• 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)

Conservative said:
Don't see where there is any proof there. Individuals can be in a recession and the economy not officially in a recession, happens all the time. Paying 17.5% and higher interest rates along with double digit inflation hurt individuals a lot more than the current recession.
Click to expand...

LMAO do you ever get dizzy trying to spin so much or have you built up a tolerance to it?

BTW you did not say individuals you said "we.


quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Conservative

Try paying 17.5% interest and double digit inflation and tell me we weren't in a recession.
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
Try paying 17.5% interest and double digit inflation and tell me we weren't in a recession.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but you're the not the authority on deciding what a recession is, the NBER is and they're laughing at you too. You're just some Conservative goof trying to make the economy appear worse when Reagan was president just so you can make Obama look worse. Unforunately for you, there was no recession when Reagan became president. And nothing you say will ever change that fact.

When Reagan became president, GDP was 7.6%, interest rates were falling, inflation was falling, unemployment was flat.

Conservative said:
That recession began in June 1981 and the Reagan economic play wasn't passed until August. You can try to re-write history but you cannot change it.
Click to expand...
I never said anything other than that (except that the recession started in July, not June) , so who knows what you're talking about now?
 
Conservative said:
Post where I said that misery index determines a recession? Misery index shows how people are affected by a recession especially working people.
Click to expand...
Right, you said a recession was inflation + interest rates. :roll:
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Right, you said a recession was inflation + interest rates. :roll:
Click to expand...

Prove that is what I stated? Inflation and interest rates affect cost of living which makes the 81-82 recession worse than the 2007-2009 recession for the individual.
 
Conservative said:
Prove that is what I stated?
Click to expand...

I already did.

Inflation and interest rates affect cost of living which makes the 81-82 recession worse than the 2007-2009 recession for the individual.
Click to expand...

I'd rather pay 17.5% on a mortgage and be above water than pay 6% and be below water.
 
winston53660 said:
I already did.



I'd rather pay 17.5% on a mortgage and be above water than pay 6% and be below water.
Click to expand...

Sure you would! LOL what does a 100,000 mortgage cost at 17.5% vs that same mortgage at 4%. You just show how out of touch you are with the average American, you need to get out more.
 
Conservative said:
Sure you would! LOL what does a 100,000 mortgage cost at 17.5% vs that same mortgage at 4%. You just show how out of touch you are with the average American, you need to get out more.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand what being above water and below water means in context to this subject.

And to think you even claim to have any business experience:roll:
 
winston53660 said:
You obviously don't understand what being above water and below water means in context to this subject.

And to think you even claim to have any business experience:roll:
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
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...

If you don't understand how losing money on what is most peoples largest investment I don't know what to you.............
 
winston53660 said:
If you don't understand how losing money on what is most peoples largest investment I don't know what to you.............
Click to expand...

What money have you lost if you don't sell? Stop making a fool of yourself. If you have a job and live in a house with lower value than your mortgage suck it up and continue living there making payments.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I have not read the entire thread, but I do not believe you can make a valid comparison of the two based on such little info. Let me explain.

I bought my first house while Carter was President. And my second house, with interest rates on the second house at about 12%. What made such possible to bear then was that inflation was still high enough that the houses were appreciating at a rate consistent with my interest rates. So at least I could anticipate selling down the road, having renegotiated interest rates as they moved with inflation, and get my money back as I went through the next sale-purchase cycle. Yes, it was a smaller house for the money. But without the prospect of losing more when I sold.

Being underwater poses a whole different scenario. If I have no plan to sell-move anytime soon, then it is not necessarily a dire situation. But if I must move, I am faced with carrying a huge loss forward.

Both scenarios are bad, high interest rates and being underwater. But in different ways, which will vary based on variable factors.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
What money have you lost if you don't sell? Stop making a fool of yourself. If you have a job and live in a house with lower value than your mortgage suck it up and continue living there making payments.
Click to expand...

So you would advise people to throw good money after bad. That just makes so much business sense.:roll:

Again I would rather pay 17 % and be above water vs paying 6 % and being below water.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
I have not read the entire thread, but I do not believe you can make a valid comparison of the two based on such little info. Let me explain.

I bought my first house while Carter was President. And my second house, with interest rates on the second house at about 12%. What made such possible then was that inflation was still l high enough that the houses were appreciating at a rate consistent with my interest rates. So at least I could anticipate selling down the road, having renegotiated interest rates as they moved with inflation, and get my money back as I went through the next sale-purchase cycle.

Being underwater poses a whole different scenario. If I have no plan to sell-move anytime soon, then it is not necessarily a dire situation. But if I must move, I am faced with carrying a huge loss forward.

Both scenarios are bad, high interest rates and being underwater. But in different ways, which will vary based on variable factors.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
What money have you lost if you don't sell? Stop making a fool of yourself. If you have a job and live in a house with lower value than your mortgage suck it up and continue living there making payments.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what the mortgage problem is these days. People are paying mortgages that aren't relative to the current value of the house. It's definitely possible to pay more to the bank at the completion of the mortgage (before interest) than its initial value at the time of mortgage signing. That's what's happening to a lot of people. I think that's one of the most important reforms the housing market needs right now to get back on its feet.
 
Conservative said:
what does a 100,000 mortgage cost at 17.5% vs that same mortgage at 4%. You just show how out of touch you are with the average American, you need to get out more.
Click to expand...
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 luxury 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.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
So you would advise people to throw good money after bad. That just makes so much business sense.:roll:

Again I would rather pay 17 % and be above water vs paying 6 % and being below water.
Click to expand...

was it bad money when you bought the house in the first place? Again, what assurance do you have that your 17.5% mortgage is for a house above water. With interest rates that high housing prices fell quite dramatically as no one could afford to buy a house. Keep trying to weasel out of this one
 
Eighty Deuce said:
I have not read the entire thread, but I do not believe you can make a valid comparison of the two based on such little info. Let me explain.

I bought my first house while Carter was President. And my second house, with interest rates on the second house at about 12%. What made such possible to bear then was that inflation was still high enough that the houses were appreciating at a rate consistent with my interest rates. So at least I could anticipate selling down the road, having renegotiated interest rates as they moved with inflation, and get my money back as I went through the next sale-purchase cycle. Yes, it was a smaller house for the money. But without the prospect of losing more when I sold.

Being underwater poses a whole different scenario. If I have no plan to sell-move anytime soon, then it is not necessarily a dire situation. But if I must move, I am faced with carrying a huge loss forward.

Both scenarios are bad, high interest rates and being underwater. But in different ways, which will vary based on variable factors.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Conservative said:
was it bad money when you bought the house in the first place? Again, what assurance do you have that your 17.5% mortgage is for a house above water. With interest rates that high housing prices fell quite dramatically as no one could afford to buy a house. Keep trying to weasel out of this one
Click to expand...

Uhmm we went through this yesterday and your claims do not match the data esp when compared to today.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I'm sorry, but you're the not the authority on deciding what a recession is, the NBER is and they're laughing at you too. You're just some Conservative goof trying to make the economy appear worse when Reagan was president just so you can make Obama look worse. Unforunately for you, there was no recession when Reagan became president. And nothing you say will ever change that fact.

When Reagan became president, GDP was 7.6%, interest rates were falling, inflation was falling, unemployment was flat.


I never said anything other than that (except that the recession started in July, not June) , so who knows what you're talking about now?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
Take a leadership class in school and then get back to me if you believe Obama has any leadership skills at all.
Click to expand...

Haha, coming from the king of leadership I bet. Give me 3 reasons why you think Obama is a bad leader.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom