• 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!

Obama announces his Candidacy for 2012.

Sheik Yerbuti said:
And you posted that number as being $228,000. That's what you believe each job cost us. That equates to 3.5 million jobs.
Click to expand...

Yep, that is what you get when you divide the cost of the Stimulus which was to create jobs by the number of jobs created or saved. Did you get your money's worth? Aren't those Obama economic results wonderful? Did you get one of those jobs?
 
Conservative said:
So what is your point? How did Freddie and Fannie affect the mortgage market and where was their oversight? What does this have to do with the thread topic.
Click to expand...
Are you saying Bush pushed his record-breaking homeownership plan through without the oversight he felt was needed to prevent the financial collapse which ultimately occurred?? How irresponsible was that?
 
danarhea said:
You mean like GE? This year they paid a grand total of........

Drum roll please.......

Zero, and got money from the government on top of it.
Click to expand...

so the shareholders of GE who are citizens of the USA paid NO taxes on their dividends?

what about all the payroll taxes?

SS Payments?

sales taxes?



Oops
 
lpast said:
Bush tried to get Fannie and Freddie mac the number one culprits in the home mortgage meltdown reformed but the democrat controlled house and senate would hear none of it...and that most disgusting barney frank fought it like the mutt that he is
Click to expand...
President Bush pushed to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae between 2003 and 2005. During that time Democrats were the minority party in both chambers of Congress, so they didn't control the legislative.

If you want to blame anyone maybe you ought to blame President Bush for a lack of leadership to get legislation passed when his party was the majority in both chambers. That's just weak on his part.
 
Conservative said:
Saw your post and still wonder what that has to do with the questions I asked? You want so badly to believe it was Bush's fault when the fault lies with individuals, agencies including Freddie and Fannie.
Click to expand...

You asked: "What economic policy did GW Bush implement that caused the financial crisis?" His policy was to look the other way when the banks were screwing their customers.

The CRA has nothing to do with the financial crisis; it never forced banks to make risky loans, just lower rates. And it only involved community banks.

You know damn well Bush wanted to offer no down payment loans.
 
Conservative said:
Congratulations you have once again derailed a thread by bringing up the past that has nothing to do with the thread topic or the Obama economic results.
Click to expand...

:lamo You're too funny! :lamo

I was responding to your question!

"What did Bush do to create the sub prime loans and selling homes to individuals who couldn't afford them?" ~ Conservative​

When I showed you what Bush did, you retreat to the same old tired tactic you resort to after losing an argument ... you whine that I'm off-topic.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
First of all, I would hardly define a 3½ point increase, as "jacking up" taxes. Secondly, that is $250K after deductions; most likely, such a person is earning more like $300K to $400K. Thirdly, for someone paying tax on $250K, the increase on their tax burden at 39½ amounts to an increase of $8,750. I can't believe people net more than $250,000 a year will struggle to pay an extra $8,750. And lastly, how on Earth are we ever going to pay down the debt, no less balance the budget, if we don't raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans? Cutting spending is an excellent idea, but cutting spending alone will not get the job done. One of my biggest beefs with Obama is that he extended the Bush tax cuts.
Click to expand...

but you are confused-sham wow wanted taxes on dividend income (which is often taxed TWICE) to go from 15% to 40% or so. You see most of the wealthy have lots of investment income and consequently the 3% increase on the rate for earned income (which means a 10% increase in the amount of taxes paid at the marginal rate) really is not accurate. why should someone who already pays more money than they use in services have to pay 8750 more when those who don't pay enough wont pay anymore?

We won't pay down the debt as long as most people think the rich have the duty to pay for all the spending people like you want

do the math-there are not enough rich americans to pay for all the crap politicians promise to people like you in return for your votes

the only way to get the deficit under control is to create an environment where most americans demand the government spend LESS and that will not happen when the parasite enablers keep claiming the rich need to pay more--that only encourages the rest of america to want more spending since they don't have to pay for it
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
If you understood the difference between "should" and "want" you probably would have understood the point being made.
Click to expand...

this is coming from someone who thinks that obama's schemes only would result in a 3% increase in taxes on the "rich"


Trust me-I understand this issue far better than you ever will because I bet you aren't someone paying the top rates
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
President Bush pushed to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae between 2003 and 2005. During that time Democrats were the minority party in both chambers of Congress, so they didn't control the legislative.

If you want to blame anyone maybe you ought to blame President Bush for a lack of leadership to get legislation passed when his party was the majority in both chambers. That's just weak on his part.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting idea.

Because the Democrats are so dishonest and incompetent, and of course hypocritical liars, it is the fault of the Republicans for not getting them under control and removing them from any serious responsibilities. I tend to agree, and perhaps the voters in the next election will also.
 
Conservative said:
Saw your post and still wonder what that has to do with the questions I asked? You want so badly to believe it was Bush's fault when the fault lies with individuals, agencies including Freddie and Fannie.
Click to expand...
Uh-oh!

Wait for it ....

Wait for it ............

Bush Minority Homeownership Plan Rests Heavily on Fannie and Freddie

When President Bush announced his Minority Homeownership plans last week in Atlanta, his top priorities were new federal programs: a $2.4 billion tax credit to facilitate home purchases by lower-income first-time buyers, and a $200 million national downpayment grant fund.

But none of the new federal programs--if passed by Congress--will come even close to achieving the 5.5 million-household increase in minority homeownership the President set as his target.

Instead, most of the heavy lifting was assigned to two mortgage market players that have sometimes come under fire from Bush administration officials and Congressional Republicans: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie's and Freddie's commitments are the bedrock core of the President's ambitious plans--but didn't get the headlines. Fannie Mae agreed to increase its already substantial lending efforts to minority families by targeting another $260 billion of mortgage purchases to them during the next nine years. Freddie Mac agreed to buy an additional $180 billion in minority-household home loans during the same period.​

And you just said, "the fault lies with individuals, agencies including Freddie and Fannie"

How the hell do you defend Bush after that?? :lamo
 
pbrauer said:
You asked: "What economic policy did GW Bush implement that caused the financial crisis?" His policy was to look the other way when the banks were screwing their customers.

The CRA has nothing to do with the financial crisis; it never forced banks to make risky loans, just lower rates. And it only involved community banks.

You know damn well Bush wanted to offer no down payment loans.
Click to expand...

So it is the President's job to oversee the banks? Where was the Congressional Oversight? You actually believe that Bush wanted no downpayment loans? You are kidding right? There is only one party that believes home ownership is a right and that would be the Democrat Party.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
And you posted that number as being $228,000. That's what you believe each job cost us. That equates to 3.5 million jobs.

Conservative said:
Yep, that is what you get when you divide the cost of the Stimulus which was to create jobs by the number of jobs created or saved. Did you get your money's worth? Aren't those Obama economic results wonderful? Did you get one of those jobs?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Since you believe each job cost us $228,000, how on Earth do you deny that the stimulus saved or created 3.5 million jobs?
 
TurtleDude said:
but you are confused-sham wow wanted taxes on dividend income (which is often taxed TWICE) to go from 15% to 40% or so. You see most of the wealthy have lots of investment income and consequently the 3% increase on the rate for earned income (which means a 10% increase in the amount of taxes paid at the marginal rate) really is not accurate. why should someone who already pays more money than they use in services have to pay 8750 more when those who don't pay enough wont pay anymore?

We won't pay down the debt as long as most people think the rich have the duty to pay for all the spending people like you want

do the math-there are not enough rich americans to pay for all the crap politicians promise to people like you in return for your votes

the only way to get the deficit under control is to create an environment where most americans demand the government spend LESS and that will not happen when the parasite enablers keep claiming the rich need to pay more--that only encourages the rest of america to want more spending since they don't have to pay for it
Click to expand...
It's true, I'm not in the top bracket, but based on your belief that Obama's plan was to increase [tax on] dividend income to 40% or so leads me to believe a) you're not either; b) you don't know as much as you purport; and c) you fall easily for rightwing talking points.

