 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsBoatsPaddle BoatsSailingCruisingBuildingElectronics Related Topics CarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Boat Forum / Sailing / September 2008Obama admits surge wildly successful
He admits it: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/04/obama-surge-succeeded-beyond-wildest-dreams/ Now will he admit he may have judged the war incorrectly, whereas McCain called it correctly from the beginning? How many more blunders of judgement does Obama have in store for us? >He admits it: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >How many more blunders of judgement does Obama have in store for us? He was certainly a bit slow in admitting what most people have known for some time. But I will credit him with at least recognizing that he couldn't continue pushing his fairy tale indefinitely. And choosing O'Reilly as the forum for coming clean was a smart move. Had he not changed at that point he couldn't have helped digging himself deeper into the hole under O'Reilly's questioning. > He was certainly a bit slow in admitting what most people have known for > some time. O'Reilly asked him repeatedly, and I never heard him admit he made a mistake. Maybe I need to get the transcript, but I was intensly listening for those exact words, "I made a mistake" or "I was wrong in voting against the surge", but I didn't hear anything that was close to ADMITTING what most people have known for some time. >I didn't hear anything that was close to ADMITTING what most >people have known for some time. Can't give you the exact quote, but it was something like "the surge has succeeded beyond my wildest expectations." Anyone who has been following his pronouncements should immediately recognize that as a 180 about face from his earlier predictions that the surge would never work, and his later "well, the Sunnis and the Shias still haven't started sitting down together and singing cumbya." >>I didn't hear anything that was close to ADMITTING what most >>people have known for some time. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > together > and singing cumbya." Here are some more 180s for you... http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/325.html  Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>I didn't hear anything that was close to ADMITTING what most >>people have known for some time. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >"well, the Sunnis and the Shias still haven't started sitting down together >and singing cumbya." As a lawyer, you should realize that if the surge suceeded in even some very minor way, it would have succeed beyond Obamas wildest expectations. Actually, I disagree with Obama on this anyway. The surge quelled violence that we instigated, but did not accomplish the stated mission. So it did "something", but it didn't do what it set out to do. I don't call that success, regardless of who wants to say, "Mission Accomplished". >As a lawyer, you should realize that if the surge suceeded in even >some very minor way, it would have succeed beyond Obamas wildest >expectations. Yes. He was not just wrong. He was really really wrong. Of course the hilarious part is that he also denies that his current position is inconsistent with his earlier one. >>As a lawyer, you should realize that if the surge suceeded in even >>some very minor way, it would have succeed beyond Obamas wildest [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Of course the hilarious part is that he also denies that his current > position is inconsistent with his earlier one. Amazingly I agree with you. He's really wrong right now. The surge didn't work. The terrorists just moved after we paid off the locals. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/24/ldt.01.html Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>As a lawyer, you should realize that if the surge suceeded in even >>some very minor way, it would have succeed beyond Obamas wildest >>expectations. > >Yes. He was not just wrong. He was really really wrong. No, he was really correct. The surge did not solve the problem it was intended to solve. All it did was get us back to the level of violence that existed before the U.S. actions escalated it. Sort of like the Auto Glass repairman who goes around breaking windshields at night to drum up business, or the volunteer fireman who torches buildings so he can then pretend to be a hero. Oh, yeah... this was all done using our children as cheap cannon fodder. >>>As a lawyer, you should realize that if the surge suceeded in even >>>some very minor way, it would have succeed beyond Obamas wildest [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Oh, yeah... this was all done using our children as cheap cannon > fodder. Expensive cannon fodder... Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>>As a lawyer, you should realize that if the surge suceeded in even >>>>some very minor way, it would have succeed beyond Obamas wildest [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Expensive cannon fodder... Bush apparently disagrees with you. He treats them as cheap. >>>>>As a lawyer, you should realize that if the surge suceeded in even >>>>>some very minor way, it would have succeed beyond Obamas wildest [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Bush apparently disagrees with you. He treats them as cheap. Sad but true. I was frankly shocked when McCain failed to support the vet bill to give them the benefits they deserve. His claim that this will lower retention seems to me to be insulting to the people in harm's way. I guess he thinks the bullets are softer for the first three years. Did you catch the RNC spectacle? I enjoyed how the crowd attempted to drown out the people who were protesting on the floor. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>He admits it: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > couldn't have helped digging himself deeper into the hole under O'Reilly's > questioning. O'Reilly? Now that guy is truly funny. Even Obama won't completely admit the real reason why the "surge" hasn't worked (and it hasn't). The real reasons are that we're now paying them not to fight with us (our tax dollars at work), and bin laden's crowd has mostly moved back to the country between Afganistan and Pakistan. Bush won't go after him there. Certainly, now with the unstable Pakistan gov't, they won't either. McCain certainly won't. I doubt Obama would either. Perhaps the right-wingnuts can blame Obama for Iraq. I'm sure it's possible, given that Community Organizer is a dirty phrase. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com Whew, earth to Capt. JG, you are entering hyperspace! > Whew, earth to Capt. JG, you are entering hyperspace! So, you believe that bin laden's crowd hasn't moved back to Afganistan? Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >> Whew, earth to Capt. JG, you are entering hyperspace! > > So, you believe that bin laden's crowd hasn't moved back to Afganistan? If you believe it, does that make it a fact for everyone else? You're getting nutty again. >Whew, earth to Capt. JG, you are entering hyperspace! Not entering. Remember, Ganz is the one who's been claiming the economy has been constantly in the crapper for the last 8 years. >>Whew, earth to Capt. JG, you are entering hyperspace! > > Not entering. Remember, Ganz is the one who's been claiming the economy > has > been constantly in the crapper for the last 8 years. Yeah, the job numbers and inflation index that just came out prove me wrong! LOL Worst employment numbers in five years. Inflation on the rise. The mortgage crisis getting worse, with no end in sight. Drill, drill, drill... that'll fix it. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>Whew, earth to Capt. JG, you are entering hyperspace! > > Not entering. Remember, Ganz is the one who's been claiming the economy > has > been constantly in the crapper for the last 8 years. Another example of the strong economy... Breaking news.... U.S. Treasury secretary announces plan to take over troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >Breaking news.... U.S. Treasury secretary announces plan to take over >troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Lessee. Are those the same Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that Jim Shumer was urging to buy more and more mortgages to "solve" the problem? The same ones that the WSJ has for years been saying have had accounting issues and are shaky? The same ones that have been making Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton their top recipients of campaign contributions over the last 19 years? Are those the ones? Both should have been put out of their misery years ago by requiring them to sell off their assets to truly privately owned enterprises with no guvmint guarantees, explicit or implicit. >>Breaking news.... U.S. Treasury secretary announces plan to take over >>troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > sell off their assets to truly privately owned enterprises with no guvmint > guarantees, explicit or implicit. They've been solvent and working until recently. Now they're not. Perhaps you can blame Obama if you really try. After all, he was in the Illinois Legislature and was a community organizer while Bushco was in the WH and the Republicans controlled Congress. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >> Lessee. Are those the same Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that Jim Shumer was >> urging to buy more and more mortgages to "solve" the problem? The same [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >They've been solvent and working until recently. You just haven't been following the story as it unfolded. Shumer would like people to believe that fairy tale. The smart money knows better. >Now they're not. Perhaps >you can blame Obama if you really try. After all, he was in the Illinois >Legislature and was a community organizer while Bushco was in the WH and the >Republicans controlled Congress. Follow the money, Jon. >>> Lessee. Are those the same Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that Jim Shumer >>> was [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Follow the money, Jon. The "smart money" people are saying that they should be bailed out. The half-a.s compromise from Paulson isn't going to cut it.... "Paulson, whose comments came as shares of the so-called government-sponsored enterprises tumbled to their lowest levels in 17 years, said his department is "maintaining a dialogue with regulators and with the companies." Investors seemed unimpressed by the Treasury secretary's statement, as stocks tumbled and oil prices climbed further into record territory. The Dow Jones industrials fell more than 180 points and dropped below the 11,000 mark in mid-day trading for the first time in two years." Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>> Lessee. Are those the same Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that Jim Shumer >>>> was [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Dow Jones industrials fell more than 180 points and dropped below the > 11,000 mark in mid-day trading for the first time in two years." Unattributed quotes - seems suspicious, let's see: The DJIA last dropped below 11,000 on July 15th 2008. That's when oil was at record prices. Today, oil has dropped by almost 1/3 and the Dow is up over 1200 pts from that alarming low. Seems things are much better now, Paulson must have done well. Is that your point? >The "smart money" people are saying that they should be bailed out. What does "bailed out" mean? Should common shareholders' equity be wiped out entirely? What should happen to their loan portfolios--write it way down? What about their outstanding non-cumulative preferred? What about their debt? "Bailed out" is just a phrase. Until it's given some content, one can't talk about the subject intelligently. Based on the very sketchy information I've seen so far, it looks to me like equity holders are being offered far too good a deal. Initially it looks like they come away with 20% of the equity of the reorganized enterprises if profitability is restored. >>The "smart money" people are saying that they should be bailed out. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > good a deal. Initially it looks like they come away with 20% of the equity > of the reorganized enterprises if profitability is restored. Yes, the economy is in bang up shape! Vote for Palin! She'll kill a few moose. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com > Yes, the economy is in bang up shape! Vote for Palin! She'll kill a few > moose. First intelligent thing you have said in weeks. Good idea! >> Yes, the economy is in bang up shape! Vote for Palin! She'll kill a few >> moose. > > First intelligent thing you have said in weeks. Good idea! Looks like she's already killed the donkey stallions. Bwaahahahahahahahha. Not only that but she's single-handedly assisting with colony collapse disorder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_Collapse_Disorder What a woman! -- Gregory Hall >> "Bailed out" is just a phrase. Until it's given some content, one can't >> talk [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Yes, the economy is in bang up shape! Vote for Palin! She'll kill a few >moose. I've now seen a bit more about the proposed plan. Too little too late. And for too generous to the companies' stockholders. Anyone who has been following the story for a few years would recognize that these companies have been heading for a crackup for some time, and Congress has been turning a blind eye, blinded by lobbyists and campaign contributors. The following from one of today's news stories: "Republicans have long pushed for a structured overhaul of Fannie and Freddie. By contrast, Democrats have warned against making major changes until the companies were stabilized. The companies have traditionally had stronger backing from Democrats who ... for years have fended off calls for greater oversight.... Sen. Obama has received $105,849 from donors tied to the companies since he ran for the Senate four years ago, making him the third-largest recipient in Congress and among the top 25 listed in a recent report by the Center for Responsive Politics, which examined contributions dating to 1989. Sen. McCain has not listed in the report, and proponents of overhaul say lobbyists have tried unsuccessfully to win him over." And meanwhile you have Shumer and Frank continue to push for the companies to buy more mortgages, putting them deeper in the hole. Lobbyists apparently had no trouble winning them over. Fortunately, the plan does require both companies to stop their lobbying activities. >>> "Bailed out" is just a phrase. Until it's given some content, one can't >>> talk [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > had no trouble winning them over. Fortunately, the plan does require both > companies to stop their lobbying activities. Hate to tell you, but as a result of the take-over, both companies will be buying even more mortgages. This debacle is a direct result of the removal of regulations in the last seven years. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >Hate to tell you, but as a result of the take-over, both companies will be >buying even more mortgages. This debacle is a direct result of the removal >of regulations in the last seven years. Oh? Please tell me what regulations on these two companies have been removed in the last seven years to contribute to this result. Oh, and while you're at it, tell me about what regulations governing banks' mortgages have been removed leading to this result. Inquiring minds want to know. >>Hate to tell you, but as a result of the take-over, both companies will be >>buying even more mortgages. This debacle is a direct result of the removal [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > at it, tell me about what regulations governing banks' mortgages have been > removed leading to this result. Inquiring minds want to know. You're a good researcher. I'm sure you can do your own investigation of the facts if you're so inclined, which I doubt. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >> Oh? Please tell me what regulations on these two companies have been >> removed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You're a good researcher. I'm sure you can do your own investigation of the >facts if you're so inclined, which I doubt. That's one I don't have to research, Jon. A big part of my practice over the last several years has been dealing with the OCC, OTS, FRB FDIC and State banking regulators. I published a 50 page article in the field last year. So I know you're full of sh.t on this one without having to touch the books. Now perhaps you can tell me what changes in the regulations your "investigation of the facts" has revealed to you? >>> Oh? Please tell me what regulations on these two companies have been >>> removed [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Now perhaps you can tell me what changes in the regulations your > "investigation of the facts" has revealed to you? I'm glad you think I'm "full of sh.t." There's been little oversight in the banking/mortgage industry, and the Bush admin. is at fault. Why don't you tell us again how great the economy is doing. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >> That's one I don't have to research, Jon. A big part of my practice over >> the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I'm glad you think I'm "full of sh.t." There's been little oversight in the >banking/mortgage industry, and the Bush admin. is at fault. The current problems with Fan and Fred long antedate the current administration, and can be traced in substantial part to the fact the legislators, and particular Dem legislators, have been in Fan and Fred's pocket for years. As I said before, follow the money--not your left wing nut blogs. >>> That's one I don't have to research, Jon. A big part of my practice over >>> the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > nut > blogs. So, you think things have gotten better or worse in the last 7 years? Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >> The current problems with Fan and Fred long antedate the current >> administration, and can be traced in substantial part to the fact the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >So, you think things have gotten better or worse in the last 7 years? In this area, what we've seen over the last 7 years is a continuation of trends long in the offing. When it comes to assessing blame, we have a huge cast of characters, beginning with individuals who thought real estate purchases involved all reward and no risk. The cast includes: Home buyers who believed it was ok to lie about their ability to pay mortgages because their homes could only keep going up. Real estate brokers who persuaded them of the above. Appraisers whose income depended on referrals from brokers, and were willing to do whatever it took to come in with appraisals that would yield a commission to the referring broker. (I was looking at one of those deals just last week.) Mortgage brokers who made enormous amounts but were paid only when mortgages were closed, and were more than happy to encourage the borrowers to lie, telling the customer that "everybody does it.". Banks willing to buy the mortgages without looking too closely at the documentation because they could resell them immediately to a greater fool. Mortgage buyers who bought from the banks without looking very closely because they could sell the mortgages in a securitized bundle. Investment bankers who deluded themselves and investors into thinking that financial engineering could remove the risk of defaults. Rating agencies who got paid to give ratings after telling the investment bankers what to put into the package. "Structured finance" lawyers who should have known better, but didn't ask the right questions. Auditors who never bothered to check transaction documents in auditing financial statements (a few months ago I got a relatively prominent auditing firm fired by a client for that very reason). Regulators who hadn't a clue about accounting issues. One thing that might help the situation is a few very prominent prosecutions for mortgage fraud by home buyers. But I don't see that happening. The underlying problem is the same as the one that caused the pension problems of the 70s, the S&L crisis of the early 90s, the dot com bubble of 2000, current issues with skyrocketing medical costs, and the social security problem--a misalignment of risks and incentives: the belief that you can get something for nothing and somebody else is gonna pay for it. And that has been the Dem mantra since forever. >>> The current problems with Fan and Fred long antedate the current >>> administration, and can be traced in substantial part to the fact the [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > And > that has been the Dem mantra since forever. All very interesting, but you didn't answer my question: "So, you think things have gotten better or worse in the last 7 years?" If you think things have gotten better, then Bush and the Republican Congress can take the credit. If things have gotten worse, then you can blame the Democrats. Seems fair to me. LOL Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >All very interesting, but you didn't answer my question: That's because I didn't want to let you play your little game of trying to change the subject as soon as it's shown you know nothing about the subject under discussion. >>All very interesting, but you didn't answer my question: > > That's because I didn't want to let you play your little game of trying to > change the subject as soon as it's shown you know nothing about the > subject > under discussion. Dave, that was the original question. I asked you if the economy was better or worse. You haven't answer to date. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >Dave, that was the original question. Perhaps you wish it were so. You've been wandering all over the place. When I pointed out that you've been claiming the economy has been continuously in the crapper for the last 8 years, you tried to drag in the seizure of Fan and Fred. Since I know at least a bit about mortgages and banking I picked up on that nonsense. I take it that kitchen is a bit too warm for you. >>Dave, that was the original question. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and Fred. Since I know at least a bit about mortgages and banking I picked > up on that nonsense. I take it that kitchen is a bit too warm for you. Actually, you started saying it: > Not entering. Remember, Ganz is the one who's been claiming the economy > has > been constantly in the crapper for the last 8 years. I responded as follows: >Yeah, the job numbers and inflation index that just came out prove me >wrong! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Drill, drill, drill... that'll fix it. So, I ask again.... is the economy better or worse? This is not a difficult question. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>Dave, that was the original question. >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >This is not a difficult question. It seems incredibly difficult for Dave. I thought he knew something about this stuff. Guess not. >>>>Dave, that was the original question. >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > It seems incredibly difficult for Dave. I thought he knew something > about this stuff. Guess not. I *know* he knows something about this stuff! That's why it's incredibly difficult for him to give a straight answer. LOL Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >So, I ask again.... is the economy better or worse? Try this in place of your left wing-nut blogs: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039890722392873.html >>So, I ask again.... is the economy better or worse? > >Try this in place of your left wing-nut blogs: > >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039890722392873.html The witness is non-responsive. >>>So, I ask again.... is the economy better or worse? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >The witness is non-responsive. I guess you didn't read the link. >>>>So, I ask again.... is the economy better or worse? >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I guess you didn't read the link. A link is not a response. The witness is non-responsive and has not answered the question. At thuis point, your lack of response has been accepted as your answer. >>So, I ask again.... is the economy better or worse? > > Try this in place of your left wing-nut blogs: > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039890722392873.html You didn't answer the question. Do you dispute the unemployment numbers, the growing mortgage crisis, the huge deficit that's getting worse? Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com > You didn't answer the question. Do you dispute the unemployment numbers, the > growing mortgage crisis, the huge deficit that's getting worse? It's those dam Dems, borrowing all that money to pay for their shenanigans in Iraq! Cheers Marty >> You didn't answer the question. Do you dispute the unemployment numbers, >> the growing mortgage crisis, the huge deficit that's getting worse? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Cheers > Marty Yep. We did it! Oops.... Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>> You didn't answer the question. Do you dispute the unemployment numbers, >>> the growing mortgage crisis, the huge deficit that's getting worse? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Yep. We did it! Oops.... The Democrats are behind the financing of the Iraq war? Sounds like the Republicans msut be weak on national security! >You didn't answer the question. Do you dispute the unemployment numbers, the >growing mortgage crisis, the huge deficit that's getting worse? If you'll recall, Jon, the point I initially made was that you've been claiming the economy was in the crapper for the last 7 years. You don't seem to like that suggestion. So let me ask you. Has the economy been in the crapper continuously for the last 7 years as you've consistently claimed? >>You didn't answer the question. Do you dispute the unemployment numbers, >>the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to like that suggestion. So let me ask you. Has the economy been in the > crapper continuously for the last 7 years as you've consistently claimed? Continuously? Absolutely not. There are always fluctuations. I never made that claim. Feel free to show me the post where I did. So, now that I've answered your question, answer mine. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>You didn't answer the question. Do you dispute the unemployment numbers, >>>the >>>growing mortgage crisis, the huge deficit that's getting worse? Well, lessee. After declining for 6 years, the unemployment numbers are increasing. The average unemployment rate over Bush's 8 years even stands a chance of reaching the 5.2% average rate of the Clinton years. On the other hand, the second quarter's growth was surprisingly good. Whether the mortgage "crisis" is growing or has plateaued is at this point an open question. Depends very much on whether you think the banks have finally written down their portfolios enough to entice new capital so they can increase their lending. From what I'm seeing, I think chances are that they haven't. It'll take about another year for increased allowances for loan losses to work their way through the system. My suspicion is the your buddies like Barney Frank and Jim Shumer may succeed in putting off the necessary write-downs by Fan and Fred, pushing that drag on lending out further as well. As to the deficit, yes, it's up. Neither party has exercised spending restraint. And based on the direction Obama is headed I see it continuing to climb for a number of years if he's elected. Historically, revenues have gone up when marginal income and capital gains tax rates are cut, and down when they're raised. Tell me, do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?" >>>>You didn't answer the question. Do you dispute the unemployment numbers, >>>>the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > don't > pay taxes is a "tax cut?" Still waiting for your answer. Your question isn't a fair question, because it makes assumptions that are not true. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >> Tell me, do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who >> don't >> pay taxes is a "tax cut?" > >Still waiting for your answer. Guess you haven't been reading very carefully. >Your question isn't a fair question, because it makes assumptions that are >not true. What assumptions are those? Do you seriously intend to make the argument that because he's gonna hand money to a few people who do pay taxes, he doesn't intend to hand out money to folks who don't pay taxes? Is handing out money to people who don't pay taxes a "tax cut," or isn't it? >>> Tell me, do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who >>> don't [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Is handing out money to people who don't pay taxes a "tax cut," or isn't > it? Yet another bs response. Are you planning on answering my question or should I let you win? Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >> Well, lessee. After declining for 6 years, the unemployment numbers are >> increasing. The average unemployment rate over Bush's 8 years even stands [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Still waiting for your answer. Guess you have a problem with reading comprehension. The answer is above. Apparently you just didn't like the answer. Now, let me ask again: >do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who >> don't >> pay taxes is a "tax cut?" >>> Well, lessee. After declining for 6 years, the unemployment numbers are >>> increasing. The average unemployment rate over Bush's 8 years even [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >>> don't >>> pay taxes is a "tax cut?" Still waiting for your answer: Do you dispute the unemployment numbers, the growing mortgage crisis, the huge deficit that's getting worse? Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >Still waiting for your answer: > >Do you dispute the unemployment numbers, the growing mortgage crisis, the >huge deficit that's getting worse? Asked and answered. >>Still waiting for your answer: >> >>Do you dispute the unemployment numbers, the growing mortgage crisis, the >>huge deficit that's getting worse? > >Asked and answered. Why not put this stupidity to bed and restate your answer so we can move on? >>>Still waiting for your answer: >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why not put this stupidity to bed and restate your answer so we can > move on? Good question. I answered his question in a straightforward fashion. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>>Still waiting for your answer: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Good question. I answered his question in a straightforward fashion. I don't think Dave's position allows for that option. >>>>You didn't answer the question. Do you dispute the unemployment numbers, >>>>the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >increasing. The average unemployment rate over Bush's 8 years even stands a >chance of reaching the 5.2% average rate of the Clinton years. Except the "jobs" are different. The Bush Administration worked hard tyo do things like classify working at McDonalds as a "Manufacturing Job". >Except the "jobs" are different. Maybe you can answer the question I put to Jon, Not at All. Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?" >>Except the "jobs" are different. > > Maybe you can answer the question I put to Jon, Not at All. > > Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who > don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?" Why not? Liberals believe that adjusting government spending in one bureaucracy or another from an annual increase of 15% to an annual increase of 12% is a budget "cut." -- Gregory Hall >> Except the "jobs" are different. > > Maybe you can answer the question I put to Jon, Not at All. > > Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who > don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?" Dave, can you explain to me how it is, that in america, one can earn $30,000, spend it all and yet pay no taxes? Are there special lines at the supermarket market marked "no sales tax at this register"? Do their landlords get a special dispensation and not have to pay property taxes on the places they rent, or on their rental income? Do manufactures have special plants that pay no taxes because the make goods for those who earn less than 30K? If you look at the whole picture, those at the bottom pay a greater percentage than those at the top. Cheers Marty >Dave, can you explain to me how it is, that in america, one can earn >$30,000, spend it all and yet pay no taxes? Are there special lines at >the supermarket market marked "no sales tax at this register"? In many places, food is not subject to sales tax. Nor clothing to one degree or another. >Do their >landlords get a special dispensation and not have to pay property taxes >on the places they rent, or on their rental income? In New York, at least, yes. In fact the gummint is probably providing housing to them at well below market rents. > Do manufactures >have special plants that pay no taxes because the make goods for those >who earn less than 30K? Generally, we do not regard income taxes paid by a manufacturer as a tax imposed on the purchaser of the goods. We don't have VAT here. You're playing word games here, Marty. >If you look at the whole picture, those at the bottom pay a greater >percentage than those at the top. A highly doubtful proposition, particularly if you net all the transfer payments they receive against taxes paid. >> Dave, can you explain to me how it is, that in america, one can earn >> $30,000, spend it all and yet pay no taxes? Are there special lines at >> the supermarket market marked "no sales tax at this register"? > > In many places, food is not subject to sales tax. Nor clothing to one degree > or another. To "one degree or another"? So they pay taxes on some things, yes? Gasoline, televisions, kitchen tables, blankets...... ? If they pay *any* taxes, on anything, it negates your allegation. As an attorney I'm sure you are familiar with the concept that if you disprove one part of a witness's statement, everything else from him is suspect. >> Do their >> landlords get a special dispensation and not have to pay property taxes >> on the places they rent, or on their rental income? > > In New York, at least, yes. In fact the gummint is probably providing > housing to them at well below market rents. "Probably"? You making this stuff up as you go? So if I tell the state government that I'm renting to low income folks, I get my property taxes waived? And of course I'll pass that saving on. No wonder I hear so many complaints about NY state having some of the highest property taxes in the country. >> Do manufactures >> have special plants that pay no taxes because the make goods for those [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > imposed on the purchaser of the goods. We don't have VAT here. You're > playing word games here, Marty. No, you made the statement "Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?" I'm merely pointing out that the old adage about death and taxes is correct. You seem to think that not paying any Federal income tax is paying *no* taxes, I assert not. >> If you look at the whole picture, those at the bottom pay a greater >> percentage than those at the top. > > A highly doubtful proposition, particularly if you net all the transfer > payments they receive against taxes paid. I think that your country is much like mine; if you make enough to have disposable income, then there are many ways to invest that excess and get nice tax deductions and credits. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that I fall into the category that can take advantage of such opportunities, but I do recognize the basic unfairness of such a system. "Capitalism, that quaint concept that really nasty men will do the right thing", can't remember who said it. Cheers Marty >"Probably"? You making this stuff up as you go? So if I tell the state >government that I'm renting to low income folks, I get my property taxes >waived? Of course not, Marty. The gummint has to have a whose raft of bureaucrats to run the housing they provide, and to make sure that the private landlords claiming tax exemption are actually renting to low income folks, and that they're charging what the bureaucrats think is the appropriate rent. Only after jumping through the appropriate hoops do they get their property taxes waived. Then of course there's rent control and rent stabilization to make sure housing goes to the "right" people. Remember Ed Koch's apartment? How about Charlie Rangel's four rent stabilized apartments? Gotta love the system. >>Except the "jobs" are different. > > Maybe you can answer the question I put to Jon, Not at All. > > Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who > don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?" I've already answered... still waiting for yours. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >> Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who >> don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?" > >I've already answered... still waiting for yours. You mean by saying you didn't think it was a fair question? LOL. >>> Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who >>> don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?" >> >>I've already answered... still waiting for yours. > > You mean by saying you didn't think it was a fair question? LOL. I said that it's not a legitimate question that you asked in this case, and I answered your other one with "absolutely not." Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >> You mean by saying you didn't think it was a fair question? LOL. > >I said that it's not a legitimate question My apologies for misquoting you. >>> You mean by saying you didn't think it was a fair question? LOL. >> >>I said that it's not a legitimate question > > My apologies for misquoting you. Heh... Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>Except the "jobs" are different. > >Maybe you can answer the question I put to Jon, Not at All. > >Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who >don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?" I haven't heard that line. Who said it? What else did they say that might affect the context? >>Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who >>don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?" > >I haven't heard that line. Who said it? That's part of your boy Obama's "economic plan." >>>Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who >>>don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?" >> >>I haven't heard that line. Who said it? > >That's part of your boy Obama's "economic plan." cite, please. I want a direct quote, not a description or approximation. >>>Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who >>>don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?" >> >>I haven't heard that line. Who said it? > > That's part of your boy Obama's "economic plan." Sounds a bit racist... boy Obama? Perhaps it's a pig by another name. LOL Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >Sounds a bit racist. Jon boy, to Dems, Mary Had a Little Lamb no doubt sounds racist. >>Sounds a bit racist. > > Jon boy, to Dems, Mary Had a Little Lamb no doubt sounds racist. Like Lipstick on a pig? Oh wait, that would be sexist for Republicans! LOL Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who >>don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?" > >I haven't heard that line. Who said it? What else did they say that >might affect the context? The Obama folks would never say they want to hand out money to people who don't pay taxes, silly. You have to think about what they're saying rather than slavishly accepting their rhetoric. They call the money they're handing out a "refundable tax credit," apparently figuring that folks like you and Jon won't look at the substance of what they're offering. Never mind the man behind the curtain. >>>Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who >>>don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The Obama folks would never say they want to hand out money to people who >don't pay taxes, silly. So, you admit you are just making sh.t up. Okay. >>>>Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who >>>>don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >So, you admit you are just making sh.t up. Okay. Nope. I'm telling it like it is. >>>>>Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who >>>>>don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Nope. I'm telling it like it is. No. "Like it is" would be providing a cite to back up your specious claim. You are telling it "like you imagine in your fantasies". Obama never said what you claim he said. You are, in fact, just making sh.t up. You got caught. >No. "Like it is" would be providing a cite to back up your specious >claim. You are telling it "like you imagine in your fantasies". Obama >never said what you claim he said. You are, in fact, just making sh.t >up. You got caught. So you claim his plan does not call for giving "refundable tax credits" to people who don't pay taxes? >>No. "Like it is" would be providing a cite to back up your specious >>claim. You are telling it "like you imagine in your fantasies". Obama [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >So you claim his plan does not call for giving "refundable tax credits" to >people who don't pay taxes? I haven't claimed anything. You have. And it's obviously you were making it up, since you can't point to a reliable source where Obama said what you claimed. Put the shovel down, Dave. >>>No. "Like it is" would be providing a cite to back up your specious >>>claim. You are telling it "like you imagine in your fantasies". Obama [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > making it up, since you can't point to a reliable source where Obama > said what you claimed. Put the shovel down, Dave. Hey, he likes to dig.... it's almost entertaining. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >I haven't claimed anything. You have. And it's obviously you were >making it up, since you can't point to a reliable source where Obama >said what you claimed. What I've said is that Obama's plan includes handing out money to people who pay no taxes, calling those handouts "refundable tax credits" and trying to take credit for them as tax reductions. Them's the facts. You dispute them? >>I haven't claimed anything. You have. And it's obviously you were >>making it up, since you can't point to a reliable source where Obama [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >pay no taxes, calling those handouts "refundable tax credits" and trying to >take credit for them as tax reductions. Them's the facts. You dispute them? There's nothing to dispute until you provide a cite that suppotrst what you claimed. Until you can do that, you are making stuff up. >>> I haven't claimed anything. You have. And it's obviously you were >>> making it up, since you can't point to a reliable source where Obama [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There's nothing to dispute until you provide a cite that suppotrst > what you claimed. Until you can do that, you are making stuff up. It is clearly stated on the Obama web site, and any site that fairly describes the plans, and anyone who has considered even briefly the competing tax proposals would appreciate this feature. The one aspect that hasn't been mentioned is that you have to actually work to get the credit, so