I don't think it matters anymore
Posted By: sm on 2008-11-12
In Reply to: Paulson says government not buy troubled assests - which include mortgages
We are on the brink of a major depression. I don't know that anything they do will prevent it. The best they can do is maybe lessen the severity and length. The automakers, credit card companies, and banks are going to end up like the airlines (at best) in having to be propped up for an indefinite period of time by the government.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Not that it matters
http://www.factcheck.org/archive.html
Excerpt from Bush - Kerry debate and analysis by Factcheck.org
George W. Bush: FactCheck: Most of Bush tax cut went to top 10%
BUSH: Most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. And now the tax code is more fair.
FACT CHECK: Bush could hardly have been farther off base when he said most of his tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. That's just not true. In fact, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center recently calculated that most of the tax cuts-53% to be exact-went to the highest-earning 10% of US individuals and families. Those most affluent Americans got an average tax cut of $7,661. And as for the low- and middle-income Americans Bush mentioned-the bottom 60% of individuals and families got only 13.7% of the tax cuts, a far cry from most of the cuts as claimed by Bush.
Source: Analysis of Third Bush-Kerry debate(FactCheck.org Ad-Watch)
George W. Bush: FactCheck: Wealthy pay 63% of taxes, not 80%
BUSH: 20% of the upper-income people pay about 80% of the taxes in America today because of how we structured the tax cuts.
FACT CHECK: The President came closer to the mark, but still got it wrong, when he said that the top 20% of earners pay about 80% of the taxes in America today. That's incorrect. In fact, as we reported only that morning, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the top 20% now pay 63.5% of the total federal tax burden, which includes income taxes, payroll taxes and other federal levies. It's true that the top 20% pays nearly 81% of all federal income taxes, but the president spoke more expansively of taxes in America, not just income taxes.
Source: Analysis of Third Bush-Kerry debate(FactCheck.org Ad-Watch)
yep - what really matters is the
electoral college -- Obama WAY ahead there. Yippie-oh-coyote.
What really matters
Instead of giving so much credence to Palin's mean spirited attempt to cast aspersions on Obama's character, maybe you should be a bit concerned about McCain's documented palling around with folks who are bringing this nation to financial disaster. I dare you to watch this!
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/keatingvideo
Well it matters to me
Someone show me one iota of REAL proof that Obama is or associates with terrorists and I will immediately change how I vote. I don't want a terrorist in office and I don't want a liar either but in either case that is exactly what we're gonna get. As near as I can tell Obama happens to live in the same neighborhood as Ayers. Is he the only one who knows people in his neighborhood, attends parties with the, etc. Don't YOU know people in your neighborhood that you aren't necessarily close friends with?
What really matters now is not
who got us into it, but who can help us get out of it. The next thing is an honest (nonpartisan) look into how we got into this mess so that we can avoid it in the future.
well it matters to me
if there was an all white group ANY where in this country that wouldnt allow ANYONE in based on their skin color, it would be a huge deal and people would be held accountable. DUH. The reason that it matters is because our new president is probably not going to do anything about this and had a nice little smile on his face when the rev. was giving his speech on inauguration day and said his little comment about its time for white to embrace what is right. That is the problem. Many white people in this country have ALWAYS embraced what is right and feel that EVERYONE should be treated equally and I am one of them. For there to be a group out there doing this is WRONG. By the way, I am so talented that I can talk about this issue AND the ecomony all at the same time!
It matters very much.......... sm
what the Bible says, and the Bible is what shapes, or should shape, a Christian's whole way of thinking. One can hold current day newspaper headlines up against Daniel and Ezekiel and see the events unfolding just as they were foretold over 2000 years ago. That people today have grown so politically correct as to disregard, or worse yet ridicule, the Bible's teaching is a very sad commentary on the condition of our hearts.
Do you think it matters WHO you wish to rot in hell???!!!!! Oh my! NM
Course it matters. He lied.
VA's have a policy. No demonstrating or protesting on their grounds. It's what laws are for. He said he wasn't protesting but he was lying. Now, in those VA beds are soldiers who were probably wounded in battle. This kind of this does not belong in the VA. Period. Rules are rules.
try Media Matters
They go after both sides for inaccuracies. They back up their points with facts.
about Media Matters....
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150
Think your vote matters? Think again. sm
October 11th, 2008 7:08 AM Eastern
Think Your Vote Matters? Think Again
Editor’s Note: The non-partisan Web site “Opposing Views” offers readers a look at all sides of the debate on a variety of issues. This is the part of ongoing series of posts from the Web site that will appear in the FOX Forum.
By Dr. John R. Koza
Chairman, National Popular Vote
You’ve become enthralled with John McCain and Barack Obama’s struggle to win the presidency. Along with record numbers of Americans, you tuned into the debates, attended rallies and registered to vote, many of you for the first time. Yet in all likelihood your vote won’t matter because this historic election will be decided by voters in only six or so closely divided “battleground states.”
The reason the vast majority of states don’t matter in presidential elections stems from a winner-take-all rule (Nebraska and Maine being the notable exceptions). This rule awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes. Consequently, presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or even pay attention to the concerns of states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. This harsh effect of the winner-take-all rule became clear in the first week of October when McCain’s Michigan state director AL Ribeiro explained McCain’s abrupt cessation of campaigning in Michigan: “The campaign must decide where it can best utilize its limited resources with the goal of winning nationally.”
Of course, voters in 36 of the 50 states never mattered, even before the 2008 presidential election began. Michigan just discovered the harsh political reality a little later. As early as spring 2008, The New York Times reported that both major political parties were in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground states in 2008. In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in just five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
The best and most direct way to fix our broken system is to elect the president by a national popular vote. Under a national popular vote, every person’s vote, in every state, would be equally important, regardless of political party.
Every vote would be equal, and politicians would be forced to address the concerns of every voter. There would be no red states, no blue states, and no battleground states.
It’s crucial to remember that the winner-take-all rule is not in the U.S. Constitution, but simply state law. That’s why we support the National Popular Vote bill, which would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). It is currently being debated in all 50 states and has been enacted by four states- Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland.
It’s time to reform the current system and do what more than 70 percent of the public has long supported – elect the president by a national popular vote.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/11/think-your-vote-matters-think-again/
On which other matters of US politics would you have us
These other "must read" story headlines read like the Intruder tabloid and show us just what a reputable source you have cited. Waste of time and white matter. Ignored. No sale.
I can't believe it matters. 2000 or 6000, what's... sm
The difference? It's still an ancient piece of fiction written by primitive, superstitious people from a corner of a long-dead empire. Why anyone in the present day would chose to believe any of it, let alone feel compelled to organize their life around it (or believe that it predicts the future, of all things!) is beyond me.
Here - let me try to educate you on a couple of matters
Obama's mother was in Kenya. Could not fly back to the US due to her late stage in pregnancy. After the birth she flew to HI to register the birth that happened in Kenya.
The law at the time of his birth was that a US Citizen may only pass to a child born overseas to a US citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. Obama's mother was 18 years old. Therefore, because US citizenship could not legally be passed to him, Obama could not be registered as a "natural born".
Also, if for some reason he could somehow have been deemed "natural born" that citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia where his mother married his stepfather .
But since he was never an American citizen to begin with there was nothing to take away.
Just because you have a mother who is a citizen does not automatically qualify you as a citizen. Just the way the laws were then.
Whether you like it or not those are the laws.
Besides...why is everyone in such an uproar. If everyone is so certain that Obama was born in Hawaii, then why is everyone defending so hard for an independent party to be able to view Obama's original birth certificate - the one he has yet failed to provide.
So, if he is american born, the judges will examine it, and if he's natural born life will move on. If not, you will still have a democratic president. No big deal.
Matters not one whit....he is now in charge of
.
These were matters that were ajudicated and people were
Get a clue, willya?
Also, you're conflating these with the "torture" (dry cough) issue - and THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL.
And incidentally, waterboarding isn't torture. If it was so torturous, why did they have to use it 83 times on one individual to get the information? Must be REEEEEEEL bad!
That's right Character matters, meanwhile MQ puffs on W's cigar
Yep, W is his goooood buddy. They be bestest of friends. Gives him big ole bear hugs. Nice to see McSame in the saddle.
Media Matters...William Bennett Audio...sm
You'd have to hear it yourself to get the correct context. The caller was not even talking about reducing the crime rate, Bennett brought this up out of the blue, and he says I do know... before he made the comment, NOT making a reference to Freakonomics but his own opinion.
From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America:
CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.
BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?
CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.
CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
It doesn't matter how it started; it matters that it stops.
x
SNORT! Media Matters! Crappers complaining
X
they don't do that anymore...
You get a maxium amount regardless of how many kids you have.
what I would do is make them take a class a month towards a trade, CNA, teaching assist, something in demand, in order to get their welfare for the next month, unless they were getting it b/c they were disabled.
Not anymore they don't!
--
This is not an option anymore
I've been listening to the news people talking and this is not an option anymore. Barack is being polite about this, but I see no way for them to run together. Her time has passed. He is now looking at other very qualified people to be VP. One is a woman and one is even a republican. A lot of people think that it will be so easy to win over republicans this fall, but if McCain is running against Hillary he for sure will win as there is too much negativity about Hillary. I cannot stand McCain, but I for one would vote for him over Hillary. First I would change my party to independent, and then I would vote for McCain. People are saying there are three parties running here. The republicans, the democrats and the Clintons. The Clintons have put themselves into their own party. Although a vote for Clinton and a vote for McCain are virtually the same thing. She used to be a republican before she switched to democrat years ago, and her voting record is quite conservative. I for one am glad that Obama is looking at other people for VP slot and his list is pretty impressive. The candidates all seem to be very good choices and I hear many people really respect these people. There are even a lot of republicans who do not want McCain in there, however, they want Hillary even less. I believe that if Obama is the nominee he will win as a lot of republicans will back him, but if Hillary is in there McCain will win as she and Bill have so much bad history attached to them. The only people who are now pushing for an Obama/Hillary ticket are the Hillary supporters as they are trying anything and everything to get her in there, but none of the talk of them running together is coming from Obama's side. Makes you kind of think about that.
On another note it seems as if every state she wins she tries to convince people that if you don't win that state you will not win in November. Funny how these states never include the ones she lost in. You don't hear her saying that about Iowa or Minnesota. We sit and laugh and say nice try Hillary. Then we listen to the news and they say the same thing.
I really don't care anymore.
They can call me what they want. Only I know if I am or not a racist. I do know I am against the dems so if that makes me a racist, so be it.
Will not be a river anymore is why we
So hot that the rivers and lakes are drying up.
Okay, I can't stand it anymore....
the answer is......Hitler. His directive 51 was pretty much the same thing.
I know. So did I but I don't care anymore.
I was called a racist just because I don't trust O. So be it. It sure was a surprise to my foster son.
We don't buy dog food anymore....
and that saves a lot of money.
That's why we don't watch TV anymore -
TV is just for movies and entertainment. Can't expect to get any "real" news from the tube.
Does it get anymore juvenile than this?
Or is it just party dumb we see here?
Not anymore. We are THEIR servants. They are not ours. (nm)
.
You won't be anymore uninformed than he will....he
NM
No, I refuse to try and debate you anymore
because you can't be anything but condescending and ugly.
MT doesn't hang around here much anymore. sm
So I am going to take up for her. Frankly, I am not sure why you are so upset. So your friend exaggerated. Lots of people do that. MT (and most of us) have certainly taken our licks on these boards a lot of times. I really don't see why you being so mean about it.
Is this the liberal board anymore?
I give you Democrats and/or liberals credit for even being able to respond to the right wing who for some reason, I just cannot understand why, constantly come over to the liberal board and post more than the liberals do and every post is a disagreement or outright attack towards the liberal poster who posted on the liberal board..I frankly have had it with the Republicans. They have messed up America with their backward way of thinking and they still dont get it. Their party is falling apart and they are looking at more Democrats being voted in yet they still spew their hate, bias, closed mindedness..From Limbaugh to Coulter to Falwell to Robertson, Dobson, Hannity, etc., etc., they show the world how uninformed and racist and backward they are..and the Republican masses follow blindly. I just about choked on the latest idiotic comment by Coulter concerning Christians and Jews. Someone needs to set that broad straight real fast. The comments she made that Jews need to be perfected is a mind set right out of Hitlers Germany. Oh and all you Republicans who will wander over to the liberal board and real this, dont waste the energy, I will not respond to your posts nor read them. This is a post to my fellow Democrats/liberals.
I'm not arguing this anymore, it's pointless
but your last argument hit me. If abortion was made illegal and I got pregnant and carrying that baby was going to kill me - then someone would have the power to choose whether I live or die - the people who chose to make abortion illegal.
And before anyone argues that abortion would be allowed in those cases, who would get to decide? The courts? By the time the case went through the sluggish system, it could be too late.
This debate has no winner, everyone has their own views. However, from a legal standpoint it either has to be legal or illegal. A pregnant woman is not given the luxury of time for the court to decide whether it is okay in her particular case to be allowed to have an abortion.
God bless.
Oh my God. You really sound ignorant, but I am not going to say anymore. nm
/....
