vote

[FishaHallic]

This is what I am talking about "Fish said he voted with Bush 90% of the time...even though the President doesn't vote. ", this quote right here. Your trying to say I don't know what I am talking about when you say "even though the President doesn't vote".

And once again you are trying to cloud the issues. I am saying McCain voted with Bush, and I know Bush does not vote, on most of the major issues, the war, tax breaks and spending bills.

Let's face it, the Bush administration and republicans have pushed this country to near bankruptcy.

[Kendo]

Let's face it, the Bush administration and republicans have pushed this country to near bankruptcy.

I have to disagree here.

What has pushed this country to near bankruptcy are the ignorant people that could not live within their means. The banks have to assume some responsibility as well, because they allowed and even encouraged it, but I don't belive the politicians had that much involvment. Remember, there isn't much government regulation in the private financial sector.

The biggest problem that I see with this country today is that people do not accept responsibility for their own actions. I have seen it time and time again, the finger can ALWAYS be pointed somewhere other than back at themselves.

Case in point and the beginning of the demise of this country (IMHO) - lady that spilled hot coffee in her lap from McDonalds and was awarded 2.9 million dollars. Since when did it become acceptable for us to reward a lack of common sense?? Since 1992 in that landmark case mentioned above. Now, we can just skip thru life with no worries because someone else is ultimately responsible for everything we do - right?

[EigerMike]

hey fish i think we need to go riding, you bring the kool/aid ill bring the oil!!!!!!!

[FishaHallic]

hey fish i think we need to go riding, you bring the kool/aid ill bring the oil!!!!!!!

I always carry extra oil and I don't drink kool aide.

[Kendo]

I don't drink kool aide.

Unless it's the kind mixed up and served by the first African American President of the US.

[FishaHallic]

Nope, still don't drink kool-aid

[Ken]

And once again you are trying to cloud the issues. I am saying McCain voted with Bush, and I know Bush does not vote, on most of the major issues, the war, tax breaks and spending bills.

I'm not clouding any issue. I'm trying to explain to you, that you can't use a generalization like "votes 90% of the time", unless you know EACH and EVERY VOTE. If you analyze EACH and EVERY vote....Then you can decide if his voting pattern was similar to your views or not.

I studied economics and statistics in college....I can talk about this stuff all day long. I'm an analyst by training....my job was to take stats, percentages and averages, then draw conclusions. I can tell you first hand, you can make ANY stats or percentage or average, be what you want it to be....and that's exactly what they do in these advertisements. They all twist these things to suit their premise....

Let's face it, the Bush administration and republicans have pushed this country to near bankruptcy.

[Sigh]. Last I checked, the BANKS decide who they give a loan to...Not the "REPUBLICANS"...LOL.

Have you walked into a bank lately, called up Bush and he approved you for a loan? ROFL.

Each and every US citizen that took a loan they couldn't afford...is responsible!!! Each and every Bank that ALLOWED that loan to be taken...is at FAULT. Not the Government or Bush.

It is NOT the government's responsibilty to decide who gets a loan or not. If you owned a business....would you want the Government telling you how to run it??

You may as well move to Moscow....


I recall you were happy about your stimulus check.....I think you should send the money back....you know....help out the government...share the wealth.

[ATV'er]

[Sigh]. Last I checked, the BANKS decide who they give a loan to...Not the "REPUBLICANS"...LOL.

Have you walked into a bank lately, called up Bush and he approved you for a loan? ROFL.

Each and every US citizen that took a loan they couldn't afford...is responsible!!! Each and every Bank that ALLOWED that loan to be taken...is at FAULT. Not the Government or Bush.



I recall you were happy about your stimulus check.....I think you should send the money back....you know....help out the government...share the wealth.

I so agree, people get in over there heads and soon as they fault now its the governments fault because can't pay their bills. People need to relize that they screwed up, admit to it and learn from there mistakes.

[FishaHallic]

Ken, I am not even talking about the 90% thing, what I am talking about is you infering that I am some sort of idiot because I said McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. You came back multiple times saying Bush does not vote..........no sh#t. You came back on another thread and said that FishaHallic thinks Bush votes when I don't think he votes. I then posted where McCain even said he votes with Bush 90% of the time and then you changed the subject to anylizing each and every vote when that is not even what I am talking about.

[FishaHallic]

I never mentioned people and homeowners in over there head did I?

And what does the fact that I received a stimulus check mean? Did you not receive one and pretty much every other tax payer in the country receive one? Maybe a stimulus check would not have been needed if it were not for republican policy of cutting taxes and increasing spending which leads to massive gov't borrowing and a tighter money supply which leads to higher interest rates which slows down the housing market which ends up causing houses to lose value which creates more foreclosures which causes banks and insurance companies to need trillion $ bailouts which causes the stock market to drop which causes business to cut back which causes consumers to cut back which causes business to lay off which causes people to lose there jobs which creates more foreclosures which cau................well you know what I mean.

[EigerMike]

hey fish i was just jokeing with you! hey a did a anybody a here a his a first a spech a today a! for all the people that said hes a great speaker what happend? ok thats just pity little stuff that they would do to bush but will they do it to obama? i hate that there is such a media bias that people over look! i hate the liberal media them they are one of the bigest problems with this country! when was the last time you heard about iraq? seems to me we still have our soilders over there and if they are not doing good or worst yet getting killed our f@@king media is all over it!!!!! but if they our doing good we dont hear anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! well i will never understand why they would do that . i will say that i will not wish him harm and hope he does fine for the countrys stake!
cant wait for my free money !!!!!!!!!!

[Ken]

I never mentioned people and homeowners in over there head did I?

You said they've pushed us to bankruptcy. I assumed you were referring to the latest financial crisis.

If you were referring to the deficit. I hate to break it to you.....but it's going up.....WAY up. And the country is not on the verge of "bankruptcy".

Do you know how the deficit works? The government doesn't make payments on the principle, like you and I do on a credit card. It doesn't work like that. The government only pays (generally on the interest) and "some" principle payments only when the bond is due.

Overall payments to the deficit, are slightly less or more than our annual military spending....I know this, but I can't remember exactly....sorry, memory not what it used to be.

And what does the fact that I received a stimulus check mean? Did you not receive one and pretty much every other tax payer in the country receive one? Maybe a stimulus check would not have been needed if it were not for republican policy of cutting taxes and increasing spending which leads to massive gov't borrowing and a tighter money supply which leads to higher interest rates which slows down the housing market which ends up causing houses to lose value which creates more foreclosures which causes banks and insurance companies to need trillion $ bailouts which causes the stock market to drop which causes business to cut back which causes consumers to cut back which causes business to lay off which causes people to lose there jobs which creates more foreclosures which cau................well you know what I mean.

Dave....You have a homework assignment. You need to go to Barnes and Noble....and read book on economics. I'm going to debunk everything you said there.....when I return tonight.

I'm having a blast.

[Ken]

Ken, I am not even talking about the 90% thing, what I am talking about is you infering that I am some sort of idiot because I said McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. You came back multiple times saying Bush does not vote..........no sh#t. You came back on another thread and said that FishaHallic thinks Bush votes when I don't think he votes. I then posted where McCain even said he votes with Bush 90% of the time and then you changed the subject to anylizing each and every vote when that is not even what I am talking about.

Dave...We've already established in the prior thread, that when you said "he votes with", you were referring to his position.

What I posted, was an Obama aide who said McCain did his best work with Democrats less than 24 hours after the election. This statement, clearly wasn't in their misleading "90% vote" commercial....which you seemed to think really meant something.

[FishaHallic]

Ken, I am not even talking about the 90% thing, what I am talking about is you infering that I am some sort of idiot because I said McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. You came back multiple times saying Bush does not vote..........no sh#t. You came back on another thread and said that FishaHallic thinks Bush votes when I don't think he votes. I then posted where McCain even said he votes with Bush 90% of the time and then you changed the subject to anylizing each and every vote when that is not even what I am talking about.

Dave...We've already established in the prior thread, that when you said "he votes with", you were referring to his position.

What I posted, was an Obama aide who said McCain did his best work with Democrats less than 24 hours after the election. This statement, clearly wasn't in their misleading "90% vote" commercial....which you seemed to think really meant something.

Ken, I don't even care about that other stuff, that is old news, you have your opinion which is slanted and I have mine which is slanted.

This is the only thing I care about right now. I want you to read your quote right here.

"Dave...We've already established in the prior thread, that when you said "he votes with", you were referring to his position."

Since we already established this point then why did you say in this thread that I think the president votes? That's what I am trying to figure out, why would you say that when according to you we already know that I was refering to voting with the presidents position. I don't care about your book on economics or you debunking my theory or what bills McCane voted on and which ones he did not. The ONLY thing I care about is why you have said that I think the president votes.

BTW, I do know that we don't pay the princible on our national debt and I also know it is right behind military spending as our biggest expenditure. Does all this make it ok, because in my book it is not ok. I am sure you of all people with your economics background would say, if some person ran up there credit card so high that all they could pay on was there interest and that interest was taking a major part of there budget, was not a good idea. Matter of fact you blame the bailout on people that are getting in over there head in debt but yet you seem to think it's ok that the gov't does it because that is where we are at today.

[Ken]

And what does the fact that I received a stimulus check mean?

You said "Let's face it, the Bush administration and republicans have pushed this country to near bankruptcy."

The stimulus check, would presumably be part of your theory.

The current situation, has nothing...zero to do with deficit. While it has risen, and I completely 1000% agree with you that Bush was responsible for making it rise.....that is not, the conservative fundamentals. And I noted in a prior post by you, that this was Bush's #1 failing.

But in no way, has the deficit put us "near bankruptcy". Trust me on this...Obama is going to push the deficit to heights you will not even imagine. He can't do, everything that comes out of his mouth without perhaps doubling the deficit during his term.

Even doubling the current deficit, will not "double" the current interest payments. Not even close.

Now...don't take that statement as my tacit approval for the deficit to continue to rise......even if it doubles....it won't be doomsday.

Did you not receive one and pretty much every other tax payer in the country receive one?

The 2008 Stimulus package was aimed at the middle class (Obama's favorite saying). I didn't qualify, due to my income level.

Interestingly, the Senate (democratically controlled) tried to modify Bush's proposal (which passed the house by 385 Yes to 35 No.)

Senator Baucus (D-MT, Chairman of Senate Finance Committee) has written a separate Senate measure to tackle the current economic situation.

...this plan would cut the tax rebate for individuals to $500 dollars and cut the tax rebate for couples to $1000 dollars. The House version would pay up to $600 dollars for an individual and $1200 for a couple. The Baucus proposal would also remove the income caps within the House bill and would add tax rebates for an estimated 20 million individuals, mainly senior citizens, who would not be covered since they do not earn income. The removal of the income caps, which put a limit on who can receive a tax rebate, is not likely to be a popular addition to any economic package for some members in the Senate.

WHAT! Democrats want to give money to the rich"er"?? Fortunately, I'm happy this didn't pass.

Maybe a stimulus check would not have been needed if it were not for republican policy of cutting taxes and increasing spending which leads to massive gov't borrowing and a tighter money

Those 2 statements on contradictory. When the economy slows down, there are 3 things the government can do to boost the economy.

1) Put cash into the hands of the people to spend
2) Cut taxes
3) Increase spending.

You said the stimulus check was required BECAUSE of lower taxes. That is a false statement. Dave, we're back to Economics 101. The economy grows or retracts, based on consumer spending.

Look at your own personal finances. If you have more money in your pocket every month...you either A) Spend it B) Invest it/Save it or C) Pay down Debt. Most people, it's a combination of all 3.


HOW DO YOU GET MORE MONEY IN YOUR POCKET? 1) Make more 2) Lower Taxes 3) Spend Less

What can the Goverment do?

1) A check 2) Less Taxes or 3) Increased Gov't Spending on public works projects

That PUTS money into the economy....not take away.


There is a great discussion on this, back in January in the New York Times...a very liberal publication.

http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ ... g-economy/


I will highlight...but feel free to read it.

Even though most Democrats and Republicans now agree on the need for a fiscal boost to the economy, there is no agreement even within the Democratic Party over what kind of stimulus package is best.

A couple of studies, from the Congressional Budget Office and the Brookings Institution sort through the different options and identify those that will provide the most economic bang from every budgetary buck spent on the effort.

Both agree that the key is to get money into the hands of those who need it most and would spend it most quickly.

The Goal: Put money into people's hands.

There are other options, however. Increasing food stamp benefits would be effective because the money would be spent very quickly, as recipients tend to spend virtually all of their benefits to meet basic needs. A payroll tax holiday and a sales tax holiday would also provide big economic stimulus, as they would quickly result in more spending.

A lump-sum tax rebate or, even better, a tax credit, could also provide a substantial economic boost, according to other research.

A Tax break, is being used to STIMULATE the economy. Huh...How does that work, if you say tax breaks and Gov't spending CAUSED stimulus??? Because it doesn't...that's why. Reducing taxes, puts more money into pockets, it creates jobs when the wealthy have more money and creates spending when the middle class has more money. Fact.

The tax rebates granted after the 2001 recession —which amounted to an average of $500 per eligible household — proved surprisingly effective, because people spent most of the money rather than salting it away in savings or using it to pay down credit card debt. A 2004 study by economists at the Department of Labor, Princeton University, and the University of Pennsylvania found that households spent between 20 and 40 percent of the rebate within three months and another third in the following three months.

So this study by Princeton, UOP and economist at the DOL....show exactly how the money from the 2001 stimulus was spent. Most of the money was spent (put into the economy) within 6 months. That...is very good.

Other options that might seem worthy would be less effective. Increasing investment in public works, which seems to make sense at first blush, would be too slow to make a timely contribution, according to the CBO report. Grants for things like developing alternative energy sources would take so long to ramp up the extra spending that they would likely miss the recession entirely, kicking in only after it was over.

So...There you have it. Economist talking about the 3 options I just said above. 1) Stimulus check of some sort 2) Tax breaks 3) Public Works.

1...has some risk, because if people pay down debt with their check....that's bad (for a stimulus)

2) Tax breaks, have to be done at the right levels, correctly. The marginal tax rate cuts, are NOT short term solutions.

3) Public Works...take too long!

supply which leads to higher interest rates which slows down the housing market

If that is true....then tell me this....

What is the current PRIME INTEREST RATE?? It's 1%!!! The lowest it's been in 40 - 50 years!! If your deficit has cause tight money, why is the rate so low?

Secondly, the rate IS LOW, mortgage rates are well below 6%....yet housing prices are low. Why is that? It's contradictory to your theory!

I'll tell you why. Rates are low, in order to make borrowing cheaper. The bad part of this...is inflation. Right now, we're not experiencing inflation, so rates go down to make money cheaper. It's cheaper.

But housing prices are low? 1) Consumer confidence is down, this causes home purchasing to be slow. 2) This is the biggie....While rates are low on mortgages, borrowing requirements are HIGH. Why? Because people who couldn't afford loans....were buying too big a mortgage, that they couldn't afford at the normal rate. This caused home prices to rise. WHY? Because housing pricing is set by THE BUYER, not the seller. Prices of homes are what BUYERS "think" they can afford. The prices kept going up and up, because banks were giving away too easy of loans, 100% financing, etc....so buyers could "afford" more....

Now that the opposite is true, bank lending requirements are higher (as they should be), the market is suffering.

which ends up causing houses to lose value which creates more foreclosures which causes banks and insurance companies to need trillion $ bailouts which causes the stock market to drop which causes business to cut back which causes consumers to cut back which causes business to lay off which causes people to lose there jobs which creates more foreclosures which cau................well you know what I mean.

Homes losing value, doesn't mean ANYTHING, until people sell. Forclosure rates are up, values are down and banks in trouble because

A) Banks gave away credit TOO EASILY (their fault)

B) Consumers, foolishly TOOK THE LOANS.(THEIR FAULT).

IMO, there's very little at fault by the "Government". The Government should NOT be in the business of telling banks who, how much or what terms for loans. The BANKS should decide.

And consumers...thought home prices would rise forever....anyone with half a brain, knows they don't! What goes up....must come down.

The stock market, the housing market, the interest rates, inflation, etc...is all cyclical. The idea is....to balance all those things, so that you don't have too high highs....and not too low lows. The Federal Reserve does that....by making money CHEAP or EXPENSIVE to borrow.

Right now...money is ultra cheap...in order to boost spending. And by that, I don't mean credit cards....that's people borrowing money to start businesses, businesses borrowing money to grow....etc.

When inflation starts to rise.....the rates will go up....the balance for the FED is to give time so that cheap money has a chance to work. That's the tricky part. Greenspan was the master.....Bernanke the jury is out.


BTW....The Bush Marginal Tax cuts, which expire in 2010.....have helped stimulate 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS (Prior to 2008) of job creation. We have never, in the history had 52 months straight of job growth. Ever.

How long is 52 straight months? 4.33 years.

How long did I tell you that that economy was booming?

4 years. 2003 to 2007.