• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires (Continued)

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Here's the part you don't get ... in the early 80's when the rates went sky high, that affected peoples' ability to afford taking out a mortgage on the house. It didn't bankrupt them, they just had to wait until the rates came down to make the mortgage more affordable. If someone bought a house at $100,000 with a 17.5% rate, it's because they could afford it. Which also highlight s why Reagan had a better recovery than Obama. In the early e80's, the people who bought houses at 17.% rates were able to refinance their mortgage during the recovery period which provided them extra spending money which helped fuel the recovery.

Now compare that with the millions of people who did just the opposite in the mid-2000's ... they took out ARMs and deferred interest loans for extremely low interest rates and then couldn't afford to keep up with their mortgage when the fixed rate expired and the interest rates rose. They lost all their money and had nothing to help fuel a recovery. That's a big part of the problem for why the recovery has been so sluggish.

The big difference that you're incapable of understanding is back then, there was room to produce a recovery. That's a situation which doesn't exist now.

Back then, we were able to reign in inflation, thereby promoting growth; now, inflation is already low.

Back then, we were able to lower interest rates to spark investments, thereby promoting growth; now, the interest rates are already low.

Back then, income taxes were as high as 70%, plenty of room to reduce them to put more money into the economy; now, income taxes are already near historic lows.

Back then, national debt was not an issue, there was plenty of room to borrow to invest more money into the economy; now, the national debt is bursting at the seams and there's little more we can tap into.

All the things that could be done to generate a recovery were at Reagan's disposal back then and none of them are available now. And Obama isn't responsible for any of them except the debt, which Republican presidents contributed some 80% of prior to Obama becoming president.
Click to expand...

Your missing the point as usual, high interest rates affected more than just homes and their prices. I don't recall ARMS being available in the 80's but I do know that today people who bought ARMS knew that those interest rates would reset or if they didn't they had no business buying a home. Sounds like a personal responsibility issue to me

Please don't tell me that I am incapable of understanding what went on during a period of time when you were either a kid or wasn't born.

You keep giving Obama the benefit of doubt in the face of data and results that are disastrous but because you are a liberal and an ideologue thus results don't matter.

It is obvious to me that you have no clue about leadership and how to influence a private sector economy. Hopefully that will come to you with age and experience. Attitude plays a major role in human behavior and Reagan knew how to motivate people. His tax cuts helped more than you will ever admit. Compare Reagan's speechs to Obama's. Notice any difference?
 
Jryan said:
Haha, coming from the king of leadership I bet. Give me 3 reasons why you think Obama is a bad leader.
Click to expand...

One, he delegates responsibility
Two his eqo is too large in that he cannot take constructive criticism
Three he doesn't get consensus and does what he wants, not what is right.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Reagan inherited a mess. As Recessions go, with all the added mess (interest rates and inflation), it was earlier in the cycle then what Obama got, which was near rock bottom when Obama got it.

For you to claim that things were somehow OK when Reagan took office is incredibly uninformed. The misery index was at a modern day high. I am not here to blame Carter, as the mess Reagan got was the cumulative effect of all the messed-up 70's.

You can debate all you want that Obama inherited worse, or Reagan inherited worse. Both were bad. The difference is in how Reagan went to solving his mess, which worked, vs. Obama being inept beyond belief.
Click to expand...

Outstanding post, stated better than anything I could ever post. Great job
 
winston53660 said:
What he is trying to do is paint a picture that economic conditions were worse when Reagan took over vs when Obama took over. The data just doesn't support his position from an economic stand point.
Click to expand...

I addressed this in my above post. I have had fun debating the same angle before, but only for the fun of debate.

A study of the first terms of both Presidents is a startling contrast in leadership, and success. Reagan succeeded. His plan worked. He had great rapport with many Democrat leaders. He was a political genius, and was up to the job. For Chrissakes, at this first midterms in '82, unemployment was 10.8%, and he lost all of 28 House seats, and no net Senate. And '84 was .... well, Obama will not do in '12 what Reagan did in '84.

Yes, Obama inherited a massive and unique mess. I cannot say it was better or worse. It was real bad.

But Obama has had the wrong solutions. And no leadership. He is not the guy we need moving forward.
 
I will argue the first two because anyone can see that every president has done what he thinks is right (Although there right/wrong may not fit with your political agenda).

One, he delegates responsibility
Click to expand...

Name one president who hasn't done this.

Two his eqo is too large in that he cannot take constructive criticism
Click to expand...

Have you heard of writing the president a letter, he reads 10 a day. I was listening to NPR and someone wrote him (and he read it) a letter explaining how feed up with how he was running the country etc etc... and he responded thanking him for his advice etc etc...
 
Jryan said:
I will argue the first two because anyone can see that every president has done what he thinks is right (Although there right/wrong may not fit with your political agenda).



Name one president who hasn't done this.



Have you heard of writing the president a letter, he reads 10 a day. I was listening to NPR and someone wrote him (and he read it) a letter explaining how feed up with how he was running the country etc etc... and he responded thanking him for his advice etc etc...
Click to expand...

Management 101,you delegate AUTHORITY not RESPONSIBILITY. Learn the difference

A good leader listens to his advisors including his opposition then does what instincts tell you is right. Obama has yet to do what is right and the results show it. He has no leadership instincts at all
 
Conservative said:
Management 101,you delegate AUTHORITY not RESPONSIBILITY. Learn the difference

A good leader listens to his advisors including his opposition then does what instincts tell you is right. Obama has yet to do what is right and the results show it. He has no leadership instincts at all
Click to expand...

So you think our country should be ran like a business? "Management 101"
 
Jryan said:
So you think our country should be ran like a business? "Management 101"
Click to expand...

In many regards yes, but regardless NO leader can ever delegate responsibility. There is an old saying, "that is why one gets paid the big bucks" that you don't seem to understand. If one can delegate responsibility why are we paying his the salary to handle that responsibility if he is going to delegate it to someone else.
 
Conservative said:
In many regards yes, but regardless NO leader can ever delegate responsibility. There is an old saying, "that is why one gets paid the big bucks" that you don't seem to understand. If one can delegate responsibility why are we paying his the salary to handle that responsibility if he is going to delegate it to someone else.
Click to expand...

Well, for starters, he can't be an expert on everything.
 
Jryan said:
Well, for starters, he can't be an expert on everything.
Click to expand...

That is why you hire good people which he hasn't done. You delegate the authority to them to do the job but if they fail that is still your responsibility and you are accountable for the results.
 
Conservative said:
That is why you hire good people which he hasn't done. You delegate the authority to them to do the job but if they fail that is still your responsibility and you are accountable for the results.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you have now changed your view. Why, or are you straw manning me?

One, he delegates responsibility
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
I want to know how being below water hurts a working person more than paying 17.5% interest rates. A 100,000 30 year fixed mortgage at 17.5% is approximately 1500 a month vs a 100,000 30 year fixed rate mortgage at 4% which is approximately $500 a month. that hurts a working person more than being under water on his mortgage.

This is just another example of you not knowing what you are talking about
Click to expand...
Consider this before you go around telling others they're the ones who don't know what you're talking about ...

Family A in 1981 buys a home for $100,000 at 17.5% interest ... they can afford it. Family B buys a house in 2003 at 1% interest ... they too can afford it. In both cases, the value of their home drops. Doesn't affect their mortgage payments, both are still fine. During the '81-'82, interest rate drop drastically. Familiy A refinances their home and now have additional money in their budget. Also, family A can now easily afford their mortgage and remain in their house until values rise and they can sell it for a profit, that's also extra money in the pocket of consumers. Family B is not as fortunate because interest rates are already low, they cannot lower their monthly payment like family A. Even worse, their interest rates go up and because they could barely afford their mortgage in the first place, they can no longer afford to keep their home. And to make matters worse, their home is worth up to half of what they paid, they cannot sell it. Unlike family A, who were able to remain in their home until the value rose again, family B loses their home to foreclosure. Unlike Family A who had additional money from from their interest rates drop and made profit from the sale of their home, that was money that made it into the economy. Then we have Familiy B, they have less money to spend because their monthly nut on their home went up. They also lost their home to foreclosure because they weren't in a position like family A to ride out the housing slump, so they also make no profit from their home. That's more money that, unlike familiy A, that is taken out of the pockets of the consumer.

