Economic Impact of McCain winning
-
I'm still researching it...I know that there are plenty of non-farmers who get subsidy checks as well (which I am completely against) and I'm trying to figure out what criteria must be met to get a subsidy.
At any rate, those are the rates that the gov't says they paid you. If you got short changed, I'd call and get your money.
-
I'm still researching it...I know that there are plenty of non-farmers who get subsidy checks as well (which I am completely against) and I'm trying to figure out what criteria must be met to get a subsidy.
At any rate, those are the rates that the gov't says they paid you. If you got short changed, I'd call and get your money.
-
Parker;244556 wrote:
holy shit........... quoted
LMAO -- I wonder how many other misleading supposable facts have been posted up here... I could care less to even really read up on the news on any issue since they tend to be biased... Which also goes to my other opinion, that any media should be unbiased because to be biased would be totally unethical for them considering their position. So it only make me laugh my ass off when I read about the media criticizing the pastor who endorsed McCain, criticizing that he was using his title as an advantage. A lot of people thought since he paid no taxes, he shouldn't have an opinion in politics. They also criticized that he was using his position as an advantage for the endorsement.
When it comes between issues between the two candidates, I do know one thing that I read in the media recently that should basically give the two candidates something they couldn't debate on anymore. The war in Iraq. Iraq wants mostly to all of American troops to be out of the country by 2011. -- So that issue at hand should not really be anything thats up for debate.
The focus should be the economy... IMO -- Hey tax cuts for the middle class will be great & all... But when I lose my job because corporations/companies have to make up for their loss of their tax cuts and do so by reducing spending (which could be pay rates/or cutting loose of employees) I may regret who got voted into office. Americans are at the lowest levels of spending in 27 years....... You give them tax breaks, doesn't mean they are going to go out & spend all that $$$.. they are going to save it, and still basically only buy the things that they need.... Not want... If congress wants to bump spending, they need to disperse larger portions of money$ (like the stimulus checks).. Hand out more of them & people will view it as extra $$money and actually go spend it instead of save it. Since it's easier to go spend $600 or so at once versus see an a very little improvement of $$ saved on your paycheck stub.. So if we do the math.. For people who get paid bi-weekly... That would be roughly $25 per pay period (instead of a lump sum of $600) -- That $25 wouldn't really make me go out & splurge my $$.. Ya, I could save it for something nice, but really... The economy doens't need a bunch of consumers saving their money.. they want consumers to head out & spend.. I don't know about you all, but my employers hands me the paycheck to pay my bills.. not the government..
-
One of the big reasons we're buffered from the economic swings of the nation is because banks up here were smart enough not to hand out subprime mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back...we don't have NEARLY as bad of foreclosure rates as the rest of the nation. That is a large reason why we're still living fairly easy "up here".
-
StangerBanger96;244572 wrote:
One of the big reasons we're buffered from the economic swings of the nation is because banks up here were smart enough not to hand out subprime mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back...we don't have NEARLY as bad of foreclosure rates as the rest of the nation. That is a large reason why we're still living fairly easy "up here".Very true. Banks were definately giving out loans to people who don't deserve them. Actually not so much that they didn't deserve them, but in reality they were receiving loan amounts that they couldn't afford. Not to mention, some mortgage lenders were fixing the applications to where it would approve people for more than what they were worth. Flat out lying on paper saying they had maybe a $60k 401k, or, this amount in a savings account that didn't exist. Some loans were even set with an adjustable finance rate. Making some people paying a monthly payment at one point more than what they were used to. -- This took a hit for a lot of people...
-
BlueSRT0483;244565 wrote:
LMAO -- I wonder how many other misleading supposable facts have been posted up here... I could care less to even really read up on the news on any issue since they tend to be biased... Which also goes to my other opinion, that any media should be unbiased because to be biased would be totally unethical for them considering their position. So it only make me laugh my ass off when I read about the media criticizing the pastor who endorsed McCain, criticizing that he was using his title as an advantage. A lot of people thought since he paid no taxes, he shouldn't have an opinion in politics. They also criticized that he was using his position as an advantage for the endorsement.I went off the reports from USDA.
You apparently don't need to seed wheat to get the subsidies:
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=wheatWhen it comes between issues between the two candidates, I do know one thing that I read in the media recently that should basically give the two candidates something they couldn't debate on anymore. The war in Iraq. Iraq wants mostly to all of American troops to be out of the country by 2011. -- So that issue at hand should not really be anything thats up for debate.
agreed
The focus should be the economy... IMO -- Hey tax cuts for the middle class will be great & all... But when I lose my job because corporations/companies have to make up for their loss of their tax cuts and do so by reducing spending (which could be pay rates/or cutting loose of employees) I may regret who got voted into office. Americans are at the lowest levels of spending in 27 years....... You give them tax breaks, doesn't mean they are going to go out & spend all that $$$.. they are going to save it, and still basically only buy the things that they need.... Not want... If congress wants to bump spending, they need to disperse larger portions of money$ (like the stimulus checks).. Hand out more of them & people will view it as extra $$money and actually go spend it instead of save it. Since it's easier to go spend $600 or so at once versus see an a very little improvement of $$ saved on your paycheck stub.. So if we do the math.. For people who get paid bi-weekly... That would be roughly $25 per pay period (instead of a lump sum of $600) -- That $25 wouldn't really make me go out & splurge my $$.. Ya, I could save it for something nice, but really... The economy doens't need a bunch of consumers saving their money.. they want consumers to head out & spend.. I don't know about you all, but my employers hands me the paycheck to pay my bills.. not the government..