it isn't quite a "welfare payment" as a "negative tax" on low income workers. >>>> I haven't claimed anything. You have. And it's obviously you were >>>> making it up, since you can't point to a reliable source where Obama [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >credit, so it isn't quite a "welfare payment" as a "negative tax" on low >income workers. I know what Obama proposes. It is not what Dave claims Obama said. >you have to actually work to get the >credit, so it isn't quite a "welfare payment" as a "negative tax" on low >income workers. LOL. I suppose the old welfare system where teenagers were paid to stay home and make babies might be called a "negative tax" on teenagers who stayed home and made babies. But Obama would undoubtedly call it a "tax cut." >>you have to actually work to get the >>credit, so it isn't quite a "welfare payment" as a "negative tax" on low [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >and make babies might be called a "negative tax" on teenagers who stayed >home and made babies. But Obama would undoubtedly call it a "tax cut." And, of course, you can provide a cite proving that he said that, since you claim he undoubtedly would say that. Dave is just making stuff up, because reality doesn't match his expectations. >>But Obama would undoubtedly call it a "tax cut." > >And, of course, you can provide a cite proving that he said that Gee, Not at All, I thought you claim expertise in English grammar to be among your many accomplishments. Google up present unreal conditional. >>>But Obama would undoubtedly call it a "tax cut." >> >>And, of course, you can provide a cite proving that he said that > >Gee, Not at All, I thought you claim expertise in English grammar to be >among your many accomplishments. Google up present unreal conditional. Look up "undoubtedly" >>>Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who >>>don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > man > behind the curtain. I agree! They would never say that! And, I agree you have to think about what they and the Bushies, I mean, McCain/Palin is actually saying rather than the rhetoric. Like "I told them thanks, but no thanks" (wanted but then didn't and kept the money anyway). Or, here are a few more... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG7Xp2XnvlQ But, the real question is... who is John McCain? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH32xpuppGA&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/v/-CazKanlYDg&hl=en&fs=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSlAJ5hkAC4&feature=related Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>> The current problems with Fan and Fred long antedate the current >>> administration, and can be traced in substantial part to the fact the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >cast of characters, beginning with individuals who thought real estate >purchases involved all reward and no risk. The cast includes: Very good job of listing the entire chain of shame. >Home buyers who believed it was ok to lie about their ability to pay >mortgages because their homes could only keep going up. Two subdivisions here. Those who were buying homes to live in that they could not afford with trick mortgages and no down payments. Strongly encouraged by liberal politicians. No skin in the game. Those who were simply speculating, in many cases signing pre-construction deals with neither the means nor the desire to close the deal, simply intending to resell before they had any skin in the game. >Real estate brokers who persuaded them of the above. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >were closed, and were more than happy to encourage the borrowers to lie, >telling the customer that "everybody does it.". Once again, no skin in the game. >Banks willing to buy the mortgages without looking too closely at the >documentation because they could resell them immediately to a greater fool. Hey, no skin in the game. >Mortgage buyers who bought from the banks without looking very closely >because they could sell the mortgages in a securitized bundle. No skin in the game. >Investment bankers who deluded themselves and investors into thinking that >financial engineering could remove the risk of defaults. >Rating agencies who got paid to give ratings after telling the investment >bankers what to put into the package. >"Structured finance" lawyers who should have known better, but didn't ask >the right questions. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >you can get something for nothing and somebody else is gonna pay for it. And >that has been the Dem mantra since forever. No skin in the game. >No skin in the game. Correctly and succinctly put. The old "I'm gonna give you something and somebody else is gonna pay for it." >>>> The current problems with Fan and Fred long antedate the current >>>> administration, and can be traced in substantial part to the fact the [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > > No skin in the game. You may not have skin in the game, but millions do. Some, for sure, deserve what they get, being speculators. A huge number were bamboozled by predatory lending practices. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>>> The current problems with Fan and Fred long antedate the current >>>>> administration, and can be traced in substantial part to the fact the [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > deserve what they get, being speculators. A huge number were bamboozled by > predatory lending practices. OH PLEASE! Spare us the liberal victim mentality all the time, why don't you! Wilbur Hubbard >A huge number were bamboozled by predatory >lending practices. What, in your view, does "predatory lending," mean, Jon? >>A huge number were bamboozled by predatory >>lending practices. > > What, in your view, does "predatory lending," mean, Jon? I'll go with the following. Are you going to answer my question? http://www.solutionsforamerica.org/viableecon/predatory-lending.html Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >I'll go with the following. Why am I not surprised. >>I'll go with the following. > > Why am I not surprised. Still waiting for your answer... or are you really, really out of touch? Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message