Well, I don't trust any politician anymore
It seems they're only out to rip us off. As soon as I heard of this "buying" votes, the idea of the O coming so quick from nothing to president elect and was from Illinois gave me the idea that he bought his seat. I've been watching the news and maybe that's what they do in Illinois without realizing it's wrong. After all, there have been so many politicians from there that have been indicted for political crimes, I'm thinking that it's a natural way of doing "business" there. Even the governor doesn't think he did anything wrong. Are they a different country and we don't know it?
No one would listen and he is not an option anymore sm
I started preparing and investing in sound money 2 years ago because of him. My silver may end up being worth $200 an ounce and all the Federal Reserve Notes will be worth the same as Monopoly money. We all knew this was coming and it is going to get worse. Note the date:
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
July 16, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone.
One of the major government privileges granted these GSEs is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out these GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps them attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.
The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of housing-related GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.
Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.
However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.
No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to the GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues will stand up for American taxpayers and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.
I agree with you. I was on the fence, too, but not anymore
I thought Obama was going to be my choice then I did some research because I wondered how he was going to accomplish all those ideas. It's a dream scheme, nothing but a lot of hot air and higher taxes as usual. There's no way he can do what he wants to do.
McCain is not promising the world on a silver platter. He's not the greatest speaker, but I believe he'll do a better job.
Families abandon their own a lot anymore.
nm
He isn't unskilled anymore then. Why do you want to argue about EVERYTHING? SM
BS
More the reason we don't need anymore taxes
@
Not anymore monotonous than the rote...
ohhhbaaamaaa can do no wrong. What alternate reality do you exist in that you think just because he won the election people who are concerned about what he will do will just fold their tents and go home? That we would all join the Obama lovefest? Seriously???? lol.
I can't write too fast anymore, but here's what I did get
1. Fiscal Stimulus Plan: Before or after inauguration (sp). Wants to get it moving quickly, but if he has to wait until January 20, so be it, but states he will try during these couple months to push one through now.
2. Retooling assistance plan for automakers for fuel-effieicnt cars. He realizes that the auto industry employs thousands and other companies depend on the auto industry for their jobs. Wants this package done quickly.
3. Review implementaion of plans and not rewarding management for housing problems that are caused.
4. Grow middle class in the long term.
Reporters asked questions but couldn't get them all.
1. He wants to help the states financially.
2. As to going to other countries for conferences: He is developing a team and weighing all his options. Iran's nuclear weapons are unacceptable along with the militants. This has to cease. It's not something he can do in a knee-jerk fashion and wants to be careful (not to p--s them off).
3. Tax plan: 95% of WORKING Americans will get it. His first goal is tax relief for struggling families and to build the economy from the bottom up.
That's all I could get.
Unions don't work anymore.
Some union members are afraid to vote for better benefits or strike because management threatens to move, like the other posters stated.
Case in point: A small manufacturing shop. Union wanted higher wages or strike, and health care benefits to stay the same, both in cost and care. The union wanted a $.25 an hour raise. Owner said No. Union asked for $.15. Owner said no. Union said strike. Workers said no. They were afraid the owner would shut down and they had their jobs for 30 years.
The union steward fought for better benefits but when the workers voted against the better benefits, the company won. Two weeks later, the steward was laid off, along with a member of my family just because he was friends with the union steward. That was 3 years ago. The workers are still working for the same hourly rate this year. How's that for being fair?
I was a member of the Teamster's. When we went on strike for better wages back in the ྂs, he company threatened to move out.. We also wanted (women) equal pay for equal work because we did the same work the men did, but got paid $.25 an hour less. They moved and 100 jobs were lost. So, you see, companies still have the upper hand, not unions. They only want your money anymore. They really don't care about the workers.
I'm guessing they're not around anymore.
And yes, they are actually more profitable now because of sending too many jobs overseas and many MTs here working as ICs (i.e. no benefits). But what I'm saying is, and why I used the MTSO as an example, that if they have to start paying more in taxes, things are just going to get worse - for us, not them. They'll figure out a way to stay profitable no matter what. It's the American MTs that are going to lose our jobs or work for worse wages than we are already. I'm not saying that's fair or that's right, but what these days is? That may sound kind of pessimistic, but I think it's looking kind of glass half empty, even with Obama as our future pres. I hope to God I'm wrong, though, and would be very pleased to chow down on some of that crow you mentioned a little while back! =)
I didn't think much could surprise me anymore
but this is some creepy stuff. What's next?
A "theory" is not SCIENCE anymore than the
theory of evolution is science. Science is a repeated study in the laboratory that produces the same result over and over.
Gravity is not a theory. You jump 100 floors, you die. Repeated over and over with same results, inside and outside the laboratory.
So much for your public education.
All you do anymore is laugh at people.
nm
|
