CNN: Obama: Give economy $50 billion boost

[Redskins Diehard]

Because of Bush's proposal to give a set amount of minorities homes. They stopped the practice of Red lining and then went after those people with veracity.

So the minorities that Bush proposed giving homes to could not determine how much home they could afford? How were they lied to?

do you know what veracity means? i don't see how it fits in your argument

[JohnLockesGhost]

do you know what veracity means? i don't see how it fits in your argument

I think he means voraciously.

[ross3909]

Where do you propose we get the money for government spending? Are you going to take responsibility for maintaining the streets in your neighborhood personally? Should we make every school a private school and force people to pay for their kids to attend?

How come republicans don't understand that taxes are how a government works?

I'm just saying, if they're going to give out $50 bill, why not give it to the people in the most trouble. :whoknows:

So you think we should give the Govt all the money and let them provide us with all our services? That really works well, just talk to Russia.

[Ellis]

Here's what kills me about the whole Stimulus Package...

Originally the Bush admin wanted to give out $800 checks to people like me--Single, tax payer with no kids--and the whole plan was valued around $200billion. But the Dems came along and found a way to trash the idea and say it was too much money and too generous. They even went as far as to say they'd only support the bill if it was reduced to only $150billion AND the tax cuts from 2001 that is in place now had to expire in 2010(?) without being renewed.

So now... before the $150billion has even been completely mailed out to tax payers... Obama comes along and says "We need to do more. I'm proposing we send out an additional $50billion."

???

THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL IDEA, OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That your Dem party **** all over and destroyed.

The intelligence in that Party is astounding.:doh:

[paige3girl]

Paige, you ARE paying for it if the government doesn't help those people keep their houses. If the government does help, then you aren't paying for it.

Bailouts reward poor choices, greediness and bad investments. I got into a good 30 year fixed mortgage on a house I could afford, afford to furnish and afford to pay the bills on yet the government is not rewarding me but rather are saying we have to keep all these people in their homes with my tax dollars. How is that fair?

And I understand is not only the buyers that make the mistakes, the lenders played a HUGE part too and now they laughing all the to the bank as people like me soften the blow to the economy.

If we leave it alone I believe the market will work itself out. Is it going to suck for some people? Absolutely. But this is not a socialist country and things will only get worse if keep throwing money at the problem.

[zoony]

Bailouts reward poor choices, greediness and bad investments.

I think it's relatively safe to say that those people, for the most part, have already suffered/lost their homes.

I think what we're talking about at this point in the Housing Downturn are more the 'bad things happening to good people'. Although of course there are a few exceptions. However I think most of the "had it coming" people are already out on the street.

Do I have any data? No. So don't ask. But I've heard it mentioned in other threads on housing, and it sounds reasonable :laugh:

FWIW, I think the gov has done okay in managing the downturn. They didn't step in right away... they let the market suffer a bit (which it needed to do)... and now we can start talking about steps to save the entire economy from going under. Sure a few bad apples will take advantage... but that's nothing new.

[Ellis]

2008 will go down in history as the year of the Bail Out.

Banks... mortgages... suspended gas taxes... tax rebates... Floods...

America is rockin'...

[Redskins Diehard]

Bailouts reward poor choices, greediness and bad investments. I got into a good 30 year fixed mortgage on a house I could afford, afford to furnish and afford to pay the bills on yet the government is not rewarding me but rather are saying we have to keep all these people in their homes with my tax dollars. How is that fair?

And I understand is not only the buyers that make the mistakes, the lenders played a HUGE part too and now they laughing all the to the bank as people like me soften the blow to the economy.

If we leave it alone I believe the market will work itself out. Is it going to suck for some people? Absolutely. But this is not a socialist country and things will only get worse if keep throwing money at the problem.

I agree with just about all of this. It seems many people are only recognizing greed on the part of either the lender OR the borrower when I see it a greed on both.

Those of us that bought houses we could afford using loans that would permit us to continue affording it into the future are screwed though as well. There are now 4 comparable homes in my neighborhood that are either in short sales or foreclosures for 33% less than I paid for mine. That doesn't do a lot for the value of my house.

Will anyone say what kind of lies the lenders told to these buyers?

[Redskins Diehard]

I think it's relatively safe to say that those people, for the most part, have already suffered/lost their homes.

I think what we're talking about at this point in the Housing Downturn are more the 'bad things happening to good people'. Although of course there are a few exceptions. However I think most of the "had it coming" people are already out on the street.

Do I have any data? No. So don't ask. But I've heard it mentioned in other threads on housing, and it sounds reasonable :laugh:

I really don't agree with that assumption. The top of the mountain was 2005...3 year arms from that year are only now starting to adjust. I think there are plenty of greedy people that are still in the foreclosure game.

[Weganator]

And to solve the debt issue, the govt should round every purchase to the nearest nickle. Take those 1 - 4 pennies and apply it to the nat'l debt. With all the transactions every day, the debt can be paid down in 10 years (conservative estimate, averaging ~$2.6B/day). Of course, this hinges on a balanced budget over those 10 years. :doh:

The problem is that the government won't stop doing that once the debt is paid off. The income tax was instituted a long time ago in order to help offset war debts. The government still hasnt paid that one off yet either?.... you cannot allow the government new sources of taxes, because once you give them something, next year they think you owe it to them, and then you can never get rid of it.

[zoony]

I really don't agree with that assumption. The top of the mountain was 2005...3 year arms from that year are only now starting to adjust. I think there are plenty of greedy people that are still in the foreclosure game.

Maybe so. I'm not sure of the exact timing, but I think we're either already upon it or it is very close (for a gov bailout)

[Vicious]

So the minorities that Bush proposed giving homes to could not determine how much home they could afford? How were they lied to?

do you know what veracity means? i don't see how it fits in your argument

Yeah I had a brain fart I meant to type they went after them vehemently.

No, I'm not saying they were lied to at all. I'm just saying that's what happened. It's just a product of what happens when you red line people and then suddenly give them a mortgage.

[jpyaks3]

Here's what kills me about the whole Stimulus Package...

Originally the Bush admin wanted to give out $800 checks to people like me--Single, tax payer with no kids--and the whole plan was valued around $200billion. But the Dems came along and found a way to trash the idea and say it was too much money and too generous. They even went as far as to say they'd only support the bill if it was reduced to only $150billion AND the tax cuts from 2001 that is in place now had to expire in 2010(?) without being renewed.

So now... before the $150billion has even been completely mailed out to tax payers... Obama comes along and says "We need to do more. I'm proposing we send out an additional $50billion."

???

THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL IDEA, OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That your Dem party **** all over and destroyed.

The intelligence in that Party is astounding.:doh:

This 50 billion is targeting the low income only which is where the money needs to go. The first one was way to broad and the group that recieved a ot of the money simply saved it and didnt spend it. The low income groups are where the money needs to go and the place where it will help, the first plan wasnt aimed well enough at that.

The intelligence in your posts is pretty astounding :doh:

[Ellis]

The intelligence in your posts is pretty astounding

Thanks buddy!

[Koolblue13]

I'm in that lower bracket you're talking about and I didn't get very much.

I could easily spend more in a single trip to Walmart.

[Ellis]

I'd be considered in that lower bracket too... and I don't need the money.

Don't even need the one that's coming out now.

But since it's my taxes, it'll go into my savings account.

I guess my parents did a terrible job teaching me so well.

I can make a dollar stretch pretty damn far.

[Popeman38]

The very idea that it is getting redistributed however is not all that accurate. The money will go to the hands of the low income, but they are forced to spend it. Feeding into the people that paid those taxes for it in the first place. It's an attempt at keeping the cycle going forward. The low income people do not have the luxury to save the money, that is why they are receiving this stimulus in the first place. It's an attempt at keeping the wheel spinning.

Unless the GAO can prove that all the money you are receiving in a tax rebate came from the pool of taxes you paid, or prove that the rebates are paid out in exact % match to the % paid in, it is the very definition of redistibution (taking money from someone and distributing it to others - from those according to their means to those according to their needs). Thge higher tax bracket should get a higher rebate. Otherwise you are taking the taxes of the high tax bracket and distributing it to those in other tax brackets.