E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn First Thoughts, we noted President Obama's observation yesterday that -- after the U.S. housing crisis -- there are some Americans “who are probably better off renting” homes than buying them.
Our NBC/WSJ pollsters have reminded us about a recent survey they conducted for CNBC showing a declining preference for owning a home. In 1992, a whopping 79% said people are better off owning a home, and 89% said that in 1996.
But in March of this year, the poll found the number dropping to 63%, with 24% saying it's better to rent.
Of course, if you have the money to afford mortgage payments, owning a home is beneficial -- due to the built-in tax breaks a homeowner receives.
But if you can't afford them (as well as a sizable downpayment), or if you live paycheck to paycheck, some economists believe that renting is preferable -- because there isn't the danger of foreclosure, and because it gives workers more geographical mobility (if you're renting, you are more likely to be able to move where the jobs are).
Leave a Comment:
With Obama as president, Obama is probably right.
Since Obama has made no genuine effort to drop the unemployment, an honest effort to support business, has destroyed the energy industry resulting in the cost of gas, food, and everything else to going up ......... with the debt and spending, lost confidence by the world in the dollar, gold soaring ....... yea with this guy as president ..... it is probably a better idea to not invest in a house.
Kinda like business ....... it is probably not a good idea to invest in their business with this guy as president.
Well unless you are a big multi national like Obama's best corporate bud, GE. Then you can invest overseas. GE - 54% of their employyees are now foreighners overseas. And they move their profitable operations over there where they pay no taxes and leave the unprofitable stuff over here where they get a big write off or refund. Good times.
When I was a kid, owning a home was a part of the American Dream. Today most middle class Americans cannot afford their own home. They are strapped taking care of their parents and their kids. Many middle class home buyers need help from their parents for that down payment. The GOP/TP is willing to give tax breaks to corporations on Wall Street , but have no interest in helping the guy and gal on Main Street.
Didn't know Charlie Rangel had switched to the GOP . . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all
Joanna,
What is your position on the GOP plan to reduce the deficit by reductions in safety net, while at the same time cutting taxes for the top teir again?
Ron,
Ryan's / GOP's plan is to reform the tax codes and lower the tax rates.
Obama and GE are the perfect examples why.
GE, the world's second largest company, filed 24,000 page tax return and qualified for a $3 billion refund. Yet they made a profit overseas of $10 billion. As mentioned in the first post, they now employee more people overseas than here at home. All because of the tax code.
We have one of the highest tax rates in the world - 10% HIGHER THAN THE COMMUNIST IN CHINA!
Why would GE not put their profitable operations in low tax countries? Why would they not put their least profitable operations in high tax countries like the US where they can get the biggest write- off - even a refund?
Ryan's plan addresses this problem. Obama, the President, still doesn't even have a plan, but his demagoguery and agenda promotes the insanity.
Speaking of Obama, the great socialist "spread the wealth around" guy doesn't even pay his tax rate share! What about his "skin in the game" contribution. He tells a plumber he has to pay, but Obama takes the deductions and foreign credits and he isn't even the "rich" $250,000 - HE'S A MILLIONAIRE!
Yet the Millionaire snarks the plumber, laughs at middle class guys asking about gas prices and the elitist millionaire tells the butt-crack middle class they need to "think about trading their trucks in" as his wife flies a 737 to be on the View or something and now tells the middle class they need to rent while he plans another McCartney concert at the White House.
Why are you so blind? Political bigotry?
BTW - Ryan's plan addresses the individual millionaires like Obama too.
The Dems - raise the tax rate (it will fool the idiots - they will actually think we did something and they love that class warfare stuff)
What a JOKE!
The modern day robber barons won't be satisfied until what's left of the middle class are living in tents!
Ted, Mid Michigan
Joanna,
What is your position on the GOP plan to reduce the deficit by reductions in safety net, while at the same time cutting taxes for the top teir again?
Ted She Loves it, she loves to see the greedy get more, she loves to see liberal seniors and kids get screwed, she loes it more than life.
Ted - I subscribe to the plans defined by the Presidents Debt Commission and to House Bill H.CON.RES.34.RH (FY 2012 Budget). that was recently passed by House of Representatives.
What plan do you or the Democrats have in mind so we don't load the next generations of our children with the back-breaking debt we are accumulating today?
Obama is absolutely correct on this. In fact most people right now, at least around these parts, would be much better off not owning a home.
We wrecked the economy in large part trying to pull up people by their boot straps who had no business owning a home. Hell, isn't that pretty much why Fannie and Freddie were created?
Don't need either if everyone has to put 20% down and actually qualify on real income.
But then again so many real estate and mortgage workers literally raped and pillaged on o junk loans guaranteed by Uncle Sam. Like stated income loans.
So the exit question is - Obama is correct, so why won't he pull the plug on Fannie and Freedie? And if he tried it, how long until we get the sob stories about the "middle class" not being able to afford houses?
You know like Ron. Ron why should the government have to help anyone buy a house? How does that really help that person? Not like the government will be there to make the payments? I don't suppose the gov. helped you buy a house?
And again Ron - why do you keep saying it was the GOP that gives tax breaks? Just who writes and approves the IRC Ron?
How about this Ron - you identify three of these evil GOP given tax breaks then you and I will look into who 1. wrote the section, 2. approved the section, 3. who was the ways and means chairman at the time, and what the legislative history says regarding the rationale for the section. Deal?
Now why is it I doubt my friend Ron will take me up on this? Nope much easier for Ron to simply conclude the the GOP is the party enacting these code sections, right Ron?
JoAnnaSmith1
Ted - I subscribe to the plans defined by the Presidents Debt Commission and to House Bill H.CON.RES.34.RH (FY 2012 Budget). that was recently passed by House of Representatives.
See ted she in really on the fence, she ignore that the debt commission said that tax breaks for the wealthy should expire, on the other hand she loves Ryan's plan because it keeps Bush's tax cuts indefinitely at the same time putting all the weight of the 6 trillion in government saving on those who can't afford it, something again the debt commission said is part to blame for the deficts. we never changed our spending habbits while in 2 wars, giving tax cuts and medicade part D 6 trillion toward the debt over 10 years.
As we see ted most american want to help, but Ryan only wants certian people to help.
Spanky-
You know like Ron. Ron why should the government have to help anyone buy a house? How does that really help that person? Not like the government will be there to make the payments? I don't suppose the gov. helped you buy a house?
i agree with you spanky, my x-wife and I saved for 4 years to buy our first house, that how its done, my grand father had to have 1/3 down on his home in the 50s. 15k house with 5k down. getting government help to buy a house mean you really can't afford a house.
I can't speak for Ron, but I've owned two houses in my time, and the government had nothing to do with it.
But, then again, Spanky, why should the government have to help anyone build or expand a BUSINESS? Surely you aren't saying that small businesses owners who get GUARANTEED loans and grants from the government are on the public "teat," are you?
Or are you? Are you also advocating for getting rid of the Small Business Administration? Because if not, I guess that makes you, as per usual, a hypocrite.
And especially so because it's not private citizens or liberals, like me and Ron, who constantly rail against government helping people. It's people like YOU and businesses that do that. That makes all of them hypocrites, too.
Quite a lot of that going around these days.
True enough. I saved for mine, and never got any government assistance of any kind with home ownership.
But tell me this -- then why did the Bush administration push those programs, which it did, and why did the banks, who of all people, should have been more responsible in lending out their customers' money, give the loans?
If you think about it, you may realize what really happened here, and exactly how you got fleeced. And it wasn't the aspiring homeowners who gave themselves the loans. Just remember that.
Ted -
I was hoping to hear what plan you endorse? You'll struggle to endorse any plan from the Democrats - they don't have one. Obama and the Democrats seem happy at the moment to just demagogue any and all Republican plans without coming up with one of their own. Not much for leadership, Obama and those Democrats.
So, just to make sure I understand:
You subscribe to further tax cuts for the top teir at the same time we weaken the safety net for our nation in a plan (h.con.34.rh) that actually GROWS the debt by 5 trillion dollars?
How are we supposed to take this position seriously? How can this not be described as a money grab by the powerful at the expense of the weakest amongst us? How can you, after railing about debt and deficits for months, Joanna, subscribe to this plan? It increases the debt, and weakens our country; leaving many many of our citezens out to dry. all in the name of the rich getting richer; what a world, what a world....
I am for cuts in spending, entitlement reform, and an accros the board return to Clinton era tax rates. Those who say it's a revenue problem and those that say it's a spending problem are both blinded by partisanship...
So, what cuts in spending are you for? What reforms do you agree to for the entitlements? Ryan's budget defines them in great detail. The Debt Commission describes them in great detail. Are these plans the perfect solution? No. But at least they are plans. Where is the Democrats plan? Obama had the chance to return tax levels to the Clinton era, and he could have done so by doing nothing, but instead he signed the law that extended them. Doesn't look like he was too committed to that notion of a tax increase, now does it?
Ted - you may have not noticed, but the country is broke. Its deficits are unsustainable, the service on the debt could soon be a $1 trillion/year if interest rates go up to as little as 6%. Seeing the federal government collects only $2.3 trillion in tax revenue, that leaves only $1.3 trillion to operate the government. You and others better take those numbers seriously Ted. And the Democrats have no plan Ted. They just have a guy running around the country and campaigning by being critical of any Republican plan. He's not showing any leadership now is he?
When are the Democrats going to come up with a plan Ted?
So,
I've been thinking about this for awhile, and I've come to the conclusion that I should, as much as I dislike them, and distrust their intention, congratulate the TEA Party.
the TEA party, as suspicious as the timing of their formation is to me, as much as I dislike their practice of shouting over others, as much as I dislike thier "swoop and poop" tactics, as much as I HATE their name (Taxed Enough Already - while we have near record low tax rates in this country)HAS changed the conversation.
In little over 2 years the conversation has turned from JOBS, JOBS, JOBS (Where I think it still should be) to debt and deficit only.
They have moved the conversation to where they want it, and for that alone, they should be congratulated.
I happen to vehemently disagree with the timing of these actions, and think we should be focused, all of us, like a laser in promoting job growth and growing the economy.
Exactly. Maybe you could do us all a favor and throw a bucket of cold water on it. ;-)
Joanna,
I know your game. I'll give you the point: the dems do not have a fleshed out plan yet.
I would cut defense, raise the SS cap (not on all income, but the cap hasn't moved in decades and should be adjusted to today's world) the so called loopholes everyone is talking about, rooting out redundancies. Hell, I'd go sinlge payer on health care, dismatle the private insurance industry and take profit out of the health delivery equation. I would require welfare recipeints to do community service functions. I would take all oil subsidies and create R&D grants for engergy projects.......
I would do alot of things; but alas, I am but a lowely corporate trainer, not a politician. Though I have expressed my desires to my representation.
But, again, I know your game....
Moving on:
Please respond to this portion of my last post:
You subscribe to further tax cuts for the top teir at the same time we weaken the safety net for our nation in a plan (h.con.34.rh) that actually GROWS the debt by 5 trillion dollars?
How are we supposed to take this position seriously? How can this not be described as a money grab by the powerful at the expense of the weakest amongst us? How can you, after railing about debt and deficits for months, Joanna, subscribe to this plan? It increases the debt, and weakens our country; leaving many many of our citezens out to dry. all in the name of the rich getting richer; what a world, what a world....
I am truly trying to understand your point of view...
and Joanna,
your GD hair was on fire during the tax cut debates. You were railing soooo hard for them. To turn around and use them to assault Obama is, well......, just stupid. (respectfully)
It makes me wonder if you are truly for the betterment of this nation, or just against Obama and everything he may do. Like extending the tax cuts. Just as you wanted him to do....
Bob
The unemployment rate has dropped a full percentage point since the depths of the Great Recession created by Bush and his army of Republican robots.
Morning AM. Git rid of all government guaranteed loans. Either you can qualify for private loans or not. If not, perhaps starting a business ain't your bag.
Problem is, the government likes to play social engineer, doesn't it?
AM - what is you take on the Labor Board's suit against Boeing? Why is a governmental agency suing a private company for it's decision to build a plant in SC? Doesn't the government like SC workers?
Seriously I like to hear you position on this one. As you can imagine it looks screwy to me. I can't understand the authority behind the suit.
And Ron, where'd you go off to? I love reviewing legislative history, don't you?
Oh and AM Bush did push the bad loans - he really was into helping the poor - which isn't very conservative, right.
The banks made the loans because they were guaranteed. No skin off their nose.
And realy, you don't blame the idiot homeowners? Sure they "qualified for that $300,000 loan [thanks to Freddie and Fannie], but whentheir income was less than $50,000, there was a huge problem. And that is no personal responsibility. You know like you and I have.
Anna Molly
But tell me this -- then why did the Bush administration push those programs, which it did, and why did the banks, who of all people, should have been more responsible in lending out their customers' money, give the loans?
Unfortunately Anna (my grandma name) this is the problem in our society, people want what others have even if they can't afford it and will Liston to some banker or broker who only want to make a buck instead of making a wise decision. this has happened for years but in the past people were more responsible not to fall for it. Bush could push all he wanted i knew enough not to take.
Sorry Anna but i don't blame anybody but the ones who bought homes they knew they should not be buying. if you need help to buy a home other than family don't buy it, If you only bring home 5k a month don't take a 1200 dollar note, if you have car notes adding a house note is a bad move.
when i got my home, the only note i had was the house note, no car note, no credit cards, for the first 5 years i only used cash,drove a crappy car and did not take a vacation. Anna this is what owning a home cost, the news showed some of these people being foreclosed on, Anna they had fully furnished homes by using credit cards, one guy after he bought his home dought a new car. that just irresponsible.
I sold my home to move closer to my job 50 miles away, it was the best move i could have made, i made a nice peice of change on the house and moved in to a town home that was cheaper than the note+utilities+property tax+upkeep and Chatlioc school for 4 kids. i moved to evanston school dist 65 on the north shore out side chicago where i could send them to good public schools.
This is not a game Ted. Not even close.
You seem to have a plan. But for someone that is so concerned that the Ryan/Debt-Commission plans don't go far enough to reduce the pending deficits, your plan is also quite inadequate, barely working around the edges. But again, at least it's a start, and that puts you far out in front of the party you support.
Think Obama/Democrats will ever come up with something? Yeah, me neither.
Ted, it wasn't me that was critical of the Bush Tax Cuts, but did nothing about it. It was Obama. It wasn't me that used the issue to get votes during his election. It was Obama. It wasn't me that turned a 180 and signed the legislation that extended those very same tax cuts that he was a demagogue to all the while up until that point. It was Obama.
I know what I stand for. Just what does Obama stand for?
Joanna,
I was talking the game you're playing here (it seems to be dodgeball)
again:
You subscribe to further tax cuts for the top teir at the same time we weaken the safety net for our nation in a plan (h.con.34.rh) that actually GROWS the debt by 5 trillion dollars?
How are we supposed to take this position seriously? How can this not be described as a money grab by the powerful at the expense of the weakest amongst us? How can you, after railing about debt and deficits for months, Joanna, subscribe to this plan? It increases the debt, and weakens our country; leaving many many of our citezens out to dry. all in the name of the rich getting richer; what a world, what a world....
I am NOT trying to be obtuse, but your position (debt / eficits = bad) doesn't jive with the Ryan plan.
If we're going to have intelligent conversation, it can not be onesided.....
Bush wasn't into helping the poor for the sake of helping the poor, and you know it. He was into helping the poor only so far as it could help his rich friends turn a profit. He bought what they sold him, hook, line and sucker.
Yes, I said sucker.
No, they're only guilty of dreaming. Like a little kid asking for candy when their parents know it isn't good for them.
Where WERE the adults in this room, Spanky? The professional lenders. Where WERE they? Tell me that.
And just who is it that decides a $50,000 income qualifies for a jumbo mortgage? The lenders, that's who. And they don't get a pass on the buyers' misrepresentations, either. It's up to the lenders to verify the information buyers provide to them and behave responsibly. Or when did those regulations change?
You know why the banks didn't verify, Spanky. Don't play coy. And it's not all on Freddie and Fannie, either, although they're certainly not blameless.
Here's the press release:
http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-transferring-
The real question is why doesn't Boeing like Washington workers. Because it looks to me like the reason the Board is suing Boeing is that Boeing apparently decided to move the plant in retaliation against Washington workers for exercising their legal right to strike, as guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act.
To wit:
Now, given what YOU'VE said in the past, Spanky, I assume that you would agree that the Board is "required" to enforce the "rule of law," right? So you, of all people out here, should agree with what the Board is doing.
Don't you?
Joanna, the president and the Democrats DO have a plan. I thought the president laid it out pretty well last week. As Ted pointed out, it may not be fleshed out yet. And it may not appear in the form you would like. It may not exist as a pretty printed piece like Paul Ryan has been brandishing. But it is a plan.
Just as the right seems to think that if they repeat something often enough, it will become true, they also seem to think that if you deny something often enough, it will disappear.
Complete and total BS. The tax deduction for mortgage interst has been a sacred cow preserved under both Democratic and Republican administrations for years. More to the point, for as long as I can remember our national policy (again, under both Democrats and Republicans) has been to promote home ownership. That's why we have FHA, HUD and other programs that cut folks a significant break just so they can join the ranks of proud homeowners and that's why Fannie and Freddie were created in the first place, to ensure the availibility of a large pool of dollars available for home mortgages for the masses.
Now that these very same policies are widely recognized as having contributed mightily to the housing bubble and the resulting economic meltdown, Obama actually has it right that for many folks renting makes more sense. Particularly since the government is probably not inclined to do everything it can to help marginal home buyers any time soon.
Ted - The Ryan plan signifcantly reduces the projected deficits over the next 10 years, it cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president's budget over that time frame.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576242612172357504.html
AM - all Boeing did was open a plant in SC. That does not effect it's worker's rights is Wash.
Could it be the Board does not like that SC is a right to work state?
So I ask you again, what law did Boeing violate by opening a plant in SC? And what would the Board do if BBoeing simply moves all operations to a right to work state? Boeing is a private company, correct?
JoAnnaSmith1
Ted - The Ryan plan signifcantly reduces the projected deficits over the next 10 years, it cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president's budget over that time frame.
ON THE BACK OF THE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD IT, this is the part you ignore Joanna, or not that your not ignoring it you just don't give a sh*t!!!!
Anna Molly:
You can speak on my behalf anytime you like. I especially liked your posts earlier today on what's happening in Wisconsin. It is amazing how blue you state is becoming this Spring.
Joanna,
I actually read the plan from the # you gave me. It reduces deficits gradually, while the debt is still skyrocketing. all the while seniors and lower-income people are bearing the entirety of the brunt of this plan.
My point: if YOU are serious about the reduction of the debt deficit, you MUST see that tax increases (on EVERYONE, in my opinion) must be on the table. I think that Obama's intent of 3:1 spending cuts:tax increases is fair and equitable.
I agree with you that large cuts need to be made. Totally! It's where we cut that we need to compromise.
The only plan that is "fleshed out" is the Presidents FY2012 budget he submitted to Congress about 2 months ago. That's the one with the $1.65 Trillion dollar deficit for FY2012. Now it appears Obama has strayed from the budget of his, come up with some sort of another plan of some kind. Will Obama be resubmitting his budget any time soon, or will he continue to have staged town hall meetings where he demagogues the Republican plan, which has real numbers for both the FY2012 and future years, while never really "fleshing out" what exactly he's talking about?
The Debt Commission advocates them. Ryan does not. But the Democrats and Obama have a skin in the game. Senate Leader Harry Reid now has the House bill, and he can debate it and amend it as he sees fit. If Harry wants to add in tax increases, he's welcome to do so. So what exatly is Harry doing these days?
I would never presume to speak for you, Ron, but thank you for the kind words. And yes, it is amazing, isn't it?
This link is for Spanky, but you may also find it interesting, Ron. It's a contemporaneous article that lays out exactly how the scheme that created the housing bubble was expressly designed to encourage people to do what they did -- follow their dreams ....
.... to their ruin. And ours.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm
I also left a few interesting videos on the thread below.
There is no question that this is ALL on Bush's head, and Congress's, and those of his cronies in the housing and finance industries who encouraged this.
It's time to get your head out of the sand, conservatives and accept your own responsibility for what happened and why we are in such trouble today. In fact, it's well PAST time.
And here we have another contemporaneous article chronicling how Bush took all the credit for the housing bubble --
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4568925/ns/politics/
Why, then, should Bush NOT have all the blame?
Sigh. Spanky, you aren't really much of a lawyer, or at least not qualified to express and opinion on this subject, if you don't realize that the Board is alleging that what Boeing did violated Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act.
Private companies are exactly what the National Labor Relations Act regulates.
As for what the Board would do -- you're seeing it in action. Boeing has the right to move anywhere they want, but NOT in retaliation for legal union activities.
Just like employment is generally at will -- meaning that an employee can be fired for any reason or no reason -- but NOT for an illegal reason. Look it up. Try Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as it is interpreted for burdens of proof -- the McDonell-Douglas and Texas Dept. v. Burdine cases should be a helpful place to start.
The mere fact that there is a "right to work" state doesn't trump the NATIONAL Labor Relations Act, Spanky. In the legal field, we call that federal pre-emption. Federal labor law pre-empts state laws with which it conflicts. Look it up.
"When are the Democrats going to come up with a plan Ted?"
Maybe they can plagarize the one Bush used for 8 years. That seems to have worked pretty well.
Here's a plan,
1. Reform the tax code--do away with loopholes, silly deductions, and etc...
a. by doing this, we could lower the tax rate for everyone. Or make it the same for everyone.
2. Cut 5% per year from every federal office and department, until we get a balanced budget.
3. Get Americans to force our congress to provide us with a "Balanced Budget" amendment
4. Get Americans to call for a State's Constitutional Amendment and place term limits upon our Congress.
5. Reform the SS system to a pay in/get out system. Also, make it a "retirement" only program.
Widely by whom? Not hardly. Read my various posts on this topic, Bill, and watch the videos. Those policies never did any harm before -- it was only when Bush put forward the scheme to give every low-income person in the country a home -- and to finance that with federal dollars -- that we got into all this trouble.
And he did it deliberately. This was no accident. It was just another scheme to reward his contributors and supporters -- just like No Child Left Behind was a scheme to reward the educational software industry, most specifically the software company owned by his brother Neil.
Flailing around for someone else to pin this on does NOT change the facts, Bill. This is ALL on George W. Bush, on Congress, and on the real-estate, housing, and financial industries who exploited all these people, and now don't want to own up to it -- just the same way that Congress continues to fail to own up to the fact that raiding Social Security for 30 years is what has created the cash deficits in that program and the mess we are in today.
Face the truth for once, Bill. It would do you credit.
Derisive and condescending cluelessness doesn't.
Anna,
Let me ask you another question, way off the subject.
We all should know that Federal law is superior to state laws.
So if a state says that marijuana is legal to a certain ounce--does that violate Federal Law?
Should the Federal Government be filing lawsuits against states that form laws like this?
Are they doing their job if they don't?
@ BigBear
Talk to Spanky, BigBear. He's the one who thinks the Federal Government has to enforce ALL laws, which is not correct. And even if it was, do YOU want to pay for that? Especially as it relates to marijuana laws?
Good luck, and watch your wallet.
Federal law is usually, but not always, pre-emptive of conflicting state law. Out of conscious choice, I don't know that much about criminal law, especially as it relates to marijuana; but with regard to employment law, the general principle is that states are free to adopt laws that tread the same territory as federal law, but federal law pre-empts state law to the extent that federal law is more protective of the employee, and state law can be enforced where state law is more protective of the employee.
In the case of "right to work," it's easy to see in this case which law -- federal -- is more protective of employees. That's why right to work doesn't trump the National Labor Relations Act ... in this particular instance.
Bob (nmbers), post #1:
This is utter propaganda of the "Big Lie" variety.
1. The President took action even before he was inaugurated - at the invitation of G.W. Bush - to resist the rapidly-escalating unemployment figures caused by the Bush Recession. For the entire time since then, the President has promoted and gotten Congressional approval of numerous programs to temporarily provide jobs in the public sector on infruastructure, prevent further joblessness as much as possible - his 2009-2010 initiative to keep employers steady and provide both public and private employment accouonted for nearly 360,000 jobs - the auto industry bailout program preserved millions of jobs both directly and indirectly, and employment now has shrunken on average nationwide and job-creation is proceeding.
2. The President's landmark small business program enacted last year is the FIRST time since 1980 that ANY Administration has encouraged sustainable, long-term growth in the small business sector. The President's multiple programs to spur re-industrialization of the country similarly are the first serious efforts to rebuild manufacturing nationwide wince the Reagan era ushered in the age of breakup, sell-off, and export American industry.
3. The U.S. energy industry most certainly has NOT been"destroyed" by ANY Obama Administration efforts. If you make the unsupportable, weak claim that the moratorium on offshiore dirlling has "wrecked" the industry, most everyone here wants some of what you've been smoking. New drilling was interrupted almost EXACTLY one year ago consequent to the BR Gulf spill - remember that little event, bucky? NO drilling that might have begun when the President took office would be producing ANY new supplies now, in all events. The issues of oil and fuel prices are ENTIRELY UNRELATED - and the effect of fuel costs on commodies has NOTHING to do today with the American energy industry under any policies of the President.
3. The national debt - owed in the greater part to the American people, not overseas - has nothing to do with the S&P rating warning recently issued - it is DIRECTLY the result of the GOP/TP posturing on the subject and the debt ceiling vote that brought that warning. The debt and deficit is not only a legacy of the incompetent Bush Regime, but a Bush Gift That Keeps On Giving - because President Obama had the courage to take on hard decisions to minimize as he could the Bush Recession.
4. Gold has been rising for several years, yes, as much thanks to the legacy of war and instability left by the Bush Regime as to the global reaction to the Bush Recession. And compared to other major currencies, the U.S. dollar is in much better shape, and remains still the benchmark currency in the world.
What is drivinga lot of very touchy economic indicators now is UNCERTAINTY caused by the irresponsible, lying people in the Right Wing - like YOU.
Yeah, you are probably right AM, not much of a lawyer.
Fun stuff - Boeing not happy with unions, tried to work with them, then decided to leave. Yet labor wonders why the jobs are leaving.
Tell you what AM I say this is a giant political loser of a case. You appear to think it has merit. Let's see who is correct from the results, or at least I will before resorting to comment on you legal abilities, k?
And as for it's all Bush's fault re: Freddie and Fannie, as a Real Estate Broker I have studied the issue somewhat, and have litigated many cases of real estate fraud. Bush certainly has blame, but comeon Freddie and Fannie were around long before him.
And really, sure a lot of folks got rich, but I actually think Bush was trying to help the poor folk. Problem is the government, as we know just sucks at business and will get schooled every time.
Time to end Freddie and Fannie, right AM?
I didn't SAY it had merit, Spanky. I only said what the basis for it was, which is what you asked me and claimed not to understand.
As a practical matter, since the Board is attempting settlement, I suspect they're looking for cash for the displaced workers, rather than a reversal of the decision. Let's see how that goes before we form any opinions about anyone's legal skills.
The Board is pretty good at what it does. The same Board, after all, recently finnagled a settlement out of an employer who fired a woman for posting a negative comment about her supervisor on her Facebook page. A lot of people didn't see that one coming, but I did. And the same Board got the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to declare employer policies that employees cannot discuss salaries with co-workers to be per se illegal. People didn't see that one coming, either, but I did.
But THIS shows you really don't know what you're talking about and that you didn't even bother to look at all the sources I just provided. Bush explains IN HIS OWN WORDS how he got Fannie and Freddie to cooperate with his little scheme to help the poor. In one of the articles, he even takes credit for it as being a crowning achievement in his plan.
Seriously, Spanky. Not time to end Freddie and Fannie, which were working fine until Bush meddled with them.
Time to put the blame where it belongs.
Because constantly blaming the wrong causes for the problem may make you feel better, but it won't solve anything. We'll just have more and more of the same.
p.s. Spanky -- as a real estate broker, then your natural bias is in favor of the lenders whose decisions to lend money validate the deals you have made. Your interest as a broker is in selling as much real estate as possible, on which you can profit.
And as a broker, what do you care after the deal is done? You've made your money. So I wouldn't exactly call your viewpoint objective.
If you happen to be a buyer's broker who helped people get into houses they obviously couldn't afford, then shame on you, too.
By the way, as a broker, what were YOU doing while all of this happened?
Silly question AM - I was making $. But I certainly would not represent people who couldn't afford the houses - no cash to be made on the low end, right AM.
Get the government out of lending or guarenteeing money. It sucks.
But hey, at least you are consistent - never blame the poor little guy. Always those greedy rich corporate types, right?
Always, Spanky. At least until someone presents me with some CREDIBLE contrary evidence. I'm still waiting to see some here.
As for getting the government out of lending or guaranteeing money, I'm certainly not for that -- I wasn't the one complaining about it, you were; I just pointed out the hypocrisy. It wasn't always this way, but more recently, those who have money and power seem to think nothing of exploiting those who don't in order to drain every last drop for themselves. When someone actually has the nerve to protest, they whine, "but think of the children" and call US unAmerican. LoL And now they're destroying unions and even taking over local governments so there will be no organized resistence to their power grab. The totalitarianism is all on YOUR side, Spanky.
"Give us your tired, your poor ...." Remember those words? They mean nothing to you, do they? The poor don't deserve any help anymore. That's SO last century, isn't it? Maybe we should just chisel that out.
Although I'm not against government participation in the lending market, I am in favor of reform. But maybe not the way you think. Running it like a business is not what I expect from government. When government acts in complicity with the private sector, we see exactly what we've just seen with the housing bubble burst. Only the poor working stiff gets caught ... everyone else, including you apparently, just scoops a handful of cash out of the stream of commerce and moves on to the next opportunity. Compassion for the people who get caught in the middle is not a concept that even crosses your mind.
Did you ever see IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, Spanky? For the government to get out of mortgage lending is the exact recipe for Potter's Field. Nobody owns, and we all rent from slumlords. Because, that's what you're advocating, in case you haven't noticed.
You can call me a sucker if you want, but I'll take the Bailey's Building and Loan any six days of the week over Mr. Potter's millions. Why did Potter never tell anyone that he had the Baileys' $8,000, do you think? It seems pretty clear that being an ethical businessperson had absolutely nothing to do with it.
And in the same way, Republicans never admit any culpability for what they do, but rather love to blame the victims of their greed. It's so much easier on your conscience that way, isn't it?
If that's how you like to run your world, so be it, but it's not my world, and never will be.
Oh, c'mon, I'm pretty sure the "right" to own a home is in the Constitution. Why is Barry trying to violate my constitutional rights??
Joe in Albany
Oh, c'mon, I'm pretty sure the "right" to own a home is in the Constitution. Why is Barry trying to violate my constitutional rights??
Come on Joe, you know that the moreage melt down was caused by people buying homes that either could not afford or did not know how to manage a home. making payment is only half the task of owning a crib. i have been renting for 12 years, and its cheaper than owning, especially when you have kids that you HAVE to send to Catholic or private school and then its college. i had 4 kids and i could go more for them by renting. what killed me was seeing people making 40k a year having a 1200 dollar house note, that crazy, of course you are going to loose it, weather you get layed off or not.
the president is right, if your living pay check to pay check its better to rent.
Man, is this site crawling with ding-bats today, or what?
All the usual suspects, spouting all the usual garbage-filled OPINIONS about what Obama has/has not done 'to' the country....
The guy's your president. He's going to be again (still) after the next election. Get over it already. We know you can't stand it, but all your BS, repeated as many times as you can muster, will NOT make things facts that are NOT facts. Bob- JoAnna- you are not changing anyones minds. Give it a rest, for crying out loud.
Joe in Albany
Oh, c'mon, I'm pretty sure the "right" to own a home is in the Constitution. Why is Barry trying to violate my constitutional rights??
Oh, please
Read your Constitution! How can you rely on a document you haven't read completely?
h/t you won't find Barry in the Constitution!
Beverly in Chicago
Joe in Albany
Oh, c'mon, I'm pretty sure the "right" to own a home is in the Constitution. Why is Barry trying to violate my constitutional rights??
Read your Read your damn Constitution! How can you rely on a document you haven't read since high school?! How can you rely on a document you haven't read completely?
h/t you won't find it in the Barry in the Constitution!
Bev, Don't fall for this, he is kidding, he is trying to yank your chain!!!! right Joe!!!!
DBO:
I guess you are a fortune teller/palm reader now. How do you know he will be POTUS again? You don't..THAT IS A FACT.
You are not changing anyone's mind either, so what is the point? You talk a lot of shyt but yet you are the one that needs a reality check. We listened to this BS for 8 yrs when Bush was the POTUS and still hearing it, so do you not think that Obama had all of this scrutiny coming? He will be bombarded until he is out of office. What goes around, comes around.
Now take your garbage-filled OPINIONS and stick it ......................zz.
president. He's going to be again (still) after the next election.
_______________________________________________
There is a silver lining to that possible cloud: He would get stuck dealing with the consequences of his first term like a debt crisis caused by his trillion dollar deficit spending budgets.
The President can and will bring his poll numbers up. He is just starting to get into campaign mode. Once the Republicans-Tea Baggers candidates start declaring that they are in, which none have officially done so far, the country will see these characters for who they are and not like what they see.
Big difference, ITM- you had to listen to crap about Bush, because HE EARNED IT! There is NO comparing Bush and Obama. And you KNOW it. I'm sorry it upsets you so much, but tough noogies, pal.
Read your Constitution! How can you rely on a document you haven't read completely?
______________________________________
Bev, I'm pretty sure the "right" to own a home is in the same section as the "right" to vote and "right" to abortion. Would you check your copy of the Constitution and let me know if that's right?
I agree with Drive By - there is no comparing Bush and Obama, or the debt service costs attendant to each's deficit spending follies.
But DBO why shouldn't bob, JAS1 or anyone else be allowed to their opinions? While you may fell theirs are "garbage filled" others may not.
I'll take Nojo, Jas1, Bob and Mixed. You stick with Feisty, Bev, Navy and Ron. Now we could have a nice little knife fight, or just continue on with our happy little shouting match.
Or maybe we could settle it with a game of Dadge ball. Oh wait the libbies just outlawed that. Wiffle ball? Nope that's be deemed too dangerous too.
Oh well, looks like shouting it is. How you doing today Drive By? Ready to talk all things Trump here at MSNBC? I sure am. If we are lucky we might get a little of that NLRB action against Boeing. I really hope Anna M can explain that one to me, cause I just don't get it.
What's amusing that Obama is campaigning on the same issues he campaigned on in 2008. Basically because he hasn't fixed any of the problems he said he would. How's that "Raising taxes on the rich" going for you Barack? You had the Congress for two years, and that never happened. Best to promise it again for 2012 I guess, your base voters are the biggest fools around, they'll believe it again - hook, line, and sinker. And about Gitmo . . .
Buzz seems upset about something today.