Now consider there are millions of family B's out there. There is simply no comparison between then and now.
 
Jryan said:
Okay, so you have now changed your view. Why, or are you straw manning me?
Click to expand...

It doesn't appear that you understand responsibility and authority thus leadership. You asked me for 3 reasons that Obama isn't a good leader and the number one reason is that he delegates responsibility. No good leader EVER delegates responsibility, period
 
Conservative said:
I don't disagree, the problem arises if you go to sell the house or lose your income thus have to either sell your house or declare bankruptcy. That wasn't the point which was as you also stated if you have no plan to sell or move and have a job it isn't dire. My point was that no one loses anything if the house is under water and they don't have to sell.
Click to expand...
You didn't notice that foreclosures over the last few years are at 80 year highs? People losing their homes can't stay in them nor can they sell them because they're under water. You have no point there.
 
Conservative said:
That is why you hire good people which he hasn't done. You delegate the authority to them to do the job but if they fail that is still your responsibility and you are accountable for the results.
Click to expand...

Uhmmm Obama hired Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board oh he was also Chairman of the Federal Reserve under Reagan till '87.
 
Conservative said:
It doesn't appear that you understand responsibility and authority thus leadership. You asked me for 3 reasons that Obama isn't a good leader and the number one reason is that he delegates responsibility. No good leader EVER delegates responsibility, period
Click to expand...

There is so much fail here, have you ever heard of a PR? No one can be everywhere to express to everyone what they believe.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Consider this before you go around telling others they're the ones who don't know what you're talking about ...

Family A in 1981 buys a home for $100,000 at 17.5% interest ... they can afford it. Family B buys a house in 2003 at 1% interest ... they too can afford it. In both cases, the value of their home drops. Doesn't affect their mortgage payments, both are still fine. During the '81-'82, interest rate drop drastically. Familiy A refinances their home and now have additional money in their budget. Also, family A can now easily afford their mortgage and remain in their house until values rise and they can sell it for a profit, that's also extra money in the pocket of consumers. Family B is not as fortunate because interest rates are already low, they cannot lower their monthly payment like family A. Even worse, their interest rates go up and because they could barely afford their mortgage in the first place, they can no longer afford to keep their home. And to make matters worse, their home is worth up to half of what they paid, they cannot sell it. Unlike family A, who were able to remain in their home until the value rose again, family B loses their home to foreclosure. Unlike Family A who had additional money from from their interest rates drop and made profit from the sale of their home, that was money that made it into the economy. Then we have Familiy B, they have less money to spend because their monthly nut on their home went up. They also lost their home to foreclosure because they weren't in a position like family A to ride out the housing slump, so they also make no profit from their home. That's more money that, unlike familiy A, that is taken out of the pockets of the consumer.

Now consider there are millions of family B's out there. There is simply no comparison between then and now.
Click to expand...

Good economic policy and leadership created an environment to lower interest rates whereas poor leadership and economic policy today has prolonged the problem. People today are suffering because we have a President who isn't leading but instead is dividing. This shows once again that you don't have a clue
 
Jryan said:
There is so much fail here, have you ever heard of a PR? No one can be everywhere to express to everyone what they believe.
Click to expand...

You are talking about something entirely different. A Press Release has nothing to do with leadership although a press release has to be approved so what are you talking about. A good leader surrounds himself with good people and delegates authority to them to do the job and that means in some cases PR's. If that PR is poorly written or false then the one that created the PR will be disciplined but so will the leader who gave someone the authority to do something and that person failed.
 
winston53660 said:
Uhmmm Obama hired Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board oh he was also Chairman of the Federal Reserve under Reagan till '87.
Click to expand...

And what authority does Paul Volcker have. Obama also hired Simpson/Bowles and then didn't do a thing they proposed. What good is hiring someone if you aren't going to listen to them?
 
Eighty Deuce said:
For you to claim that things were somehow OK when Reagan took office is incredibly uninformed. The misery index was at a modern day high. I am not here to blame Carter, as the mess Reagan got was the cumulative effect of all the messed-up 70's.
Click to expand...
For you to claim I ever said things were "OK" is ascribing to me something I never said. What I did say, and which cannot be refuted with facts, is that the economy Reagan inherited was not in recession. By no means does that translate into "things were somehow OK."

Eighty Deuce said:
You can debate all you want that Obama inherited worse, or Reagan inherited worse. Both were bad. The difference is in how Reagan went to solving his mess, which worked, vs. Obama being inept beyond belief.
Click to expand...
All Reagan did was to keep Volker on as chairman of the FED. I t was volker who raised interest rates to combat inflation and it was Volker who lowered them after the battle with inflation was won.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
For you to claim I ever said things were "OK" is ascribing to me something I never said. What I did say, and which cannot be refuted with facts, is that the economy Reagan inherited was not in recession. By no means does that translate into "things were somehow OK."


All Reagan did was to keep Volker on as chairman of the FED. I t was volker who raised interest rates to combat inflation and it was Volker who lowered them after the battle with inflation was won.
Click to expand...
Reagan did the same thing 'W' did; or rather Vice Versa. 'Reaganomics'.

Both ran up the the debt by Wildly increasing spending AND decreasing tax rates.
About 6 years in the accumulated deficit outweighed the yearly stimulus/Fake prosperity and....
BOTH had a market Crash 6-7 years in.
Reagan the famous 1987 Crash, 40% in 3 days. It took Bush a few months.
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
So? Most higher educated people voted for Obama.
Click to expand...

the most common type of "higher education" is a masters in education which most NEA teachers have. teachers tend to be the bottom of the barrel in terms of majors at big state universities. the smartest kids go on to medical school, MBAs JDs and masters in real subjects.


academics tend to vote dem because MOST academics are paid with tax dollars. Many lawyers vote dem because dems tend to create an environment that allows attorneys more fees-be it litigation or dealing with dem imposed regulations

the groups with the lowest performances on IQ tests tend to vote dem
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Your missing the point as usual, high interest rates affected more than just homes and their prices. I don't recall ARMS being available in the 80's but I do know that today people who bought ARMS knew that those interest rates would reset or if they didn't they had no business buying a home. Sounds like a personal responsibility issue to me
Click to expand...
Sadly, you have no idea what I said.

Conservative said:
Please don't tell me that I am incapable of understanding what went on during a period of time when you were either a kid or wasn't born.
Click to expand...
The nonsense you post betrays your empty claim that you know more because you are older than me. And stop pretending like you know how old I am. You have no idea so you're making a fool of yourself acting as though you do.

Conservative said:
You keep giving Obama the benefit of doubt in the face of data and results that are disastrous but because you are a liberal and an ideologue thus results don't matter.
Click to expand...
I give him the benefit of the doubt because I don't blame him for the Great Recession he inherited.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Sadly, you have no idea what I said.


The nonsense you post betrays your empty claim that you know more because you are older than me. And stop pretending like you know how old I am. You have no idea so you're making a fool of yourself acting as though you do.


I give him the benefit of the doubt because I don't blame him for the Great Recession he inherited.
Click to expand...

You give him the benefit of doubt because he is a liberal and has a D after his name. Results don't matter to liberals when those results promote massive growth in a big central govt. and a huge entitlement state.

Yes, I am older than you and hope I am around when you finally realize that you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. What has been pointed out accurately is that Obama took office at the end of a recession and the results today should be much better than they are. Poor leadership, poor economic policy, and promotion of class warfare may make you feel good but the results are as expected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom