel" better that the rich are taxed higher and the government will have more money to waste on social programs that have historically been a disaster any where it has been implemented.
The biggest business scandal ever perpitrated against the American people is the government. By stealing your money and wasting it when the private sector is willing to fill the void is morally and ethically wrong. The government's handling of the welfare, education, and retirement systems make Enron, AIG and Countrywide look like fine tuned and efficient companies.
To pass on the expenses, one must assume that there will be money for the middle class to purchase goods and services from the wealthy.
I agree that the biggest scandal of all time has been perpetrated against the middle class, if not by the government, without their intervention. The question is, do we want another 4 years of rogue capitalism, or, can we use our government to serve the every day Americans whose hard earned money is in jeopardy? Falling home prices, bankrupt banks, shrinking retirement accounts and exported jobs are the direct result of unregulated capitalism and the failed policies of the current administration. Were it not for the profound greed of the wealthiest in the private sector, the above named bailouts would not have been necessary.
It's time to make a choice. The stakes could not be higher.
|
azcats_01
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 04:38 pm |
|
JJohnson wrote: Which is more important to America, the resurgence of a healthy middle class (Obama) or the continued export of American jobs, American wealth and American opportunities to competing economies (McCain)? On November 4th, we all get a chance to be heard.
As only could be said by a true liberal. Let's face a few undisputable FACTS ... 1) The rich are those that produce goods/services and employee people. 2) The rich willalways keep their wealth and lifestyles by passing on increased expenses inthe form of higher prices of their goods/services. 3) The poor don't have any money to buy goods and services. 4) The middle class is the largest consumer group in terms of purchasing good/services.
Given the undisputable facts above the middle class effectively pays 100% of all taxes in the US. Increasing the taxes on the wealthy will only result in one of two things...1) Fewers workers being hired by the wealthy or 2) Costs of goods purchased will be higher due to the increased expenses of the wealthy.
The only difference is that some people will "feel" better that the rich are taxed higher and the government will have more money to waste on social programs that have historically been a disaster any where it has been implemented.
The biggest business scandal ever perpitrated against the American people is the government. By stealing your money and wasting it when the private sector is willing to fill the void is morally and ethically wrong. The government's handling of the welfare, education, and retirement systems make Enron, AIG and Countrywide look like fine tuned and efficient companies.
Perhaps a few more common sense particles are needed...
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 681 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 04:31 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: I would venture to say that what causes businesses to transfer jobs abroad is an unregulated demand for greater profits. Third world wages drive the corporate export of jobs not tax savings. If you had the business decision to save 70% or your payroll expense (which travels straight to the bottom line), eliminating health insurance, and other payroll related costs or receiving a nominal percentage of decrease in taxes assessed on that bottom line, which would you choose?
Those who fail to acknowledge reality, even when it's biting them in the butt, are doomed to failure no matter who's elected.
When foreign companies are already operating with that model US companies must adapt in order to be competitive. If they don't there will be no jobs in America.
Smart companies will export those jobs that they can and keep those job that can't be performed overseas right here. The cheap Indoneason labor still can't build complex products or engineer new projects. Those are the things that American's do best. Sewing footballs together and lacing shoes up is not a complex task that requires skilled American labor. Designing the new shoes that Nike makes is a task that American's are best suited for and keep that great company in business.
Does anybody believe that General Motor's problems are the cost of highly paid executives? No .. They are not producing a car that competes with the foreign equivilents. Our engineering is top notch and happens right here in the USA. The problem is the expense of producing the car and snapping the pieces together by highly compensated union workers. These workers are currently under utilized given their talents.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 681 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 04:22 pm |
|
Which is more important to America, the resurgence of a healthy middle class (Obama) or the continued export of American jobs, American wealth and American opportunities to competing economies (McCain)? On November 4th, we all get a chance to be heard.
As only could be said by a true liberal. Let's face a few undisputable FACTS ... 1) The rich are those that produce goods/services and employee people. 2) The rich willalways keep their wealth and lifestyles by passing on increased expenses inthe form of higher prices of their goods/services. 3) The poor don't have any money to buy goods and services. 4) The middle class is the largest consumer group in terms of purchasing good/services.
Given the undisputable facts above the middle class effectively pays 100% of all taxes in the US. Increasing the taxes on the wealthy will only result in one of two things...1) Fewers workers being hired by the wealthy or 2) Costs of goods purchased will be higher due to the increased expenses of the wealthy.
