Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Shoot1st who wrote (50788)	10/8/2008 11:13:07 PM
From: Neeka	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224729

We'll raise rates on clients, and might lose a few who can't afford the higher costs. I think The One is counting on local, and state revenues rising, and also Federal income tax............. as a result. Unfortunately for The One........and all Americans.........losing jobs does not = more tax revenues.

To: Shoot1st who wrote (50788)	10/9/2008 6:52:40 AM
From: tonto	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

We are laying off people to compensate for the increased taxes. We will further increase automation to further reduce employment to compensate for projected increases in social security and health costs. We must balance our budgets and it is unfortunately going to cost people their jobs. We cannot run defivits like the politicians that everyone here roots for...

To: Shoot1st who wrote (50788)	10/9/2008 9:06:55 AM
From: cirrus	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224729

Back in 1993 when Clinton raised taxes to balance the budget the Republicans screamed in unison that the bill would curtail investment, kill employment send America into a depression. Instead, by reducing the federal government's borrowing needs the exact opposite happened - the economy expanded... for eight years in a row. When Bush arrived and cut taxes the deficits soared and the economy went flat and the dollar south. By the way... if your taxes go up $15,000 you're going to reduce raises by $20,000? So, you're giving yourself a $5,000 bonus and blaming Obama?

To: Shoot1st who wrote (50788)	10/9/2008 12:21:41 PM
From: Geoff Altman	1 Recommendation Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 224729

I wonder if any of them ever thought of that......? Democrats make careers out of ignoring unintended consequences of their feel good actions, that's how the dems got us into this mess. In order to 'feel good' about themselves dems decided to do something about housing for the poor. Usually this takes the form of lobbying congress for millions in order to build low cost housing 'projects', just like Obama did..... Since project 'renters' also have their rent subsidized there's zero feeling of ownership and as a result those very projects started such a short time ago are in the process of being condemned and are more or less uninhabitable. Also, like many projects dems start, it seems to be the 'starting' that they love since once built the projects began going into disrepair. Part of this may have been the fault of tenents but much of the blame rests squarely on who Obama picked to 'manage' these projects, yup, Tony Rezko..... In the end we have worthless buildings paid for by tax payers that the crack dealers won't even live in....... We've seen this scenario play out in almost all major cities and evidently the dems felt they needed to come up with a new plan to pander to votes. Then they dreamed up the 'redlining' scandal......with no actual proof that redlining was at all a problem in getting loans for minorities..... What really was happening was that bankers were doing what bankers are supposed to do, calculating risk based on the income and assets of the loanee and denying the loan when the risks were too high. As I said before, that's not redlining that's good business.... Enter the democrats: Before the Democrats' affirmative action lending policies became an embarrassment, the Los Angeles Times reported that, starting in 1992, a majority-Democratic Congress "mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains." Under Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton's secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001. Instead of looking at "outdated criteria," such as the mortgage applicant's credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named "Caylee." Threatening lawsuits, Clinton's Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn't a joke -- it's a fact. When Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches, political correctness was given a veto over sound business practices. In 1999, liberals were bragging about extending affirmative action to the financial sector. Los Angeles Times reporter Ron Brownstein hailed the Clinton administration's affirmative action lending policies as one of the "hidden success stories" of the Clinton administration, saying that "black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded." Meanwhile, economists were screaming from the rooftops that the Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the moment the housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn't get out of their loans by selling their houses. A decade later, the housing bubble burst and, as predicted, food-stamp-backed mortgages collapsed. Democrats set an affirmative action time-bomb and now it's gone off. Thanks Demorats, I hope the 'good feeling' was worth the 700+ billion price tag, you meddling morons......