Buzz, do what our President tells us to do - "Don't Worry - Be Happy".
Well Jas1 that debt ceiling gets hit in one week.
Now Obama sure didn't campaign on debt reduction, so these are tough times for the libbies.
Poor DBO, these are going to be terrible, really horrible times. But it's ok, he'll be fine - Obama WILL be re-elected for sure, no doubt.
Funny thing his DBO might be right. But if you compare 2008 Obama to 2011 Obama, there is a mighty rightward shift. Just think what 2013 Obama will look like?
I just hope he hasn't started any more wars. Turns out he's a big war monger and all.
Jeff...you overlooked Barny Frank and Chris Dodd's LACK OF OVERSIGHT on Freddie & Fanny...or is that you're a left win-nut socialist who wants more re-distribution of our wealth?
Going to be quite the culture shock to Obama when the Republicans put conditions on raising it. Maybe in between his campaign stops this week Obama can jot down his plan for restricting spending as a term for the debt ceiling increase. Maybe he can reference that now famous vote of his against raising the debt ceiling when he was a Senator back in 2006.
Maybe.
Oh just stop - for Obama to do that would require him to lead on the issue, and we both know that ain't gonna happen. Gosh, I suspect even Drive By and Ron know it.
Nope, like with the Ryan plan the Republicans will make demands, he'll make a speech stating how terrible they are, then a big shift will happen with him veering rightward toward deficit caps.
I just hope they hurry - one week is not very long. :)
Please Insult Me!
you won't find Barry in the Constitution!
Just like you won't find the Constitution in Barry
You would not because you are Constitutionally devoid and illiterate.
Contrary to what you say or think President is a Constitutional scholar, the first Black President of the Harvard Law , graduated cum laude from Harvard law ,taught as a Senior Lecturer Constitutional Law at UIC, and shattered more than 200 years of history by becoming the first Black President and 44th President of this country.
What credentials do you have to make such a bold statement to counter these facts?
THAT is what I just LOVE about Bev...
She is so INTELLECTUAL!
Hey Bev... Google this... Sarcasm (dork)
BTW Bev... I think you are WRONG! Obama is NOT the first black president... he's the first half-white president! (Suck it!)
Just an observation. Most issues which Republicans supported under George W Bush's Administration(GITMO, 2 Wars, Laissez Faire Leadership unless to give further breaks to Large and Multinational Corporations, subsidies uninterrupted, and little Environmental Protection, TARP), Barack Obama has not changed substantially if at all, yet none of you ever questioned the Previous President in regards to same.
Why is this?
George W Bush's Administration(GITMO, 2 Wars, Laissez Faire Leadership unless to give further breaks to Large and Multinational Corporations, subsidies uninterrupted, and little Environmental Protection, TARP),
Barack H. Obama's Administration(GITMO, 3 Wars, Laissez Faire Leadership unless to give further breaks to Large and Multinational Corporations(like Obama's buddy Immelt at GE, who pays no taxes), subsidies uninterrupted, and little Environmental Protection, TARP),
Getting harder and harder to tell these two apart.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised that you believe it. In fact, I think that's pretty much what Bush said when he first started pushing the low-income home ownership initiative. Watch him and weep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68
According to your boy, a first time homebuyer -- with a bad credit history, no less --
The shoe sure hurts when it's on the other foot, doesn't it Cinderella?
The Internet is sure a wonderful thing.
A little more George W. Bush on that homeownership thing --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=related
Now ... ask yourself who benefits from all this -- the builders and the bankers. He EVEN admits that the real estate industry benefits when people are "encouraged to buy homes."
LISTEN TO THIS, FOLKS.
You conservatives need to get over this mindless, spiteful villification of the middle class for what was really a scheme to benefit Bush's cronies. It makes you look so hypocritical and so foolish, and you're helping to drive us all into the ditch.
And a CONTEMPORANEOUS article in which Bush lays out the whole scheme for which conservatives are now trying to blame the poor:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm
When WILL you conservative idiots get over your ignorant, arrogant delusions?
JIM -657002
Jeff...you overlooked Barny Frank and Chris Dodd's LACK OF OVERSIGHT on Freddie & Fanny...or is that you're a left win-nut socialist who wants more re-distribution of our wealth?
Jim .....who wrote the law that allowed all this to happen, none other then a republican. Unfortunately Clinton signed it into law. How is that you guys always conveniently never mention all the details? But go ahead and blame it all on those socialist Dems...lol what a joke.
1999: Republican Senator Phil Gramm pushed through Congress deregulation laws (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) removing Depression era laws separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities. (a really stupid move)
I wouldn't be a bit surprised that you believe it.
________________________________________________
AM: You're killing me. (I knew you had murder in your heart) Why no comment on #2.10??
Now Spanky,
You know that all of us Tea Baggers are a bunch of redneck racist gun toting people. So why are you asking them to bring a knife to a gun fight:)
Bev,
My cousin has a PHd in Nuclear Engineering and is a tenured professor at Northwestern University right up there in your part of the country. Being a "Lecturer" (it is much much lower on the totem pole) is completely different than being a Tenured Professor.
By the way, my cousin would be a crappy President too.
It's called irony, Judge. Mine AND yours. ;-)
And murder is NOT what's in the true liberal heart.
"But DBO why shouldn't bob, JAS1 or anyone else be allowed to their opinions? While you may fell theirs are "garbage filled" others may not."
What's worse than a Hutaree with a bag of 'smores? A Hutaree with a bag of 'smores and ADD. Where did I say the others shouldn't be 'allowed to' their opinions? I DID state one of mine, which refered to THEIRS as 'garbage-filled". True. But did I say they shouldn't be allowed to have them?
Hello? Anyone home out there in Sunny California this afternoon??
SickOfTheBickering
BTW Bev... I think you are WRONG! Obama is NOT the first black president... he's the first half-white president! (Suck it!)
“One-Drop Rule”
The One-Drop Rule is an historical, colloquial term in the United States that holds that a person with any trace of sub-Saharan ancestry, however small or invisible, cannot be considered White and so unless said person has an alternative non-White ancestry they can claim, such as Native American, Asian, Arab, Australian aboriginal, they must be considered Black.
http://www.blackhistory.com/cgi-bin/blog.cgi?blog_id=63228&cid=56
I think you may remember me saying Langston Hughes being my favorite poem
"We younger Negro artists now intend to express our individual dark-skinned selves without fear or shame. If white people are pleased we are glad. If they aren't, it doesn't matter. We know we are beautiful. And ugly too... If colored people are pleased we are glad. If they are not, their displeasure doesn't matter either. We build our temples for tomorrow, as strong as we know how and we stand on the top of the mountain, free within ourselves."
Langston Hughes QUOTE
The President is comfortable in his skin. My suspicion is if history proves Obama a great the bigots will try to rewrite history by saying he is white.
You could learn a lot if you read this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ways_of_white_folks_cover.jpg
One ever feels his twoness - an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.
W. E. B. Du Bois quote
Read the The Souls of Black Folk. you could learn a lot.
You can either suck or eat it. Whichever you chose to devour I think would give a better perspective on you thoughts
Well look-y here Big Bear, I believe this is what you were talking about.
Thanks DBO, you never disappoint.
And I'm here today, but tomorrow is Vegas Baby! You probably wouldn't like it there, I'm guessing. :(
janet-489369
Bev,
My cousin has a PHd in Nuclear Engineering and is a tenured professor at Northwestern University right up there in your part of the country. Being a "Lecturer" (it is much much lower on the totem pole) is completely different than being a Tenured Professor.
His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.
Why?
His schedule did not permit it.
Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html
By the way, my cousin would be a crappy President too.
President Obama is not a crappy President.
Obama, Top Gallup's 'Most Admired' Lists
President Barack Obama is Americans' Most Admired Man of 2010, substantially ahead of the former presidents, iconic religious leaders, and others who fill out the top 10 list. Obama first became Americans' Most Admired Man in 2008, shortly after his election as the nation's 44thpresident, and has held the title since then.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145394/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-2010-admired.aspx
Don't count Barack Obama out. Sure, the brainy young American president has had a tough sophomore year, with a stubbornly sluggish economy, worsening conditions in Afghanistan
He is # 3 in world
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/29/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,2
Our President said we shouldn't go there.
JIM -657002
Jeff...you overlooked Barny Frank and Chris Dodd's LACK OF OVERSIGHT on Freddie & Fanny...or is that you're a left win-nut socialist who wants more re-distribution of our wealth?
Good catch, but that over sight would have not been needed if people though twice before they did something they knew they should NOT be doing. Jim for me its about personal responsibility for what best for you and Buying a home when you knew you should not comes under that category.
Jim I'm a liberal but at the same time i know the problem with the housing melt down was that people wanted homes when they knew they could not afford them. there is nothing in our laws that grantees home ownership.
janet-489369
I see the page has been moved here is anothe link
# 3
BARACK OBAMA for charting a course through criticism.
President | Washington
Don't count Barack Obama out. Sure, the brainy young American president has had atough sophomore year, with a stubbornly sluggish economy, worsening conditions inAfghanistan, an electoral backlash at home, and the surprise challenge of more than 4 million barrels of oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico. His sweeping plans to overhaul immigration and reinvent the way Americans use energy never got off the ground, and he can boast of neither Middle East peace nor mastery over the restive Republicans at home rising up against what they bemoan as the advent of European-style socialism.
But Obama is still arguably the developed world's most popular leader, even if the American public judges him more harshly, and he is slowly but surely inventing a new kind of U.S. leadership to go along with his vision of an America that once again projects its power through the force of its ideas. To Obama has fallen a tough task: the hard work that accompanies the building of a new order to succeed America's unchallenged rule as the lone post-Cold War superpower. But luckily for the world it is a task Obama embraces, if still hesitantly at times. He has put American prestige on the line to speak up for emerging powers still not properly represented in the world's governing bodies, boldly renewed U.S. ties of friendship with the democracies of Asia, and in his ringing address to the U.N. General Assembly in September declared himself ready to "call out those who suppress ideas" and "serve as a voice for those who are voiceless."
Such idealism has not yet come to define Obama's legacy in the world; for all his Wilsonian rhetoric, he remains a cautious incrementalist on most issues. In many ways, he's the most realist of recent U.S. presidents, determined to focus on the terrible challenges, from Afghanistan
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-244158886.html?key=01-42160D517E1A106D120F0A170E684B2E224E324D3417295C30420B61651B617F137019731B7B1D6B39
SEE this goes contrary to FOX NOISE, T-BAGGERS, MITCH McCONNELL, BIRTHERS, JOHN BOHENOR, PAUL rYAN, and OTHER NUT BAGS ON THE RIGHT
Bev,
You work to make sure he (or the representative of the democratic party) is reelected and i'll work to make sure a democrat is not reelected. But don't claim that Obama is this great man and will be remembered as one of the greatest presidents of all time, because he hasn't proven himself to be that yet. He may still, but odds are he won't. It is the opposition's party to ensure that he isn't reelected. We'll see Nov 2012, but don't count your chickens before the eggs are hatched. 57% of the country currently disapproves of HIS handling of the economy.
Anna, you keep talking about the Bush cronies that made all the money from predatory lending and the housing bubble. Have you ever heard of Countrywide Mortgage and Angelo Mozilo?
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/06/12/Countrywide-Loan-Scandal/
I don't think the right had a lock on the corruption (ie. Chris Dodd, Kent Conrad, Obama advisor-James Johnson) The left certainly didn't corner the corruption market though. (ie Alphonso Jackson) I give you examples of both to let you know that it is disingenuous to blame only the right. If you are keeping score though the Dems are winning. ;)
janet-489369
Bev,
You work to make sure he (or the representative of the democratic party) is reelected and i'll work to make sure a democrat is not reelected. But don't claim that Obama is this great man and will be remembered as one of the greatest presidents of all time, because he hasn't proven himself to be that yet. He may still, but odds are he won't. It is the opposition's party to ensure that he isn't reelected. We'll see Nov 2012, but don't count your chickens before the eggs are hatched. 57% of the country currently disapproves of HIS handling of the economy.
I'm not saying he is all that. All I'm saying is you were wrong and he is much, much, better your side has to offer. The 57% does represent a disparity. But, when you look at the 72% who are against the GOP/T-BAGGERS and the trend of the T-baggers waking up to the overwhelming draconian social and economic issues causing such a huge gap there in both instances, I'm willing to bet you people will not be able to overcome the direction the GOP/T-BAGGERS is taking the country.
Furthermore, you people don't even have a viable candidate to throw his/her hat in the ring.
bob. Try to keep up, every month we are recouping some of the massive job losses of the Bush/conservative recession.
Obama's policies have decimated job growth and the private sector, but the bloated federal bureacracy has flourished.
The Government now gives out more money in social programs than it takes in.
That is good news....if one is a socialist.
RoBo-Bob, that must be why there is over 3 Million new Jobs being advertised & Employment across this Gr8 nation is UP.
If thats Socialism, i'll take it, over the Communism that is being used in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, etc.
Central Government takeing over Cities!
Papers Please!
Patrick,
What was the unemployment rate when Obama took office? And where did the unemployment go after Obama spent a trillion, how many points did he pack on Patrick? And after 2 1/2 years and a trillion dollars, how close is the unemployment to the number when he took office, - isn't it still more after all of this time than Obama's worst case scenario if we had not spent the trillion?
Who's not keeping up Patrick?
BTW - Let go of the Bush blankie and grow up.
Speaking of growing up- who all believes unemployment is likely to go from 9% down to 3.5% in two years? Regardless of WHO'S president. Anyone?? Anyone with any damned sense?
Hi Drive By,
Taking to these people on the right is like talking to a brink wall. They ain't the brightest bulb in the package.
Hey Drive By - your the "where are the jobs" guy, so did you see what Patrick said?
And hey, how come no one asked Obama about jobs at the town hall yesterday? Seems odd, given that according to you that's issue #1.
Oh and you are right about unemployment DBO, but recall that Obama said it would never go above 8%, right big guy? Or did you know that was silly then too?
And yes Job1 us conservatives is all just plain stupid. Heck Patrick's parakeet coulda told you that. ['cept it's dead now, poor libbie parakeet].
drive-by-imbecile,
Who's talking about 3.5%? From 9%?
How about Obama getting it ..... to 9% ..... for a couple of months after a couple of years?
Meanwhile, per Think Progress:
Sadly, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R) did not heed the attorney general’s warning. Although Otter vetoed a nullification bill attacking the ACA yesterday, he also issued an executive order which effectively forbids his state from participating in Medicaid as soon as the ACA goes into full effect.
To be fair, Otter’s order also provides an onerous process allowing Idaho’s Medicaid program to seek a waiver from the prohibition on implementing the ACA. If such a waiver is not granted, it will completely blow up Idaho’s state budget. Presently, Idaho receives over $1 billion in federal grants to administer its Medicaid program — an amount that equals approximately two-fifths of the state’s overall budget. If the state gave up this money, it would have to chose between eliminating health coverage for the 223,198 Idahoans who currently depend on Medicaid or implementing similarly draconian cuts such as slashing its public schools budget by 85 percent.
In other words, in his zeal to strike a political blow again President Obama’s most important accomplishment, Otter has endangered the health of over more than 200,000 Idahoans and forced financial ruin upon his state.
Pat it would appear that you didn't read the article you cut and pasted to. Or is it you just don't understand it?
I suggest you take another look at it, then review your comment.
The governor is supposed to protect his state, right? If the budget is "blown up" how many people would that effect? You think it might be more that 200,000.
Pat? Care to discuss the effect of O'care on state budgets?
Spanky
Oh and you are right about unemployment DBO, but recall that Obama said it would never go above 8%, right big guy? Or did you know that was silly then too?
LOL...you cherry pick one thing that he said and really at the time no one knew it would be that bad. That's like Bush and Cheney saying that the oil in Iraq would pay for the war. Come on get real buddy
Cutesie replies, as usual, Spanker, but you didn't address the basic question. How long should it take for unemployment to drop from 9% to 'full employment'? ESPECIALLY after a near-depression? 2 years? That seems to be what would make all the ridicule of Obama stop, finally, where jobs are concerned. OK- forget 3.5%- hoo about 6% 7% What say you- over night? One year after a new president takes office?? What? Gonna be fun if Obama gives up the thorn to a Repub, and unemployment doesn't fall several percenage points over night, huh?
Oh, and I'm no the 'jobs' guy. I think you might be thinking of that one teary-eyed dude from Ohio.
OK- 'How', not 'Hoo' and 'throne' not 'thorn'. So sue me- I'm dyslexic. Or peptic. Or septic. Or something. (but thank God I'm not a ME Firster!)
Rick 0425
Spanky
Oh and you are right about unemployment DBO, but recall that Obama said it would never go above 8%, right big guy? Or did you know that was silly then too?
You are recycling a claim that should go to the dump. politifac rates your statement BARELY TRUE.
The administration never characterized it that way. True, it’s projections were off, but the report contained plenty of disclaimers saying the predictions had "significant margins of error" and a higher degree of uncertainty due to a recession that is "unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity." In short, it was an economic projection with warnings of a high margin for error, not a guarantee on an upper limit on unemployment.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/feb/28/george-allen/george-allen-says-barack-obama-promised-stimulus-w/
Beverly in Chicago
Rick 0425
Spanky
Oh and you are right about unemployment DBO, but recall that Obama said it would never go above 8%, right big guy? Or did you know that was silly then too?
Bev I wasn't agreeing with him I was calling him out for cherry picking. I am with you on this. :-)
Joe. You really are devoid of any common sense.
Patrick, I tried to find you because I just saw your reply to me back on 4/18 saying I was a phony and that I did not vote for Obama. What is it about you blind leftists that you go around making factual statements you have no information on? I would not waste my time saying I did something that I did not do. You sit behind that computer of yours making statements just like the one you just made to Joe here instead of making a point to support your view. It bothers those like yourself when you run up against anyone who says what they mean without worrying about what you may think about it. Time for you to grow up son. There are many more like myself that voted for this faultering President and now believe it was a major mistake. No matter what BS you espouse about it, that's a fact.
Ron. I still think you are a phony. And I doubt very much that you voted for Obama.
Respectfully Patrick, you are dead wrong. But that's your problem, not mine. Aloha.
... it gives workers more geographical mobility (if you're renting, you are more likely to be able to move where the jobs are).
Most of Obama's voters are not "workers", they are beneficiaries of government largesse. They get a kiss in the mail every week.
They may move, but only if they see the welfare benefits are better in another state.
bob-1805084
With Obama as president, Obama is probably right.
Since Obama has made no genuine effort to drop the unemployment, an honest effort to support business, has destroyed the energy industry resulting in the cost of gas, food, and everything else to going up ......... with the debt and spending, lost confidence by the world in the dollar, gold soaring ....... yea with this guy as president ..... it is probably a better idea to not invest in a house.
For you it would a lot better if you get your facts straight.
President Barack Obama has offered federal assistance to stricken US states after powerful tornadoes killed 44 people and reduced whole neighbourhoods to rubble.
Signed financial reform law establishing a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to look out for the interests of everyday Americans
http://whatthe@!$%#hasobamadonesofar.com/
A Summary of What's In the Bill
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection:
House conferees agreed to the Senate language that creates a bureau within the Federal Reserve to regulate consumer financial products like mortgages and credit cards
Mortgages:
Lenders must verify that borrowers are able to repay the loans that they issue. Lenders would pay penalties for irresponsible lending.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008835-503544.html
http://www.iafrica.com/iafrica/722779.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+iafrica%2FuGIK+%28iafrica.com+world+news
%29
Guess what if the Party of no would stop blocking environment and energy agenda jobs would be more plentiful.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/obama-calls-out-climate-change-deniers-in-congress.php#more
Bob,
In my state, 92% of the recepients of welfare are single mothers raising children with the median age of two years old. These women stay on public assistance about 18 months. The maximum temporary assistance benefit for a family of three in Maine is $485 a month. 97% of recepients held three different jobs in the five years preceding their receiving assistance. I'm not saying going on assistance is a worthy career goal, but clearly, these aren't the entirely shiftless people you imagine them to be.
These facts were in a flyer in our church bulletin. They come courtesy of the Maine Council of Churches in response to misinformation spread by our Tea Party governor who thundered "Get A Job!" in regards to welfare recepients at the end of his speech on our state budget.
www.mainecouncilofchurches.org
Bob-1887910...You need a down payment of 20 to 30% to buy a house. You need a VERY good credit rating to buy a house. Not only do you need to be able to afford the mortgage payment you need to be able to afford real estaste taxes and homeowners insurance. This is even before you start paying for essentials like food, utilities, car, etc. Credit is extremely tight. An average credit score will not qualify you for home ownership. Homeownership os NOT a priveledge but an aspiration of many Americans who now see it disappear.
As for the American workers who get that gallactically large kiss every month, try living on it. Try going to job fairs and stand in lines 4 hours long with 10,000 peoplel to compete for a few hundred jobs. Try looking at the classifieds each day and tell me how many professional, blue collar or entry level jobs you find.
You are incredibly ignorant and apparentlty don't know that this economic mess started with George Bush .Job loss in the millions, the deficit....he fought a war in Iraq for ten years and it was UNFUNDED....not paid for. Obama addded it to the budget and it increased the deficit immensly.
Renting is the only thing some people can afford and if you dont have a month and a half security and the first months rent up front then the next step is homelessness, not geographic mobility. For the GOP preying on the poor and the eldery and the neediest families in this country is a game they play putting a smiley face on the horrific conditions the middle class has been reduced to. One in four children go to bed hungry and cannot seek propere medical help. Families put on the street. Homeless vets. Yep...loafers all of them.
Amy:
That is in your state. Take a look at the geographical make-up of your state and that will give you the answer.
All of these programs were not created for families to depend on their entire lives and 3 generations later, that same family continues to pass the legacy on. Maybe you do not see it because your state is small and their is very little diversity.
Amy B. Portland, ME
In my state, 92% of the recepients of welfare are single mothers raising children with the median age of two years old. These women stay on public assistance about 18 months.
97% of recepients held three different jobs in the five years preceding their receiving assistance. I'm not saying going on assistance is a worthy career goal, but clearly, these aren't the entirely shiftless people you imagine them to be.
Good point Amy; furthermore the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is time restricted.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program became the TANF Bureau within the Office of Family Assistance in May 2006. The Bureau has primary responsibility for the administration of the programs authorized under titles IV-A and XVI of the Social Security Act.
Through its divisions and program units, the Bureau provides assistance and work opportunities to needy families by granting states, territories and tribes the federal funds and wide flexibility to develop and implement their own welfare programs. The assistance is time-limited and promotes work, responsibility and self-sufficiency.
The TANF block grant is administered by state, territorial and tribal agencies.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/tanf/about.html
This is another reason to NOT vote GOP/T-Bagger since it the GOP/T-Bagger governors controlling the purse strings of the states. I don't know of many people who t want to a meger income v working. Sure there are a few; but overwhelming human desire dictates more.
Of course, for the GOP/T-Bagger more = less; less money for the middle class and poor; whil Wall Street gets more.
If Bob had any sense he be complaining about the military and prison complexs. It cost more to fund them than teachers.
America and the world would be a better place if we had more education; plus we'd be more competitive and #1.
Come on Ira - it'd take you about 30 seconds to find a stated income loan advertised on the wed.
You know that, right. And that only exists because of Freddie and Fannie. Gov. money is great, right?
Spanky....
FYI. these are NOT government agencies. They once were, a long time ago, but are now publicly traded companies.
The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) (OTCBB: FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal. It was set up as a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), but it converted into a publicly traded company in 1968.[3] The corporation's purpose is to expand the secondary mortgage market by securitizing mortgages in the form of mortgage-backed securities (MBS),[4] allowing lenders to reinvest their assets into more lending and in effect increasing the number of lenders in the mortgage market by reducing the reliance on thrifts.[5
Where do you get your constant lack of fact in your posts.
Why thanks for the info Ira.
Say IRA from where do these "privately traded companies" get their money?
Ira? They are actually not private companies are they? Come on Ira, you can do a lot better.
Do you not know what the words PUBLICLY TRADED mean? They are both on the NYSE. The public buys and sells these companies and sets the stock price. That's where they get their capital and profits come from business. Not really public companies? Are all the other listed NYSE not really private companies? Are you for real or really that misinformed?
Somewhat as the Federal Reserve Bank is not a private company, eh? Sorry if I am adding to the growing list of trite remarks.
Didn't know the Fed was a NYSE listed company.
Ira are you really trying to say Freddie and Fannies' money comes from profits and stock trades. Dude we just bailed them out, again for $2 plus billion.
That's be us the tax payers. You know that, right?
Oh and GM is listed, correct? Is that also a private company?
So again Ira, where does Freddie and Fannie get it's money?
Yep....just checked...private. Citibank, Chase, Goldman, Boank of America and Wells Fargo just to name name a few...all bailed out......still public. How does the bailout, which was repaid at a profit determine if a company is private or not?
Bob-1887910 - if you don't like your government - move to China!
You are a complete IDIOT!!! all you do is degrade people based on Stereotypes.
It's obvious you are just a bigot with limited intellect and all you can do is talk CRAP in an attempt to seem intelligent. NOT!
Try reading - start with American History, then Governmental processes; stats in rural America! Educated yourself so your ignorance doesn't consumed you to oblivion.
People like you are beyond anything reasonable; you are full of hate.
TRUTH- not CRAP
Thank you and GOD BLESS AMERICA
"I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration" - Hillary R. Clinton
JoAnnaSmith1
"I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic.
Wow Joanna but so you know who she was talking about, yes your guy George Bush. i think it had something to do with Afgan and paskitan. the former leader was waffling on it he should support us and Bush said if you not with us then your against us and several lawmakers question him and he questioned their patriotism. thanks for the memories!!!!
i have never heard president Obama questioning anybodys patriotism.
Democrat Soldier: lol......soldier of what?
Man PLEEZE:
You disrespect anyone that disagrees with you constantly and you are a hypocrite.
You call this man an IDIOT, Bigot, Dumb, Ignorant, etc.....and have the audacity to say he degrades people.
Go sit your Dumb-Azz down somewhere........
Why don't you heed you own advice. Oh yeah. You just preach but don't practice.
JoAnnaSmith never heard the old saying: "turn-about is fair play." Maybe she should go to China, too. They've got much more business-friendly and labor-hostile policies there than in this country, at least until the Republicans take over here and make the US more "competitive."
Bob188--take a chill pill dude! Look at your words and consider quietly if many of them apply to you.
Houston!
JoAnnaSmith never heard the old saying: "turn-about is fair play." Maybe she should go to China, too. They've got much more business-friendly and labor-hostile policies there than in this country, at least until the Republicans take over here and make the US more "competitive."
Houston if she did move to china she would be back here in a heart beat kissing Obama's A*s, the health care system in china is 18th century at best. doctors don't do many surgerys the just medicade you. she would love that.
i think our lawmakers should go over there and see their health car system, them maybe they will see that our problems are not that bad and can be fixed.
If you dont own a home you get screwed tax wise ...and every monthly rent check buys you nothing ...if you pay a mortgage .. you not only get a nice place to live ..you also get to deduct the interest ..and its a way to gain more wealth as long as the value of homes continues to go up ! Remember were all doing well financially..until the GOP relaxed the banking regulations ...and people were allowed to buy more house with HUGE balloon loan payments ...saying oh just re finance it ..before the huge payment is do ...they created the whole financial down fall !
Exactly. Those of us who tried to be responsible in buying a home were let down during the Bush years by a government that was supposed to guarantee loans and the loan process while policing the banks and the loan agencies.
The banks were the true speculators, not the homeowners. The banks got bailed out, homeowners got hung out to dry.
Uhm, lets try to get your facts straight. President Clinton signed the repeal of Glass- Steigel. You can blame most but not all of Republicans. If Clinton didn't want to sign it, he didn't have to. There is always the power of the veto. Just as President Obama could have vetoed the bill that included his tax breaks for the rich, BUT he didn't. So those of you that want to continue to blame Bush for everything, lets review.
Promises of Obama
1. Close Gitmo, still not done.
2. Withdrawl from Iraq -- still not done. In fact he is currentlyl participating in a war started by himself and NATO.
3. Healthcare Reform -- done, but really doesn't do anything to lower healthcare costs.
4. Patriot Act -- Obama extended many of the laws enacted by the Patriot Act.
5. Lets not the most important thing he couldn't get done -- Pass a budget for this fiscal year until the middle of it.
Man that is some leader we've got now!!! Can't do the things he promised.
Don't start screaming oh those evil Republicans the party of NO. Obama had the majority in the house and senate the last two years. It wasn't the Republicans (who by the way are voting the way their constituents want them to) blocking votes and issues, it was the democrats who couldn't be swayed to vote along party lines on all issues. If you'll look back over the past two years, there were many votes in the senate where at least one democrat voted with the republicans. Instead of blaming the Republicans for everything, LOOK at your own darn PARTY.
All of your "Promises Broken" are exactly W Bush Administration bastions(other than actually pushing for Healthcare Reform, which I still find very wanting due to such little pricegouging protections pushed thru by O and his D's, for example), so what's not to like for you?
But your point of 'it was the democrats who couldn't be swayed to vote along party lines on all issues' is dead on.
Peace
RVZ555
I am one of the millions of people who are renting The White House to a tenant who's stinking the joint up. We plan to evict him in 2012. Can't wait
No you're one of the bigoted fools who thinks the President should live in a shanty.
No sovereign country would allow a Head of State to live without dignity and security. But this says a lot about a bigoted t-bagger. Do feel that way about the white Vice President too?
Yes, I said white because most of your posts dwell on the President's color masqueraded under your dislike for his agenda; bigot.
If you think you're as mad as hell now; wait. In 2012 people like you are not going to say this anymore. You'll all be so minuscule your voices won't be heard
Boy, you're one crazy old racist bat there Bev. So if people dislike Obama's agenda they're bigot? Yup, you're nuts lady
3WAM... You hit the nail on the head. But she is not alone. There are many more JUST LIKE HER on this site.
3WolvesandaMoon
Boy, you're one crazy old racist bat there Bev. So if people dislike Obama's agenda they're bigot? Yup, you're nuts lady
Yup, that right. Most of you bigots are cowards and hide behind it's his policies meme. I been around in this world and I know racism when I see it. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong since I'm not a coward like you people who can't tolerate people unlike you. You're not like me. I know what compassion is. Believe you and your type are pitiful; but I forgive your type. That doesn't mean though I'm going to tolerate your lies and innuendoes.
I have endured the cowardly racist intentions of your kind as well as what you did to my ancestors, mother, father, sisters, brothers, cousins, friends, and community even to this present day with our President.
Call me what you like. If it's a racist, so be it. I know who I am and will never, ever, allow you to disrespect me, my President or my community.
@ SickOfTheBickering
3WAM... You hit the nail on the head. But she is not alone. There are many more JUST LIKE HER on this site.
You must includeyour self @aahat.
IntheMiddle,TX - guess what? if you acted like those names I would call you the same!
Why is it some people can say stupid CRAP and when they are called on it - now it's a problem.
I tell it like it is - you REPUB have been lying to AMERICA - raping it's wealth and degrading people. Every since your savor GEORGE BUSH gave you the key to America's wealth.
You want to degrade people and blame others so you can continue the same. Then you want to tell me what's what! If a bigot talks like a bigot - then he's a bigot.
I gave a damn what people call me - I am going to tell the TRUTH and if the TRUTH hurts you - then stop lying.
TRUTH - not CRAP
Thank you and GOD BLESS AMERICA
You're so naive to think The Messiah is not a socialist who wants to destroy this country through more re-distribution of our wealth to feed more cocaine to his low life followers who are too lazy to make it in this great country?
I started to answer you but then I realized the post was so stupid I wouldn't waste my time. Sounds like you were on cocaine when you wrote it.
Every issue devolves into ad hominem...
There are times when it is advantageous to rent and times when it is best to buy/own. This is a great time to buy if you can afford it, as the market is depressed, but many can not due to the weak economy. I believe that most people would like to own their own homes if they could, polls notwithstanding...
dangerfield
Every issue devolves into ad hominem...
Hypocrite.
The GOP/T-Baggers don't want to argue about predatory sum prime mortgages that would give to a drug dealer with no credit history.
Hey, Papa's Got a Brand New Bag. That's Living in America!!
Gosh, it's almost as if Bev. is totally clueless.
Almost. :)
Oh no, she's clueless and nuts
Hey Spanky...
One of yours...
JIM -657002
You're so naive to think The Messiah is not a socialist who wants to destroy this country through more re-distribution of our wealth to feed more cocaine to his low life followers who are too lazy to make it in this great country.
Good luck and have a happy holiday. Politics really does make strange bedfellows. No hard feelings I hope.
What's that now Ira, one of mine?
What is one of mine?
What is one of yours?
Who benefits from pushing the idea that it is better to rent than to own? The ones who own the rented homes, that's who. A home owner builds his own equity with every payment. A renter builds the equity of the owner with every rent payment. The responsible home owner who maintains his home and does not borrow over his head can recover his investment when he sells his home and moves. A renter, no matter how responsible he is, just moves and gets nothing back. A home owner is his own master. If he makes his payments he keeps his house. A renter who faithfully pays his rent is nevertheless at the mercy of the landlord.
Of course the owners want to encourage renting. But how would a nation of renters improve the lot of the renters.? Not a bit. How would it improve the holdings, wealth, and social control of the owners?immensely.
The issue remains that hte taxes, interest, principle, escrow and insurance are much more difficult to maintain up-to-date payments on for the first time homeowner than most individuals can afford, especially as our Great Nation continues to sink to depths of uncertainty in job stability and rising prices for everything else necessary in life. It was true during the last several administrations and remains true today; Americans are not all meant nor able to afford homes.
Hell, I have seven years left on my 15 year mortgage at 5.375%, but due to an unforeseen major change in employment as well as personal health and an issue which has forced me to spend double my previous expenditures monthly while income has decreased by 30% has me worried if I will be able to stay out of foreclosure.
Go ahead and call me unresponsible and say I should have never gotten a home. Then pray fate does not intervene in your own lives.
The President's statement is true, if not nice to hear. Facts quite often are not.
It is a sad day when the press starts touting how it's better to rent from one of the wealthy elite rather than own your own property, damn people are we going to start putting up company stores so we can give the money we earn directly back to our employer daily, I have an all too clear picture of the America the Republican Party envisions and it ain't a pretty place for anyone who wasn't born wealthy, God save us.
Here's the answer to all of the vitriol posted:
There are NO old, poor, or disabled folks in the GOP/TP!
....so what needs to happen is send all the lefty/liberals back to wherever they came from; Europe, Africa, South America......wherever......get rid of the leaches and the GOP/TP can live happily ever after in the land of milk and honey!.....Oh, and the budget will be balanced, no deficit....riches for all that are still here!
See the "love it or leave it" discussion posted above. Why is it that having a poin of view is considered unpatriotic?!
Rich and poor alike can verily find their homes to their means! Check it in the automated home finder