:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Saturday, October 04 2008 @ 09:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Contributed by: Ron
Views: 122
You know how you receive things in email? Well I received this in an email forwarded from an unknown source.
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1. Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high
2. Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon
3. The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4. The DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5. American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!..
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:
1. Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2. Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!
3. Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4. Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5. 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6. THE DOW is probing another low -- $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! .....
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.
AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!
JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?
Friday, October 03 2008 @ 10:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Contributed by: Ron
Views: 104
For those Democrats who are looking for CHANGE, you can't tell me that Obama - Biden is change. The only change they are touting is changing from President Bush to Obama. Everything else tows the Democratic line of big government, tax and spend. If he thinks that by taxing only the wealthy will work think about this. If I'm a business owner who is looking at a big tax increase what am I going to have to do to make up for that tax increase? I'm going to have to increase my profits. To do that I need to increase what everyone pays for my product or service. So even if Joe Middleclass doesn't get a tax increase he gets one indirectly with paying more for that product or service. Also with a big government I'm sorry but just taxing the rich isn't going to be enough to pay for everything he wants.
Of course Obama is not talking about a tax decrease for those making less than $250,000. By not reducing your taxes you end up paying more in taxes. Why is that? If you make more because of a raise you pay more taxes because you will probably go into a higher tax bracket. That is unless your employer decides not to give you that raise or less of a raise because his bottom line has gone down because he is paying more in taxes. And it may mean that your employer may have to cut jobs to maintain that bottom line. Do you think that you won't get a pay raise?
Why will McCain's plan work? Simple math! When businesses increase their bottom line "hence more profits", they increase their production, increase their employees and increase your paycheck. Also by reducing what you pay out in taxes it makes that pay raise look much better to you. With more money in your pocket, you spend more and buy more products which will go back to the business which provided that service or product. Capitalism 101!
So by reducing taxes across the board it will actually increase the amount of taxes the government receives. Believe it or not it all goes back to that business' bottom line. It's a delicate balance. Funny how that works!
Let me mention how hard it is for a business to attain that $250,000 mark. Back in 1993 I had my own business. In just 8 months, the first 8 months I did $180,000 of business. So there was no doubt that I would have been able to do $250,000 of business that first year. Problem was the profits weren’t there. Taxes and overhead killed me and the business failed. But that’s a different story.
So Obama thinks that someone who makes $250,000 is rich, I say absolutely not. $250,000 is right in the middle of the middle class. That is if you want to stereotype people into a class. Do a Google search on middle class and see if you can find a definition. I bet if you look at 10 different sites you’ll find 10 different definitions middle class.
Friday, October 03 2008 @ 10:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Contributed by: Ron
Views: 109
Sarah hit a home run! I don't think it really mattered all that much what she said rather how she said it. We knew Joe Biden was going to attack, attack, attack. And of course he didn't let us down. But as an objective analysis, I thought the attacks by Biden were a bit over the top. Sarah however had the right amount of attacks and substance. And I kept saying "He's wrong on that! That's not right!" and I also noticed that Ms. Ifill didn't allow Sarah to respond to a few items which I thought she was supposed to have a miniute response. But since nobody else is bringing that up maybe I missed something. Bottom line I don't think Joe Biden made the case where Sarah Palin hit it out of the park.
Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 10:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Contributed by: Ron
Views: 120
Look I got a fair mortgage which I pay every month. Both my wife and I work so that we can pay for that mortgage, our two cars and food on the table. I pay all my bills on time and have not been late even once. Now the government wants me to help pay for someone who got a mortgage they can’t afford their big mortgage and is defaulting on their loans.
From Bloomberg
During the housing boom of the last five years, people with bad credit histories, many of whom lied about their income and nature of employment, got mortgage loans they weren't qualified for to buy homes they couldn't afford. Now that home prices have stopped rising, and the house can't be refinanced or sold at a profit, Congress wants the taxpayer to subsidize the mortgages so these folks can remain in their unaffordable homes.
Here is my plan
1. Protect the taxpayer – Individuals and small business owners and maybe even some big business by providing protection on their deposits. Increase FDIC protection from $100K to maybe even $500k or $1 million.
2. Let Business take care of their own – Business will rescue itself in the form of buyouts, takeovers and mergers. Maybe Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac need to be selling off portions of their business.
3. Golden Parachutes – If a CEO runs a company into the ground then that CEO doesn’t deserve a big severance package. However we have to look at it this way too. It was the company Board of Directors who agreed to that severance. Of course Boards of Directors are many times made up of CEO’s of other businesses. Thus they are taking care of themselves. That needs to change.
4. Keep banks and savings and loans as banks and savings and loans – At what point is a bank no longer a bank. Limit that amount of deposits that the bank can invest. Banks should not be gambling with your money.
