tax cuts for the rich

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120053079762196023.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Not sure why they didn't cover the democrat plans...

Whether or not the Wall Street Journal covers the democrats tax plan is not important anymore. There is one very simple fact here. The economy is headed into a reccession. How severe is anyone's guess at this point. Both the democrats and republicans are scrampling to avoid the reccession and I have yet to hear anyone one either side state the obvious, that being, that in order to stimulate the economy taxes are going to have to be cut.

I've heard a great deal about sending a tax rebate check out. Both parties seem to think that is a good thing to do. I've lived through the 1975 reccession, the stagflation of 1980-1981, the slowdown during George Bush's presidency, and now the beginnings of this one. Sending out a little pitiful check worth a few dollars didn' work then and it is a waste of time now. Only a fool would vote for anyone that would support such a policy. The fact of the matter is the only way to stimulate the economy is to allow people to keep what the earn and not extort it into wealth redistribution schemes and waste it by giving it to some foreign government or fight a war to liberate people that don't have the courage or the brains to live free. Until we start putting people in office the realize that, we the taxpaying public are going tosuffer horribly for it.

Cato

Right you are. Like Milton Friedman said, in order to bolster the economy tax cuts have to be permanent and sizable.

"tax cuts have to be permanent and sizable."


Right, ........ but it ain't going to happen.

Because spending would have to be drastically cut, ........ and Congress ain't about to do that, .................. voluntarily that is.

.

They keep talking about the housing bubble and how it has to be fixed. I don't think so. I think idiots bought houses they couldn't afford using loans given by banks/Mortgage companies that had no business giving them.

If banks hadn't given foolish loans, houses wouldn't have doubled in 5 years and we wouldn't be in the situtation we're in now.

And they couldn't see this happening 3 to 5 years ago? Please.

I read a number the other day that escapes me now - the percent of now-defaulted mortgage loan applicants who lied on their application. It was over fifty percent. That much I remember. When are we going to stop bailing out people who make stupid choices? When will we let people learn to be responsible for their own ignorance?

And another thing: if only the rich get a tax cut it's because only the rich are paying taxes!

ohio county wrote:I read a number the other day that escapes me now - the percent of now-defaulted mortgage loan applicants who lied on their application. It was over fifty percent. That much I remember. When are we going to stop bailing out people who make stupid choices? When will we let people learn to be responsible for their own ignorance?

And another thing: if only the rich get a tax cut it's because only the rich are paying taxes!

Somebody has to pay for all the stupid mistakes.

Aaron wrote:They keep talking about the housing bubble and how it has to be fixed. I don't think so. I think idiots bought houses they couldn't afford using loans given by banks/Mortgage companies that had no business giving them.

If banks hadn't given foolish loans, houses wouldn't have doubled in 5 years and we wouldn't be in the situtation we're in now.

And they couldn't see this happening 3 to 5 years ago? Please.

You hit the nail ont he head. What happened was that the Fed made alot of cheap money available. Banks and leaning institutions tossed the lending standards in the trash and began to lend to anyone that came along. In fact, they were lending money at 125% of the appraised value of many properties. There was no consideration given to the ability to repay the loan. The only focus was to lend money, no matter what. Ultimately, it raised its head and bit people in the butt.

Now, I'm not all the sympathetic to either the lenders or the borrowers. The lenders didn't used standards and people borrowed money without any thought given to the fact it has to be repaid or the fact that if you have an adjuestable interest rate, it will follow the prime rate. Now, both parties expect the nanny government to save them. I don't think it should.

Cato the Terrible

Cato wrote:Now, both parties expect the nanny government to save them. I don't think it should.

I must me coming down with something. I found myself in agreement with SamCogar earlier today, and now I agree with Cato on this- and Aaron too.

No, wait! You guys have come down with something and are mellowing in your old age! That's why YOU agree with ME.

I use to get those spam e-mails offering something like $250,000 for no money down and payments as low as $300, or some such nonsense. But hell, that wouldn't even pay the interest.

What is it Robo says? Oh yeah, that "There's a sucker born every minute".

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:Now, both parties expect the nanny government to save them. I don't think it should.

I must me coming down with something. I found myself in agreement with SamCogar earlier today, and now I agree with Cato on this- and Aaron too.

No, wait! You guys have come down with something and are mellowing in your old age! That's why YOU agree with ME.

I use to get those spam e-mails offering something like $250,000 for no money down and payments as low as $300, or some such nonsense. But hell, that wouldn't even pay the interest.

What is it Robo says? Oh yeah, that "There's a sucker born every minute".

I still do get offers every once in a while. You are right in quoting Robo and PT Barnum. There is a sucker born every minute. And here's a quote from me, One might be a sucker, but it isn't my responsibility to bail you out every time you screw up or are too stupid to consider the consequences.

Cato, the Sick of Nanny Government

Well guys I hate to disagree with all the deep thinkers but I keep flashing back to how my Dad used to say he would rather be robbed with a gun than a pencil.

I think the highroller hucksters are more contemptible than a street criminal.

At least the street criminal does not deny he is stealing from you.

And I do believe it is not only our gvt's right but their duty to protect people from these shysters, especially if they expect to use the gvt to enforce their onerous claims.

Banks, credit card scammers, and insurance outfits need to be brought to heel, imo.

shermangeneral wrote:Well guys I hate to disagree with all the deep thinkers but I keep flashing back to how my Dad used to say he would rather be robbed with a gun than a pencil.

I think the highroller hucksters are more contemptible than a street criminal.

At least the street criminal does not deny he is stealing from you.

And I do believe it is not only our gvt's right but their duty to protect people from these shysters, especially if they expect to use the gvt to enforce their onerous claims.

Banks, credit card scammers, and insurance outfits need to be brought to heel, imo.

How is bailing the out bringing them to heel Sherm? Force them to set on repossed houses is the harshest punishement you can give them. I'd bet a plug nickle against a doughnut that back when this garbage started, someone said something like..."Hey, what do we do if all these people doing no interest and ARM loans can't refiance, the rates go up and they can't pay and were stuck with a bunch of houses?" the common answer was "The government won't let that happen".

I personally know of 3 different people who knew the couldn't afford the load, knew they couldn't get it refianced, knew they were going to lose the house in 3 to 5 years and didn't care. They were getting a much nicer house for what they were paying in rent so rent is exactly how they looked at it.

As Cato said, Why should I pay for his stupid mistake?

"As Cato said, Why should I pay for his stupid mistake?"

Well I dont think you should pay for it either.

One solution could be a short term freeze on the interest at the old rates until they have time to sort stuff out.

Then have hearings and let the truth come out and go from there.

I just dont like to see people get bilked by these swindlers and sophisticated white collar thugs.

You reap what you sow sherm and freezing rates ain't going to punish anyone. All it's going to do is lengthen the problem. The bottom line is, housing climbed to fast, too far and this is nothing more then a long overdue correction and the only thing that will solve this problem is when housing prices return to a fair makret value that working men and women can afford to purchase.

The bottom line is, housing climbed to fast, too far and this is nothing more then a long overdue correction and the only thing that will solve this problem is when housing prices return to a fair makret value that working men and women can afford to purchase.

Fair market value? By what measure were the houses marketed to the people who utilized unscripulous lenders (and who were also victims of their own financial ignorance), priced at something other than "fair market value"? Was that not the "fair marlet value" at the time they were sold.

I am not trying to just argue semantics here. I agree with you that the buyers were othen either amazingly ignorant of finance, or were themselves unscrupulous.

But how do we arrive at the "fair market value"- other than by what the house brings in the marketplace at the time it is sold?

Well it looks like we will not agree on the mortgage scam deal.

But as to the tax cuts or whatever the current term is I have heard it might be as much as $2k for a joint return and possibly ending payroll taxes for those over 55 so they can sock some away in a 401K or IRA to fund their retirement and supplement their SS.

Those sound like good sound proposals to me.

Another thing I remember Nixon did way back when was give tax credits to those who buy American cars.

shermangeneral wrote:Well it looks like we will not agree on the mortgage scam deal.

But as to the tax cuts or whatever the current term is I have heard it might be as much as $2k for a joint return and possibly ending payroll taxes for those over 55 so they can sock some away in a 401K or IRA to fund their retirement and supplement their SS.

Those sound like good sound proposals to me.

Another thing I remember Nixon did way back when was give tax credits to those who buy American cars.

Zig agreed with me Sherm so it's ok. If you did as well, I would fear the sky would fall and hell would begin to freeze over and that would surely confound the GW pragmatist.

As for what you've heard, where are your sources? The most I've heard is $1,600 for a married couple and that was from GWB in his $150 Million package. Democrats are only proposing around $100 Million so I don't see how they could be higher.

I'll cash the check and spend the money because I'm not an idiot but that won't change that fact that I think the best thing the government can do for the economy is reduce the debt. Otherwise, leave it the hell alone.

As for housing, that's a little less then 5% of the GDP so even if they address it, it's not going to 'fix' the economy.

So far as me personally I would benefit most from the proposal to remove the payroll (soc security) tax for those over 55.

Well Aaron with the new Board configuration and with me being gone so much old zig has had a heavy burden to carry.

With all the rightwing wackos pounding on him he might of fallen victim to the stockholm syndrome...

shermangeneral wrote:"As Cato said, Why should I pay for his stupid mistake?"

Well I dont think you should pay for it either.

One solution could be a short term freeze on the interest at the old rates until they have time to sort stuff out.

Then have hearings and let the truth come out and go from there.

