Manhattan Buckeye;836598 wrote:Unexpected!

http://news.yahoo.com/jobless-claims-rise-above-expectations-123417894.html

How long will it take liberals to understand the government is not the solution, it is the problem?
How long will it be until the economy is put back in the hands of the individuals, entrepreneurs, and those that create and provide jobs?
How much more evidence is necessary to prove that gubmint stimulus, handouts, bailouts, "targeted subsidies", union-propping and gubmint meddling does not provide jobs?

These "leaders" are taking us to the brink of another recession...nee depression, and they are doing nothing to foster growth, create jobs, nor spark any modicum of positive energy for Americans to feel good about. The real question is, why not?

BGFalcons82;836772 wrote:How long will it take liberals to understand the government is not the solution,....

They may never understand this or at least accept it. Even when government can be part of the solution, which is rarely, why must it involve legislative activity?

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/autos/chrysler_government_exit/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=hp_t2


Taxpayers screwed by obama for another $1.3 billion so he can kickback to auto union.

Change we can believe in ..........

BGFalcons82;836772 wrote:How long will it take liberals to understand the government is not the solution, it is the problem?
How long will it be until the economy is put back in the hands of the individuals, entrepreneurs, and those that create and provide jobs?
How much more evidence is necessary to prove that gubmint stimulus, handouts, bailouts, "targeted subsidies", union-propping and gubmint meddling does not provide jobs?

These "leaders" are taking us to the brink of another recession...nee depression, and they are doing nothing to foster growth, create jobs, nor spark any modicum of positive energy for Americans to feel good about. The real question is, why not?

Because - and I mean this with all sincerity - they don't want to.

It's about making as many people as possible dependent upon Uncle Sam for Entitlement City. It's about giving up control of personal liberties and freedoms to the state. It's about political power.

fan_from_texas;836645 wrote:Mrs. FFT and I would seriously consider walking away from our mortgage if the interest deduction were eliminated. The economics of it would be so brutal--our home would drop in value by ~30% while our payments would increase by ~50%--unless our bank were willing to renegotiate, it'd be financial suicide to stay.

I agree. I would not hesitate taking an instant strategic foreclosure. I'd stretch it out as long as possible too. There is no doubt in my mind that tens of thousands of home owners would be in the same boat. It would take some serious time for the lending institutions to handle the backlog. I figure I can live rent free for a year or more before being evicted.

Granted the bank would come after me for a deficiency judgment assuming they can find a buyer. But I'd simply file for bankruptcy and only have to pay back a small portion of the judgment if anything at all.

Or the lender would simply write off the loss and then Uncle Sam would tax me for the "gain" but in the meantime the local gubmints will want to know where their real estate taxes have gone.

I only say all of this to back-up my belief that messing with the mortgage deduction will DEFINITELY send severe shock waves through an already precarious economy.

BGFalcons82;836772 wrote:How long will it take liberals to understand the government is not the solution, it is the problem?

Yes the government is definitely part of the problem.

How long will it be until the economy is put back in the hands of the individuals, entrepreneurs, and those that create and provide jobs?

The repeal of Glass Steagal proved quite clearly that unfettered capitalism is just as big of a failure as the government trying to implement their will. When will conservatives understand that our private sector has no interest at all in the American economy. That they LOVE unemployment/underemployment hovering around 17%. That brutally unfair trade laws are great for them, but horrible for Americans collectively?

How much more evidence is necessary to prove that gubmint stimulus, handouts, bailouts, "targeted subsidies", union-propping and gubmint meddling does not provide jobs?

And the fiscal policy of the lowest prime lending rate ever for the longest period of time ever has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the private sector investing here at home. Why is that? The lowest interest rates ever....and no investmenyt at all by private industry. When oh when will conservatives understand that the government isn't the problem....the investing across the seas are the problem.

These "leaders" are taking us to the brink of another recession...nee depression, and they are doing nothing to foster growth, create jobs, nor spark any modicum of positive energy for Americans to feel good about. The real question is, why not?

It's not the government's job to tell industry what to do. The government's fiscal and monetary policies have been by far and away the most business friendly policy in the history of our country. Yet the "job creators" elect to take their investments offshore and take advantage of the brutally unfair labor laws in China, India. Mexico and Indonesia. When are conservatives gonna finally understand this?

Because collectively, they are as blind as can be.

Footwedge;837087 wrote:
It's not the government's job to tell industry what to do. ...

We can't ever forget that.

Footwedge;837087 wrote:...The government's fiscal and monetary policies have been by far and away the most business friendly policy in the history of our country. Yet the "job creators" elect to take their investments offshore and take advantage of the brutally unfair labor laws in China, India. Mexico and Indonesia. When are conservatives gonna finally understand this?

...

I understand it perfectly well and that nothing, nothing a government can do will prevent it. If the governmental policies are as favorable as you say and industry still moves over seas more government activity won't inspire industry to stay.

I found the right medicine for us:

[video=youtube;5k_TLz_f8SU][/video]

LOL...Spenditol is a huge understatement. We spent a helluva lot more than....well....it all.

Isn't that the truth footwedge.

fan_from_texas;836645 wrote:Mrs. FFT and I would seriously consider walking away from our mortgage if the interest deduction were eliminated. The economics of it would be so brutal--our home would drop in value by ~30% while our payments would increase by ~50%--unless our bank were willing to renegotiate, it'd be financial suicide to stay.

believer;837055 wrote:I would not hesitate taking an instant strategic foreclosure. I'd stretch it out as long as possible too. There is no doubt in my mind that tens of thousands of home owners would be in the same boat. It would take some serious time for the lending institutions to handle the backlog. I figure I can live rent free for a year or more before being evicted.

Perfect example of how these federal "tax expenditures" affect the free market. Drives prices up because people can afford to pay more for the home they want while getting the deduction. No doubt suddenly removing it would bring on very serious consequences for the real estate market and have a ripple affect though the national economy.

For those of us homeowners who use this "tax expenditure" the affects can be plainly seen. Personal budgets are made according to the current rules. Businesses and corporations are no different. They too have been awarded these "tax expenditures". You know those "loopholes" for the scum sucking rich to fly in their private jet to Paris for some wine and brie on a whim.

The fact is many of the businesses that these "tax expenditures" were targeted for have planned and structured their budgets around them. Just like homeowners. Now Obama and the democrats are telling us its a good idea to suddenly pull the carpet out from under them in a weak economy. The affect on those businesses and their respective industries and the ripple affect through out the national economy would even more devastating.

Look I am not arguing in favor of these tax expenditures. Not at all. I wish the they never happened. I am all for simplifying the tax code. A simple flat income tax ,even a progressive one. I take my income x.15 or x.25 simple as that. Or a national sales tax. Individuals and businesses build themselves around the current rules. Suddenly and drastically removing them is foolhardy. A plan to phase them out that businesses and individuals have time to plan around is the way to go. This circus freak show in Washington is getting hard to watch.

believer;837055 wrote:Or the lender would simply write off the loss and then Uncle Sam would tax me for the "gain" but in the meantime the local gubmints will want to know where their real estate taxes have gone.

You are only taxed at the point of solvency. If those "gains" would not bring you to solvency you would not be taxed on them at all. You would only be taxed on the portion of gains above solvency. Its good tax law.

Manhattan Buckeye;836659 wrote:^^^

I'm negotiating now.

Our home was tax appraised at $695K in '07 and I fought them to get it lowered, I got the tax bill a few weeks ago and it is appraised at $505K, now I'm fighting them to get it higher. Needless to say that is a big difference. I'm playing hardball with our lender to extend our loan. We could pay it off, it isn't that big of a deal but in our area of the country the RE market is dead. Not on life support but dead, there aren't buyers, there isn't confidence in the U.S. economy.

You sound like you have a really nice house.

"Still, the restructuring expert is a longtime and vocal critic of President Obama: "There has never been in a situation in my lifetime where a guy increases the debt by 40%, GDP growth is on the way down, Food Stamps are up, millions more are unemployed -- and to accomplish this we spent $4 trillion."

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/return-mass-layoffs-grim-sign-u-workers-190228219.html

How ANYONE can continue to defend the obama regime is astounding.

Change we can believe in ..............

QuakerOats;837462 wrote:"Still, the restructuring expert is a longtime and vocal critic of President Obama: "There has never been in a situation in my lifetime where a guy increases the debt by 40%, GDP growth is on the way down, Food Stamps are up, millions more are unemployed -- and to accomplish this we spent $4 trillion."

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/return-mass-layoffs-grim-sign-u-workers-190228219.html

How ANYONE can continue to defend the obama regime is astounding.

Change we can believe in ..............

I have a new favorite commentator...Howard Davidowitz. He calls the VP, "butthead Biden". Classic

Manhattan Buckeye;836659 wrote:I'm negotiating now.

Our home was tax appraised at $695K in '07 and I fought them to get it lowered, I got the tax bill a few weeks ago and it is appraised at $505K, now I'm fighting them to get it higher. Needless to say that is a big difference. I'm playing hardball with our lender to extend our loan. We could pay it off, it isn't that big of a deal but in our area of the country the RE market is dead. Not on life support but dead, there aren't buyers, there isn't confidence in the U.S. economy.

Depending on what happens with the mortgage interest deduction, we may try to refinance, or renegotiate our loan, or just walk away. I broke out Excel last night and did some quick calculations: eliminating the HMID would increase our real payments by 43.9% while causing the value of our home to fall 24.5%. At no point over the remaining life of our mortgage (27 years) would we break even or come even close to it by staying and paying. Our lender would have to renegotiate and drop the interest rate to 3% or so, or mark the principal balance down by a quarter, to make it worthwhile to stay. I can't imagine our lender being on board with that.

I don't think that the HMID is really all that great of an idea, but pulling it out from under us a few years after we bought would be extraordinarily detrimental to us. Basically, we'd be told we'd have to pay an extra $1,000/mo. for the next 27 years for an asset that will never, ever recoup the real value we paid for it. Discouraging.

Footwedge;837087 wrote:Yes the government is definitely part of the problem.



And the fiscal policy of the lowest prime lending rate ever for the longest period of time ever has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the private sector investing here at home. Why is that? The lowest interest rates ever....and no investmenyt at all by private industry. When oh when will conservatives understand that the government isn't the problem....the investing across the seas are the problem.



It's not the government's job to tell industry what to do. The government's fiscal and monetary policies have been by far and away the most business friendly policy in the history of our country. Yet the "job creators" elect to take their investments offshore and take advantage of the brutally unfair labor laws in China, India. Mexico and Indonesia. When are conservatives gonna finally understand this?

Because collectively, they are as blind as can be.

I have to believe you are smarter than this. Those moving offshore are doing so because of exceedingly high corporate tax rates and out-of-control regulation by administrative fiat. It has nothing to do with the prime rate; hell those companies don't need to borrow money, they have billions of cash on hand.

As for the small businesses that create over 60% of the new jobs in this country, they are definitely not going to invest further given slack demand, over-regulation, and the pending MASSIVE tax increases coming in 2013 that flow through to them. We are staring at the great recession of 2013 because of the radical regime currently in charge, and you are whining about no one borrowing at low interest rates. Are you serious?

QuakerOats;836733 wrote:The good news is, he would lose today, and will lose in '12.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/21/poll-weakened-obama-would-lose-vote-today/

Did you even read the article you moron?

It said they are tied

BGFalcons82;837510 wrote:I have a new favorite commentator...Howard Davidowitz. He calls the VP, "butthead Biden". Classic

That just makes him sound like moron

QuakerOats;836733 wrote:The good news is, he would lose today, and will lose in '12.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/21/poll-weakened-obama-would-lose-vote-today/

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/07/22/perry_within_striking_distance.html

A new Fox News poll shows the national scene for the Republican presidential nomination much less certain than their last poll in early June, as Mitt Romney takes 17% (down 6 points), Rick Perry has 14% in his first appearance in the poll, and Michele Bachmann takes 10% (up 4 points).

The Obama matchup: "Romney does best against the president and is the only GOP candidate to keep Obama's edge to single digits. Obama tops Romney by 6 percentage points. In addition, Romney is the only Republican in these early matchups to top Obama among independents -- by 6 points... Finally, the poll shows women voters are neither more nor are they less likely to back Bachmann than any of the other Republicans over Obama."

CNN reports a MAJOR debt limit deal is looming and could be finalized in the next 24-36 hours

Footwedge;837087 wrote:It's not the government's job to tell industry what to do.