The only difference is that some people will "feel" better that the rich are taxed higher and the government will have more money to waste on social programs that have historically been a disaster any where it has been implemented.
The biggest business scandal ever perpitrated against the American people is the government. By stealing your money and wasting it when the private sector is willing to fill the void is morally and ethically wrong. The government's handling of the welfare, education, and retirement systems make Enron, AIG and Countrywide look like fine tuned and efficient companies.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 04:16 pm |
|
azcats_01 wrote:
anne.reed wrote: The real question should be:
Profit has no nation, nor, does it have any sense of patriotism.
Which is more important to America, the resurgence of a healthy middle class (Obama) or the continued export of American jobs, American wealth and American opportunities to competing economies (McCain)? You mean the re-distribution of wealth causing businesses to transfer jobs abroad to save money (Obama) or tax incentives for businesses to keep jobs here (McCain).
I would venture to say that what causes businesses to transfer jobs abroad is an unregulated demand for greater profits. Third world wages drive the corporate export of jobs not tax savings. If you had the business decision to save 70% or your payroll expense (which travels straight to the bottom line), eliminating health insurance, and other payroll related costs or receiving a nominal percentage of decrease in taxes assessed on that bottom line, which would you choose?
Those who fail to acknowledge reality, even when it's biting them in the butt, are doomed to failure no matter who's elected.Last edited on Fri Oct 31st, 2008 04:17 pm by anne.reed
|
azcats_01
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 03:25 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: The real question should be:
Which is more important to America, the resurgence of a healthy middle class (Obama) or the continued export of American jobs, American wealth and American opportunities to competing economies (McCain)? You mean the re-distribution of wealth causing businesses to transfer jobs abroad to save money (Obama) or tax incentives for businesses to keep jobs here (McCain).
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 03:21 pm |
|
Realistically, no matter who wins this election the damage done by de-regulation and the excesses of Wall Street and Washington will not be undone anytime soon. Chances are good that it will get a whole lot worse before it gets better. I feel certain that either candidate will be facing the most trying economic times in US history. The future of America and 97% of her citizens hangs in the balance.
The real question should be:
Which is more important to America, the resurgence of a healthy middle class (Obama) or the continued export of American jobs, American wealth and American opportunities to competing economies (McCain)? On November 4th, we all get a chance to be heard.
http://howdidthishappen.org/myths/
Myths and Facts about the Financial Crisis
The conservative spin machine went into overdrive after the financial crisis exploded the claim that unregulated markets always work best. Talking points fed to sympathetic columnists and reporters told an alternate, racially tinged tale: poor people were to blame. In the mythos they created, the Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to “loosen underwriting standards” and to lend to the poor and those with poor credit, forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the “800 pound gorilla in the room,” to careen down the path of bad loans, dragging other lenders with them. Incredibly, conservatives blame insufficient regulation of Fannie and Freddie, and cite the Clinton administration as the architect of the mortgage industry’s collapse.
Of course, none of this stands up to scrutiny. Here’s a guide to the most widely spun myths:
Myth #1: De-regulation had nothing to do with this crisis
The Facts
Conservative de-regulation left Wall Street with no cop on the beat. Bush’s conservative appointees rolled back regulation and oversight of banks, insurers, lenders, and credit raters. - The explosion in subprime loans after 2000 were made by unregulated mortgage companies, and the vast majority of them were issued to higher income borrowers, not low- to moderate-income borrowers. - The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA) dismantled Depression-era law that had prohibited bank holding companies from owning other financial companies such as investment, commercial banking, and insurance companies. GLBA ignited a wave of mergers and hampered government regulators charged with preventing conflicts of interest and risky financial behavior.
Myth #2: Private lenders were pressured into giving out risky loans
The Facts
Private lenders—not the government-backed Fannie and Freddie—issued the vast majority of subprime loans, and to low- and moderate-income borrowers in particular. Fannie and Freddie did not guarantee and securitize large quantities of subprime loans. - In fact, Fannie Mae actually lost market share because it chose not to “participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005” because it “determined that the pricing offered for these mortgages often was insufficient compensation for the additional credit risk associated with these mortgages.” As economist Dean Baker stated, “Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector….In short, while Fannie and Freddie were completely irresponsible in their lending practices, the claim that they were responsible for the financial disaster is absurd on its face—kind of like the claim that the earth is flat.” - In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld acknowledged that Fannie and Freddie’s role in Lehman’s demise was “de minimis,” or so small that it does not matter.
Myth #3: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Caused the Crisis
The Facts
While some are attempting to scapegoat Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, economist Dean Baker recently stated that while Fannie and Freddie “got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble,” they were “trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector” and actually lost market share to private subprime lenders in the years 2002-2007, when “the volume of private issue mortgage backed securities exploded.” - In a 2006 Securities and Exchange Commission filing (available here) covering its activities in 2004, Fannie Mae stated: “We did not participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005.” In the report, Fannie Mae also noted the growth of subprime lending and reported, “These trends and our decision not to participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages contributed to a significant loss in our share of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances to private-label issuers during this period.” - Additionally, Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 6, 2008, that Fannie and Freddie’s failure played a minimal role in Lehman’s demise.
Myth #4: The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act is to blame for the current financial crisis
The Facts
Several media figures have attempted to connect the financial crisis to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), originally passed in 1977 and since amended. However, according to housing experts, a large number of subprime loans were not made under the CRA, which applies only to depository institutions. Additionally, a study released earlier this year by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.
However, the claim that the CRA is responsible for the current crisis ignores several crucial facts: - The CRA does not cover independent mortgage companies, which issued the vast majority of the loans underlying the crisis. The act applies only to depository banks and thrifts (savings and loan associations) that are federally insured. According to University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, just 20 percent of the subprime mortgages since the late 1990s were issued by CRA-covered lenders. Thus, 80 percent subprime loans were made by lenders not regulated by the CRA. - The CRA actually created more responsible lending. San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President Janet L. Yellen rejected the “tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending,” and noted “that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.” - The act was passed in 1977, well before the subprime loan bonanza occurred. In fact, the Bush administration’s weakening of the CRA coincided with the subprime boom. - Banks did not engage in an orgy of reckless subprime lending to meet CRA obligations; they did so for they same reason they always do: to make money. Only this time, deregulation allowed them to get paid not just for making the loans, but for turning them into securities and trading them (see below).
Myth #5: Progressives have opposed strengthening oversight over Fannie and Freddie
The Facts
Several media figures have accused progressives in Congress of opposing stronger oversight of two mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and his predecessor, Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) made efforts to enhance regulatory oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 and sponsoring the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007. Both of these bills called for a new agency to oversee and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Myth #6: Congress funded ACORN in the bailout package
The Facts
Numerous media figures reported that Congress tried to steer money to ACORN in the recent housing bailout bill. In fact, neither the draft proposal nor the final version of the bill contained any language mentioning ACORN. Those making the false claim were misrepresenting a provision—since removed—that would have directed 20 percent of any profits realized on troubled assets purchased under the plan into two previously established funds: the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund, which, under the law authorizing them, distribute funds through state block grants and through competitive application processes, respectively.
|
azcats_01
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 02:38 pm |
|
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5051118.ece
Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week’s election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.
The sudden financial crisis and the prospect of a deep and painful recession have increased the urgency inside the Obama team to bring people down to earth, after a campaign in which his soaring rhetoric and promises of “hope” and “change” are now confronted with the reality of a stricken economy.
One senior adviser told The Times that the first few weeks of the transition, immediately after the election, were critical, “so there’s not a vast mood swing from exhilaration and euphoria to despair”.
The aide said that Mr Obama himself was the first to realise that expectations risked being inflated.
In an interview with a Colorado radio station, Mr Obama appeared to be engaged already in expectation lowering. Asked about his goals for the first hundred days, he said he would need more time to tackle such big and costly issues as health care reform, global warming and Iraq. “The first hundred days is going to be important, but it’s probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference,” he said. He has also been reminding crowds in recent days how “hard” it will be to achieve his goals, and that it will take time.
“I won’t stand here and pretend that any of this will be easy – especially now,” Mr Obama told a rally in Sarasota, Florida, yesterday, citing “the cost of this economic crisis, and the cost of the war in Iraq”. Mr Obama’s transition team is headed by John Podesta, a Washington veteran and a former chief-of-staff to Bill Clinton. He has spent months overseeing a virtual Democratic government-in-exile to plan a smooth transition should Mr Obama emerge victorious next week. The plans are so far advanced that an Obama Cabinet has been largely decided upon, with the expectation that most of his senior appointments could be announced shortly after election day.