Capitalism will fix the problem on its own. However we the taxpayers do need protection from the corruption and mismanagement.
So I say we need a Protection Plan not a Bailout Plan.
Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 05:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Contributed by: Ron
Views: 95
The Senate Bailout Bill has a bunch of earmarks.
From www.MichelleMalkin.com
A few of the earmarks stuffed in the bill:
- Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
- Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
- 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)
Tax earmark “extenders” in the bailout bill.
- Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
- American Samoa (Sec. 309)
- Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
- Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
- Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
- Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
- Railroads (Sec. 316)
- Auto Racing Tracks (317)
- District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
- Wool Research (Sec. 325)
I think John McCain needs to vote NO on this bill. Too many earmarks!
Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 09:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Contributed by: Ron
Views: 98
You know I was born and raised in Ohio, almost all of my family lives there. I have contemplated going back there. However when I lived there in the 1990’s I became more and more disheartened with the Ohio Government. Now Ohio has created another mess with voter registration. This week Ohio can register a voter who at the exact same time can turn right around and vote in early voting. Now what does this mean? It means that, and this is happening right now, that people can be bused in from God knows where, registered and given a voting ballot.
From AP - Backed by the state Supreme Court and two federal judges, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, is allowing new voters to register and cast an absentee ballot on the same day from Tuesday through Oct. 6.
For weeks, the Ohio Republican Party accused Brunner of interpreting the early voting law to benefit her own party by allowing same-day registering and voting. Republicans argued that Ohio law requires voters to be registered for 30 days before they cast an absentee ballot…
…A Case Western Reserve University freshman from New York City and an Obama volunteer. She said she's been working on campus to register out-of-state students to change their registrations to Ohio because of its critical role in the election…
…The Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless is ferrying voters from homeless shelters to polling sites in the Cleveland area. Other organizations that seek to increase poor and minority participation in elections are transporting voters from low-income neighborhoods.
This again shows how some are going to try and cheat or steal an election.
Monday, September 29 2008 @ 06:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Contributed by: Ron
Views: 83
Bailout bill fails in the House of Representatives Dow drops almost 700 points.


Monday, September 29 2008 @ 06:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Contributed by: Ron
Views: 71
By David Asman @ Fox Business
Some date the start of all this to the breakdown of a law enacted during the Great Depression -- Glass-Steagall -- a law that separated commercial banking from the go-go world of Wall Street financing. The 1929 stock-market crash wiped out much of this country’s banking industry because Wall Street firms used solid banking instruments like savings accounts and mortgage funds as gambling chips. When Wall Street bets went bad, whole banks were wiped out, and their depositors with them.
After the crash, mortgages and savings deposits were considered too sacred to be risked for the quick bets of Wall Street, and new laws were enacted to keep commercial banks separate from investment houses.
But by the 1990s, banks felt they were losing out to foreign banks that didn’t have the same restrictions that we did. U.S. banks spent billions lobbying Congress to change the rules. Prophetically, outgoing Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker warned against getting rid of the old law, saying it would lead to another financial crisis. But his replacement, Alan Greenspan, didn’t agree. And in 1999, President Clinton signed into law a bill -- the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -- that officially allowed commercial and financial banks to combine forces once again.
That’s just about the time when the housing boom began. As Alan Greenspan lowered interest rates dramatically, money got very cheap to borrow, and lenders of money got very greedy. They became less interested in how capable a borrower was of paying off a mortgage, particularly since mortgage brokers like Countrywide Financial could immediately sell that mortgage to Wall Street. When you don’t have to hold a mortgage, you don’t care if it’s paid off down the line.
The huge mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy the mortgages from the broker and then sell them to Wall Street brokers, who would package them and sell them around the world as securities. Many of the bad loans were often being packaged and sold as though they were good loans because the agencies rating these securities were paid by the companies issuing the securities. These packages of bad loans were then used as collateral to borrow more money -- a lot more money. And all this was allowed to happen because banks and mortgage companies spent billions convincing politicians that all was well.
That’s how we got to where we are today, and that’s what’s likely to cost more than a trillion dollars to fix.
Monday, September 29 2008 @ 05:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Contributed by: Ron
Views: 92
1.3 Billion sell off in since the failure of the bill. Market down more than 718.
Monday, September 29 2008 @ 05:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Contributed by: Ron
Views: 77
Speaker Pelosi poisoned the bailout bill by attacking President Bush and Republicans prior to a vote then twists the knife by making another attack speach after the vote failed.
|
|
User Functions
Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
Lost your password?
Who's OnlineError in PHP Block. Function, phpblock_gusstats, does not exist.
|