I just dont like to see people get bilked by these swindlers and sophisticated white collar thugs.

How in the world did anyone get swindled? Maybe, I'm just in the minority here, but I read stuff before I sign it. If I don't understand the paperwork I got people that do understand it and have them explain. I take the time to understand what I am doing, what it will cost, and for how long.

Aaron has it the nail on the head a number of times Sherman. The fed mand cheap money available, banks disgarded leanding standards, and people bought property they couldn't afford. It is not my responsbility as a taxpayer to bail these people out, becasue they were stupid.

]"It is not my responsbility as a taxpayer to bail these people out, becasue they were stupid."

Well it's not mine either.

So let's just wash our hands of the matter and let things go to hell and we can all be miserable and argue about whose fault it was.

shermangeneral wrote:]"It is not my responsbility as a taxpayer to bail these people out, becasue they were stupid."

Well it's not mine either.

So let's just wash our hands of the matter and let things go to hell and we can all be miserable and argue about whose fault it was.

I understand Sherm that you're not big on personal responsiblility but come on man...

Sherm,

I am speaking as a "victim" of all of this. Because a lot of people bought houses thinking they were going to flip them and get rich quick, my wife and I (get this, Shermalicious) COULD NOT AFFORD TO BUY A HOUSE until last November. People buying houses they could not afford led to higher prices. Now, I'm not that good at math but I was able to figure out that if I took home 1400 dollars a month, that I could not afford a 1000 dollar mortgage.

Now why should I, who had to wait to pay for a house I actually could afford, be forced to pay to bail out people who bought houses for the sake of a profit. or if to live in, under very unwise terms indeed?

If you are looking for a real villain here, I think it's the fair lending laws that scared bankers into giving loans lest they appeared racist or discriminatory towards certain groups.

shermangeneral wrote:

"It is not my responsbility as a taxpayer to bail these people out, becasue they were stupid."

Well it's not mine either.

So let's just wash our hands of the matter and let things go to hell and we can all be miserable and argue about whose fault it was.

Well Sherman da man, were you not cheering, applauding and praising how they were really "helping out the poor folks" ...... when you read about this 3 years ago?

Banking on illegal immigrants

Banks are seeing an untapped resource in providing home loans to undocumented U.S. residents

August 8, 2005: 3:39 PM EDT
By Shaheen Pasha, CNN/Money staff writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The banking industry is opening its doors to a controversial new market: illegal immigrants.

Despite heated political debate in Washington over illegal immigration in the United States, an increasing number of banks are seeing an untapped resource for growing their own revenue stream and contend that providing undocumented residents with mortgages will help revitalize local communities.

It's a win-win situation, they say.


But skeptics worry about the message these home loans send to illegal immigrants: break our laws and we'll reward you with a home.

"It's institutionalizing illegality," said Marti Dinerstein, president of Immigration Matters, a New York-based think tank. "Now there's no distinction being made between the people that follow all the rules and those who break our laws by entering the country or overstaying their visas."

Dinerstein also worried that lack of knowledge on the part of illegal immigrants could pave the way for abuse in the form of predatory lending.

But advocates of the practice say the benefits outweigh any potential downside.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, one million illegal immigrants cross the U.S. borders every year. About 500,000 illegal immigrants lose that status every year either by getting legitimate green cards or returning to their native countries. That leaves a 500,000 annual net increase of illegal immigrants – a market that has unmet banking needs.

"This is a huge untapped market with people that live and work in this country and are capable of buying homes to realize the American dream," said Chan Peterson, executive vice president and head of community banking at Banco Popular, one of the earliest banks to enter this field.

He added that there's a common misperception that illegal immigrants will be more likely to default on their loans than a documented resident. But the company has found that there is no higher rate of default in this loan portfolio than any other market the company serves.

"There's a pride that comes with people moving from renting to owning and we've found that these borrowers are driven to hang on to their homes," Peterson said.

Bill Schumer, vice president of product development at Fifth Third Mortgage Co., a unit of Fifth Third Bancorp. (Research), said the company entered the marketplace due to the belief that providing these low-to-moderate income loans will help revitalize communities in the United States, as borrowers buy more run-down properties and rebuild.

He added that by introducing this segment of the population to home ownership education, they are also building a foundation to cross-sell their other products.

"We've been at this program for the last 8 or 9 months and 68 percent of these borrowers have established three or more banking services with us," he said.

While Schumer wasn't willing to disclose how many of mortgages the company provides, he said the product has been well received in the marketplace and is already 4 percent above the level the bank had targeted for the year. And it's growing.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/news/economy/illegal_immigrants/index.htm

Anyone want to make a guess as to how many of those "defaulted loans" belonged to illegal immigrants?

.

I don't know how many went to immigrants but I know John Edwards said lenders 'targeted' blacks with these loans and that it was criminal.