Tax Policy Center

B. SENATOR OBAMA’S PLAN

Partial extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Senator Obama has called for extending the tax cuts affecting the middle class while eliminating those benefitting the wealthiest Americans. According to the campaign, Obama would extend the child credit expansions; the changes to marriage bonuses and penalties; and the 10, 15, 25, and 28 percent income tax rates, as well as the lower tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividends for taxpayers in those four tax brackets. He would restore the 36 and 39.6 percent rates and increase the rate on capital gains and dividends for taxpayers in those brackets. To match the campaign’s stated revenue targets, we assumed a rate of 25 percent for capital gains and qualified dividends. 3 Obama would also restore the phaseouts of personal exemptions and itemized deductions, but set the income threshold at $250,000 for married couples filing jointly. As under current law, the thresholds for the phaseout of personal exemptions would be lower for singles and heads of households, but those for the phaseout of itemized deductions would not vary with filing status. The thresholds would be indexed for inflation as they are under current law. Senator Obama would also extend several smaller expiring tax cuts, including the adoption credit and the simplifications to the earned income tax credit. Certain other provisions would be modified, as described below.

_____________________
3 Under current law, the top tax rate on capital gains would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent in 2011 and qualified dividends would face ordinary income tax rates as high as 39.6 percent. Obama’s plan would thus increase the maximum tax rate on gains from 20 percent to 25 percent and reduce that on qualified dividends from 39.6 percent to 25 percent.​
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
If you understood the difference between "should" and "want" you probably would have understood the point being made.

TurtleDude said:
this is coming from someone who thinks that obama's schemes only would result in a 3% increase in taxes on the "rich"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Well look at that, not only do you not understand the difference between "should" and "want," you don't even understand what I said. But being the kind-hearted Liberal that I am, I'll give you a clue ... I never said Obama's plan would have resulted in a "3% increase." Let's see if you can figure out what I really said. My money is on, "no," but we'll see.
 
Conservative said:
So it is the President's job to oversee the banks? Where was the Congressional Oversight?
Click to expand...
And that was the problem, there was none. Guess which party was in charge between 2003 and 2006?
 
Conservative said:
There is only one party that believes home ownership is a right and that would be the Democrat Party.
Click to expand...

Actually the idea that large scale homeownership is ideal was an idea championed by none other than Jack Kemp (former Republican congressman, HUD Secretary under George H. Bush, and VP candidate in '96). The low interest rates that made it possible were a continuation of the Fed policy begun under the Reagan administration to keep interest rates low to avoid inflation.

As the Democratic Party moved to the right in the 90s, they espoused these ideas as well, but the genesis was in the Republican Party.
 
Kemp espoused this idea well into the housing bubble (as late as 2005) House must support homeownership - Page 1 - Jack Kemp - Townhall Conservative

Quote from the piece (written by Kemp himself): "Congress created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decades ago as private-sector companies with an important public mission: to help ensure that lenders always have money available for home buyers. These government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) have proven hugely successful in providing liquidity and innovation to the mortgage market.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
That's an interesting idea.

Because the Democrats are so dishonest and incompetent, and of course hypocritical liars, it is the fault of the Republicans for not getting them under control and removing them from any serious responsibilities. I tend to agree, and perhaps the voters in the next election will also.
Click to expand...
What does any of that have to do with what I posted? All I asked was how are Democrats at fault for the Republican Party's inability to get any reform bills out of even committee when they had majorities in both chambers.
 
rocket88 said:
Actually the idea that large scale homeownership is ideal was an idea championed by none other than Jack Kemp (former Republican congressman, HUD Secretary under George H. Bush, and VP candidate in '96). The low interest rates that made it possible were a continuation of the Fed policy begun under the Reagan administration to keep interest rates low to avoid inflation.

As the Democratic Party moved to the right in the 90s, they espoused these ideas as well, but the genesis was in the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

Need to go back further than that, Jimmy Carter implemented the Community Reinvestment Act in the last 70's. That was the beginning of the low interest home loans
 
Conservative said:
Need to go back further than that, Jimmy Carter implemented the Community Reinvestment Act in the last 70's. That was the beginning of the low interest home loans
Click to expand...

Still throws water on your party that this is only Democrats. Unless Jack Kemp was a raging lefty.
 
Conservative said:
Need to go back further than that, Jimmy Carter implemented the Community Reinvestment Act in the last 70's. That was the beginning of the low interest home loans
Click to expand...
Carter was at fault for low interest home loans??How can that be? You said:

"Ask your parents how they liked paying 17+% interest rates on their home and high credit card rates? If only Jimmy Carter would have been re-elected." ~ Conservative​

I like how you blame Carter for the highest interest rates and the lowest.

I also look forward to your kvetching that I'm off-topic by discussing Carter. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom