So Cantor is the most powerful man in the universe, eh Feisty? He is after all only one dude.

But sure, go with the whole - "but, but, he'll make $15,000 whole dollars...!"

Instead of complaing old gal, perhaps you ought to man up and invest. Go ahead, give it a shot. Capital gains is taxed a a lower rate.

Why do the media cover so much of the Republicans, and their sides of a story? I would like to here from the Democrat Party, and see what kind of fight they are putting up for their constituents. Are they fighting at all for the Democrats in this country, if so who is our best fighter.

Spanky, what an asinine response!!

You don't see a giant conflict of interest there? So you are perfectly OK with a government official betting against the United States? Especially when he is a party involved in the decision making that would determine if his "investment" pays off?

I don't care if he stood to make only one dollar, conflict of interest isn't determined by a monetary denomination!!! And if Feisty was to invest in similar things (although i have an issue with any American betting against our nation) she is not involved in the decision making that would determine if the nation fails.

And with regard to capital gains, they should not be taxed at a lower rate!!!!! Why is income earned from actually working taxed at a higher rate than income earned by doing nothing? I actually think that capital gains should be taxed higher than wages.

Andie, do yo own a diverse portfolio?

Not like were are even talking about real money.

Capital gains is what it is. Me, I love the low rate. But if you have an issue Andie, perhaps you ought to raise it with the folks who write the code. I don't suppose you ever have, or that you have any passive income for that matter.

You assume too much.

In fact I have raised the issue with the folks that write the code. I write my Congresspeople and I write the President about this and other issues.

Why would you assume I don't have any passive income? Is it because you can't imagine yourself (or anyone) putting the health of the nation and your fellow citizens ahead of your own greed?

But you failed to answer my question. Why should money earned through actual work be taxed higher than money earned through investment?

Andie----you and I agree with Warren Buffett, who makes the same point--that his assistant is taxed at a higher rate on her salary than he is taxed on interest, dividends and capital gains. While I don't agree with it, I can see the argument for a different capital gains rate but interest and dividends as well? Doesn't make sense to me.

Spanky:

You are some kind of sick. Cantor actually has the power to influence mightily the outcome of whether to raise the debt ceiling. His "investment" will pay off IF the country fails to solve the debt ceiling dilemma.

Cantor is betting on failure, and he has the opportunity to guarantee failure. Cantor has graduated from flaming punk to traitor.

Yep David, I'm sure he will be impeach post haste.

Oh Wait, he won't will he, cause this is just another silly fight you all want to pick. Or maybe You will do something about it? How about it?

Shall we review the investment portfolios of all the congress critters?

Andie I have actually read the code, and the comments. The answers you seek are right there. Pay particular attention to the comments. You will be both informed and surprised. Tell you what you go read the sections and come on back and discuss with me. I'd love to do it, I just need you to have some knowledge on the subject.

Yes Spanky, treason is just a silly little thing. Yes, as a matter of fact, we have done something about it. Feisty has raised the issue, and 12 of us have indicated we would like this examined in the boiler room. Let's see what happens.

By the way, if your understanding of the code is equal to your understanding of Congress, it's piss poor. Congressmen are not subject to impeachment.

Spanky:

But sure, go with the whole - "but, but, he'll make $15,000 whole dollars...!"

Spanky, as the self-appointed moral arbiter out here, you know as well as I do that the amount doesn't matter. Conflict is conflict, and wrong is wrong. APPEARANCE of conflict is wrong.

Or shouldn't Congress be held to AT LEAST the same ethical standards that you and I are?

If not $15,000, then where would YOU draw the line? And who do you think you are to draw it? Cantor is the only one who can judge what the money would mean to him.

That's why we have the rule in the first place. And you'll notice that it doesn't set a dollar threshold.

If the amount means nothing, then let Cantor withdraw his investment from that fund. Why not? And how about his friends? Perhaps he has friends who have even larger investments in that fund. What he does or doesn't do could make a lot of money for a lot of people, he being only one.

Or doesn't that matter, either?

Interestingly fluid ethics you have there, Spankster. I'd love to see your client list.

Interesting question - but what other contracts, where the other party did nothing wrong, should be broken due to financial hardship.

Should the debtors be able to get out of utilities contracts, or get them reduced? How about car leases or payments?

And if they are allowed to modify the mortgage what effect do you see that having on the real estate market?

Wow Spanky, I actually agree with you on something!

A mortgage is a contract, no one was forced to sign on the dotted line. No one was forced to purchase a house that they couldn't afford. If they didn't understand their mortgage they should have had a lawyer explain it to them or just not bought a home.

Although I wouldn't totally agree that the banks did nothing wrong. They took stupid risks lending to people that were not vetted properly to see if they could pay. Regardless of whatever laws and regulations that allowed for this, I think the banks (like most business) saw all that money to be gained, plus they would bundle them and sell them and make more money, and thought who cares whatever happens we will have already made all this money.

I think both sides of that are to blame. When people started seeing homes as an investment that they could get cash from (especially with the inflated housing prices) rather than a place for their family to live, a home to pass from generation to generation, that was the beginning of the end for the housing market.

It's ok Andie, I won't tell anyone.

By the way the "banks" had no skin in the game/risk - it ddn't matter what they did, all their cash was federally guaranteed.

Blame Frank and his twins Freddie and Fannie. [Also blame Clinton, Bush too. Fannie and Freddie are just bad news].

I support Torpedo's original question.

Those of us who DID buy what we could afford, who DID pay our mortgage, who DID play by the rules are now being sucked under with everyone else. What recourse is there for those of us who did everything right?

The banks did plenty wrong. And they have plenty of skin in the game. All of my efforts to deal with the banks have been fruitless. They have "lost" my paperwork, they have confused my paperwork with another lender, they have dragged their feet, they have turned a deaf ear. They have their money and will continue to make even more.

Fielden- your recourse is time.

Eventually, the market will bottom out, and prices will rise again. Why?

They are not making any more dirt. So, eventually, more housing will be needed. As demand outstrips supply, we will see another boom.

Just won't happen that soon, as there is still a lot of shadow inventory, (houses where foreclosripure was slowed, but not halted, as well as owners waiting to sell until the market improves).

Still, it WILL happen.

fielden, if you did all those things how are you being sucked under with everyone else? Why are you trying to modify your original mortgage?

Probably, Andie, because he feels entitled. See, if the house is worth less than the mortgage, naturally, he should be able to reduce the mortgage.

That kind of thinking is what keeps a portion of the population of this country permanently on the lower rungs.

Personal responsibility is not just a beautiful thing- it actually promotes prosperity, as the individual understand's that he or she is in charge of his or her own destiny.

Home ownership and mortgages have always been problematic during recessionary times. This one is no different other than the number of people who bought into the idea that home prices would always increase and that they could treat their homes as ATM's. Until economists can come up with a plan that eliminates recessions this fluctuation will continue.

Perhaps some insurer will offer a plan to quarentee equity. Bet the premiums would make flood insurance look cheap.

You have a good point, American- and here is where I fault the banks as much as the individual homeowner.

I cannot tell you how many people I know who, for years, maxxed out their home equity in order to invest in the stock market- which would keep going up.

The banks were more than happy to lend, on the ground that home prices would just keep increasing.

Of course the bubble would have to burst eventually- something that seemed fantastic to both players in this particular craps game.

Seems a lot of players still can't believe they got beat at their own game.

Thanks, everyone, for making false assumptions about my situation (sarcasm).

It's not about feeling entitled at all. But that doesn't mean I'm happy with the situation.

Fielden---sorry to hear of your challenges. What I don't get about the banks is why they won't work with someone like you who is strapped but still willing to pay. The bank might make less money but it would still be better than a foreclosure.

But seriously fielden - if you did "every thing" right there should be no issue.

So what gives.

Hell, I was able to reduce my rate a bunch through one of Obama's little schemes. Helped me, but overall the program was a failure. It was offered to all who have mortgages held by Frannie or Freddie. Turns out mine is with Fannie.

Who knew?

Spanky, NO JO and all,

Your replies to FIELDEN " what is the issue, or just wait the market will come back" Or disbelief: using your house as a ATM to purchase stock!! give me a break.

I can think of many scenarios where one is trapped after doing everything right.Here is one:

One buys a $200,000. house with 10% down. Now you have a $180,000 mortgage with payments you can afford. You have $20,000. in equity. Along comes the housing crash and now your home is worth $140,000. Your equity is of course wiped out. Now you are upside down. But it is only on paper. Your good paying job is now going to be in another state due to an airline merger(DELTA). You can't sell your house to pay off the mortgage. You could do a short sale but that would make your loss real and hurt your credit rating. You could try to rent the house but the current average rent in you area would not pay the mortgage/taxes.

Other option is not take the job transfer and find another job in this economy.

Spanky and NoJo, any advise or thoughts on the matter???

.

Thanks Steeler and Northstar. The house is worth more than I owe, but I can't afford to keep it. The bank won't work with me. I'm selling. Right now, it's just disbelief. And anger.

fielden, Good luck. I am sure when you do sell, those same bankers will offer you all kinds of products to park your money in their banks!

Northstar and fielden, This scenario has been going on for many years and is just one of the quirks in the mortgage business. We, the American people, have been through housing crashing several times over the past 30 yrs. You have to keep your eye on the market and know when to sell and when to buy. People have been buying and losing houses for many, many years, one man's loss is another man's gain, it's called LIFE. Because the market changes doesn't mean the government should step in and save anyone's house. The housing market would have a better of chance of turning around if the government would just stay the hell out of it. Why do you think the government is responsible for saving your home? Live with it and move on, housing prices have been going up and down for years and will continue for many years to come.

sfcret, you said"why do you think the government is responsible for saving your home?" I never said or implied that. Please reread my post and the whole thread on this subject. I totally agree with you that housing has cycles of ups and downs. This housing bubble that we went through in 2007 thru now is different. I have been buying and selling homes to live in for the last 35 yrs. What my point is that it takes another option away from people to get on with their LIFE along with this deep recession and lack of jobs. The banks have been bailed out. Bank of America received federal money and now is stuck with the liabilities of CountryWide Mortgage. They are paying back over 24 big investors who brought their toxic mortgages.

Government does play a role in its policies: income tax deductions, FHA and VA mortgages to name a few.

I hope I am more clear in my post. thanks.

"Do you consider the failure of California's attempt to balance its budget through tax increase to be..."

History indicates that it is the result of practicing Reaganomics then electing a Republican Chief Executive.

Keep an eye on CA... the trickle down economic theory was insitiuted there first, so logically how California goes, so goes the nation 10 years later.

Thank you Ronald!

It still would bring in revenue, and the corps have proved to the American people you can give them a break but that does not mean they will put anyone to work. It got them more powerful, and much more stingy. They have made slaves of many of us, myself included. You may not be effected yet, but you will if it keeps going this way.

Sorry to hear about that slavery thing Barb.

Perhaps you should look for another job? Or are you actually chained to your desk? Well at least your masters let you play on the computer.

That sure is nice of them.

No I am not chained to my desk but I like a lot of others have house payments and obligations and there are not many jobs in my area. The ones that come along are not paying any better and are not providing health benefits. So I could just take a chance and leave my home and job behind and lose everything I worked hard to get, or stick it out and hope things improve.

I work nights, so I play on the computer at home.

Ah, so you are a slave to you possessions.

That is sad. Me, I make sure my debts are way less than my income.

But in any event I think you would do well with out the "slave" stuff. Some might find it offensive.

Spanky, Hate to be so provincial but I think MN budget problems will be more of a comparison to the national budget dilemma.

MN inherited a 15billion deficit for this new two year budget beginning July 1.Palwenty and the DEM legislature did it on spending "cuts" because Pawlenty was a NO NEW TAXES guy. The balanced budget under his watch also used accounting smoke and mirrors: delaying school district payments, using stimulus money etc.

Tonight our state will shut down except for essential services for safety and health. The closed door talks have stoped. The new Repub legislature and DEm Governor Dayton cannot reach an agreement. Still 1.5milion apart. Dayton says raise the income tax on top 2% or the repub can find other source of new revenue. Repub are still chanting NO NEW TAXES, or fees or gambling option.

23, 000 people will be without a pay check, no state road construction, all state parks closed , no lottery ticket pruchases and no renewal of professional licenses, etc.

Wisconsin will benefit: campers going to their parks and lottery tickets sales in Hudson WIsconsin will robust.!!!!

Stay tune America we are the future.....

You are absolutely right, but surely you are not implying that the Feds are any better?

You know the guys that spend 42% more than they take in? That alone fits my definition of both insolvency and insanity.

So DF - why will the feds increasing taxes have any different effect than when we did it three years ago?

Propositions aside - or not, we had our taxes increased three years ago. We paid these increased taxes under the promise that they would be used to reduce the deficit. It did not happen, yet I doubt I'll be getting a refund.

Now the federal dems want to do the exact same thing that the California dems did. Do you expect a different result, and if you do why?

I was only commenting on Cali-fornia counselor...:)

Living in NY, I see the comparison as "Apples vs Oranges" and you know what they say about that...:)

Oh, I am totally behind at least one of the props...and it's a definitely ":green" industry...:)

Guess I just don't get it then - why California is an Tax raising apple, but the feds would be a tax raising orange. Was hoping for an explanation.

I figure the chances of FR touching this with a 10 foot pole are slim and none.

As for the last Prop. sadly, they are now closing down all the clinics/sales outlets. I guess it was just too much of a good thing. But dude their stuff was super potent [I'm told].

Spanky,

Great question, not sure if you will get an answer, I have been asking this question for a while and so far no takers.

Sorry Spanky,

Just a play on words...

I am favor enacting the S/B debt commission's recommendations and have stated so here numerous times since it was released. IMO Without shared sacrifice and a three pronged effort (Reduce spending, increase revenues, stimulate private-sector employment) it will be neigh on impossible to stabilize the economy.

But nothing good comes out of getting too serious here...and maybe you agree...

Steeler Fan...Excellent question!!!!!

Well, co brats, Steeler Fan. I can practically guarantee yours will be the chosen question- and the answer will be that Obama, of course, is winning the spin war.

He is so dashing! He was so forceful!

Of course, the fact that he made a fool of himself by saying that he had "been here"- meaning D.C., when anyone not living under a rock knows that, when he does happen to be in town, he is out on the links- goes rightmover the heads of the "professional journalists" on this site.

He managed to get the agemof his daughter wrong, too. No mention here.

And, no, I do not think it is really that significant- but on a site that extrapolated an extra word, (Gacy), because a candidate mentioned a town where thenperson she NAMED lived when he was young, as opposedmto the town where he was born, should, in the interests of maintaining some semblance of neutrality, have mentioned it.

They don't call this Obama Central for nothing.

MSNBC covered this "story" last night:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43585752/ns/today-today_people/

Malia Obama turns 13 this Monday. That makes her a lot closer to being 13 than 12. I would think that in any loving father's mind, your daughter officially becoming a teenager is a big enough event to be worth a little early celebrating. Zheesh.....

..

President.