Yet Mr Obama and his aides are under no illusions about the size of the challenges the Democrat will inherit if he enters the Oval Office. Tom Daschle, the party’s former leader in the US Senate and a strong contender for the post of White House chief-of-staff in an Obama administration, said last month that the winner next week would have only a 50 per cent chance of winning a second term in 2012.
Not only will the next president take office with the country sliding into a potentially long recession — and mired in debt — but the challenges abroad are immense. There is an unfinished war in Iraq, a worsening situation in Afghanistan and an unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan to contend with. Iran appears intent on acquiring the bomb and there remains the ever-present threat from al-Qaeda and Islamic extremists.
If he wins, Mr Obama will inherit a Democratic-controlled Congress, and might even have the benefit of a 60-seat filibuster-proof “supermajority” in the Senate. Such a scenario would allow him to push through legislation largely unfettered by Republican opposition. Yet it also means that should the country still be mired in recession in three years’ time, voters — who have short memories — will probably blame him and the Democrats on Capitol Hill. Those stakes have led Mr Obama to conclude that while expectations need to be tempered, big things need to be achieved very early in his first term, when he will still have the political capital to achieve some of his most ambitious legislative goals.
Having promised “real” change, the pressure will be on him to deliver. In the Colorado interview, Mr Obama added: “The next president has got to come quickly out of the box.”
The early priorities being lined up if he takes power are a mixture of symbolism and substance. He plans to make a major address in a big Muslim country early in his first term. Having pledged on the campaign trail to close Guantanamo Bay, he is also determined to make early moves to rid America of the controversial prison. Yet what to do with the remaining inmates looms as an intractable problem, as many of their home governments refuse to allow them to return.
Mr Obama’s first legislative goals will be to follow through on his pledge to cut taxes for the middle class and raise them for the wealthiest Americans, and to push through a hugely expensive Bill to provide near-universal health insurance.
|
ninfan1
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 20 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 08:59 am |
|
| BTW, I don't think Palin or Obama are socialists, and I am still undecided as to whom I will vote for.
|
ninfan1
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 20 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 08:50 am |
|
| I'm sick of all this rhetoric...... Government under the Bush administration has grown immensely, the deficit has grown to unimaginable proportions, but yet, under the McCain economic plan, tax cuts across the board will solve the problem. Sounds like a great plan for everyone, until we're in debt to China for trillions of dollars. I'm not an economist, and I truly don't know which candidate will be more fiscally responsible, but for all of those people who accuse Obama of being a socialist, keep in mind that most taxation in this country "spreads wealth". The Earned Income Tax Credit, expanded by republican hero Ronald Reagan in 1986 is a prime example this. Please read the following article.... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081031/ap_on_el_pr/fact_check_palin_socialism
|
nunya
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 146 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 08:00 am |
|
If Obama wins I'll be looking for a government job. That'll be the real growth industry.
|
azsunshine
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 488 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 06:36 am |
|
I perdect if Obama is President that alot of small business will just throw in the towel. There is only so much that can eat at your profit margin before it becomes more of a hassle than its worth. There is only so much taxes you can pay-that is if you report what your supposed to report. More people may work "under the table" or other non-truths or other non-disclosures. I think this tax issue will be more of a threat to small business than medians.
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 322 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 03:02 am |
|
Have you seen the interview that Rachael Maddow did with the next President?
I sure am glad I've already voted for him!
We will be on a new road. It will not be an easy one to travel but once we've overcome the ScHmIdT that we've been subjected to for the last 8 years, think about the trampling of your rights regarding privacy among other things, it will be well worth it.
That is the great thing about democracy, some will be crying in their beer and the majority will be moving on to bigger and better things.
And away we go!
2
Last edited on Fri Oct 31st, 2008 03:04 am by 2 cents
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2729 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 02:26 am |
|
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8AJn_j014Y
|
azcats_01
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 02:22 am |
|
You can learn a lot more about the truth of BO in this video in less than 5 minutes:
http://oldbluewebdesigns.com/USSA.htm
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 01:34 am |
|
Hi All:
Just came across this video and thought I'd put up a link for Pinal residents who might still be on the fence about their presidential vote. I can't help it, I like this guy!
This video is 1/2 hour long. However, the speech addresses many of the concerns I've heard voiced among my own friends and family. It's only a 1/2 hour but if OBama's correct, it might be the most important 1/2 hour of research you'll ever do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X3eE18dfmE
|
Current time is 12:34 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|