Uh huh. So why has the current regime been hell-bent on doing EXACTLY that? According to recent interviews with Steve Wynn and the Home Depot CEO, this administration has created thousands of new rules and regulations. Hell, most of the ObamaKare regs haven't even been written yet and it hits Americans in the arse right after the 2012 election. Nice timing, eh? Don't get me wrong, I believe industry should be safe, air should be clean and water should be potable. But the mandates coming out of DC are nearly unprecedented. Remember for example, CO2 is now a hazardous compound according to these know-it-alls. Is CO2 under assault in other industrialized nations like it is here? Did you see the smog in China in the Olympics a couple years ago?

Yet the "job creators" elect to take their investments offshore and take advantage of the brutally unfair labor laws in China, India. Mexico and Indonesia. When are conservatives gonna finally understand this?

When are liberals going to connect the dots to understand WHY investments and manufacturing are going overseas? It couldn't be the millions of regulations our government has instilled on industry, could it? It couldn't be the confiscatory tax policy on corporations and their capital gains, could it? It couldn't possibly be the strong-arming from unions, could it? No way it's because of unfair trade agreements, is it? Who is the common link in these???

To turn your question around, when are liberals going to go after the brutally unfair policies of China, Pakistan, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. instead of punishing and confiscating profits from American companies? In other words, if these foreign countries are the problem as you see it, then why not fix the root causes instead of hounding/taxing/punishing the ones that DO play by the rules?

Ty Webb;837585 wrote:CNN reports a MAJOR debt limit deal is looming and could be finalized in the next 24-36 hours

God save the republic.

majorspark;837606 wrote:God save the republic.

I thought we were a democracy??? How dare you inject the "R" word into the equation.

BGFalcons82;837597 wrote:Don't get me wrong, I believe industry should be safe, air should be clean and water should be potable. But the mandates coming out of DC are nearly unprecedented. Remember for example, CO2 is now a hazardous compound according to these know-it-alls.

FWIW, listing CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act occurred under the Bush administration, not under Obama.

Is CO2 under assault in other industrialized nations like it is here? Did you see the smog in China in the Olympics a couple years ago?

Actually, other developed nations are much more aggressive toward GHG than the US--see the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, or Australia's new carbon trading scheme. We're behind the curve compared to the rest of the world when it comes to regulating GHGs.

fan_from_texas;837618 wrote:FWIW, listing CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act occurred under the Bush administration, not under Obama.
QUOTE]

" Regulation of Carbon Dioxide: The Clean Air Act was written to address numerous air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, which contribute to ozone pollution and acid rain. It was not intended to regulate carbon dioxide. The EPA's decision to regulate CO2 under the Act actually confirmed that fact: Under the EPA's plan, the Clean Air Act would have to be rewritten to delineate that carbon will be regulated at a different threshold than other air pollutants. Miraculously, the EPA has granted itself the power to rewrite its own statutory authority, a power that is constitutionally reserved only for Congress. If the Clean Air Act must be changed to justify the regulation of carbon, then it's clear that the law as written was never intended to cover carbon."


Try again.

QuakerOats;837659 wrote:" Regulation of Carbon Dioxide: The Clean Air Act was written to address numerous air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, which contribute to ozone pollution and acid rain. It was not intended to regulate carbon dioxide. The EPA's decision to regulate CO2 under the Act actually confirmed that fact: Under the EPA's plan, the Clean Air Act would have to be rewritten to delineate that carbon will be regulated at a different threshold than other air pollutants. Miraculously, the EPA has granted itself the power to rewrite its own statutory authority, a power that is constitutionally reserved only for Congress. If the Clean Air Act must be changed to justify the regulation of carbon, then it's clear that the law as written was never intended to cover carbon."


Try again.

Non-responsive and irrelevant. Regardless of whether you think GHGs fall under the definition of a CAA pollutant, the Supreme Court found that they did while Bush was in office. The point isn't whether GHGs are a CAA pollutant; the point here is that the determination occurred while Bush was in office, not under Obama.

As to the merits:

Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act . . . provides:

“The [EPA] Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare . . . .”

The Act defines “air pollutant” to include “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” §7602(g). “Welfare” is also defined broadly: among other things, it includes “effects on . . . weather . . .and climate.” §7602(h).

Based on those CAA definitions, CO2 meets the definition of an air pollutant that should be regulated.