Did the economy slow down under clintons taxes? Also, the taxes proposed are individual income tax, not corporate taxes. Corporate income taxes remain as is so while the CEO may not make as much (after tax) as he did before, his corporation will still operate in the same tax bracket.
Actually, the economy does need people saving/investing their money....but like you said $25 a week. Give that to someone making $20k/year and they will spend every dime of it. Hell, give me an additional $25/week and I'll spend it somewhere w/o even noticing it's there....take $25/week away and i'll never miss it.
-
BlueSRT0483;244573 wrote:
Very true. Banks were definately giving out loans to people who don't deserve them. Actually not so much that they didn't deserve them, but in reality they were receiving loan amounts that they couldn't afford. Not to mention, some mortgage lenders were fixing the applications to where it would approve people for more than what they were worth. Flat out lying on paper saying they had maybe a $60k 401k, or, this amount in a savings account that didn't exist. Some loans were even set with an adjustable finance rate. Making some people paying a monthly payment at one point more than what they were used to. -- This took a hit for a lot of people...I think I agree with you on this one. Lending to someone who shouldn't have received a loan, but was pressured into doing so by the likes of ACORN is one thing (democrats fault). Setting qualified lenders up with ARM loans w/o explaining the ramifications just so the mortgage broker could get their 1% loan origination fee is something entirely different (not the republicans fault by any means....I blame the lending institutions)
-
I'm not saying that the $25 wouldn't be spent or saved.. I'm saying I am sure most people would rather get it in 1 large sum. It's easier to go out & buy the WANTs versus the NEEDs when you get a larger sum like that. How many people blow their whole tax return on the following (Paying off credit card debt, paying off loans, buying a car?, buying a new tv or computer, or new furniture...) People rely on these big sums of $$$ so they can make bigger purchases. For these businesses, these are the same ones that are not getting as many sales as in the past. So that $25 extra every week will get spent but on small things (like an extra $25 of groceries, or an extra $25 of gas [filling up versus putting on set amount...], or maybe even an extra $25 to some credit card debt...) These are the things I think I would be doing.. However, if someone handed me $600 and said here this for the whole year.. I am pretty sure I would go out and buy something nice anywhere from $400-700 (I may even spend more because I can..) I see myself buying electronics, or a tv, or a laptop, or paying off a large portion of Credit Card debt. That was the whole intent of Bush's plan with the stimulus checks(s)... To get people out & spend $$$ and not be so conservative...
Gas is 1/2 the price it was this past summer as of now (could go less or more in coming weeks.. who knows..) I don't see myself driving more, but I do see myself spending less on gas.. (obviously!!!) I also don't see myself spending more, because I save on gas.. I see my spending habits the same.. As for the gas debate, that's a whole new issue in itself... I could really get into that one.. I support the idea of McCain/Palin pushing for more domestic oil.. Whether that's drilling off-shore or even more in Alaska... -- Yes, we still need to improve technology to not let the demand ever get so high again by creating more fuel efficient vehicles, but, not everyone can afford hybrids right this moment & they aren't available as much as non-hybrids. I view it like this, more drilling here, means lower domestic price on gas, more jobs, and less $ spent on foreign countries that don't like us. Seems like a Win, Win, & another Win. However -- who is to blame for not letting us drill off-shore or in Alaska? Democrats and their fillibuster. What's there plan??? Pressure Big OiL!! WindFall taxes, and so forth. Ya -- that would really work, not!! Look at OPEC -- When were were at a near $150/barrel. Bush pushed for them to increase production.. Did they? No, not so much.. But now that the economy has taken a huge effect on itself due to gas prices.. We fall into a recession.. Now global demand drops at an incredible margin.. What does OPEC do? Calls for an emergency meeting and cuts production by 1.5 million barrels a day. They want to see Oil go around the $80/barrel mark. Respectively they see no reason that it should be below $100/barrel. We currently sit around the mid 60s and their production cut has had no effect. Maybe OPEC should realive that high gas prices took an effect on them in the end.. I foresee another cut in production if prices keep dropping.. Why is that? Greed -- just like I am sure big oil may work around any way we tax them more. How can we fix it? Well my opinion... Create more supply to meet demand accordingly... Do so by drilling domestically so foreign oil prices don't have an effect as much as we pay on the pump. Push for altneratives (Hydrogen, Hybrid, natural gas) -- and in a couple years... We'll all still be driving, but we will have doubled our gas mileage or more..
-
tjamz;244578 wrote:
I think I agree with you on this one. Lending to someone who shouldn't have received a loan, but was pressured into doing so by the likes of ACORN is one thing (democrats fault). Setting qualified lenders up with ARM loans w/o explaining the ramifications just so the mortgage broker could get their 1% loan origination fee is something entirely different (not the republicans fault by any means....I blame the lending institutions)True true.. But the point I was trying to make is that even us middle class people need limits.. Republicans called out the idea of sub-prime loans and had slightly foreseen the problems that could occur. Not knowing in detial what those problems would be, could not persuade enough against the measure. Therefore it passed... In this particular issue, both Democrats & Republicans had voted on the measure so it's basically a finger pointing process. But, IIRC it was a democratic majority that was voting on it. And it was also done during the Clinton term. I'm sure Bush would of probably veto'd it. But hindsight 20/20 & we can't ever really know for sure on if Bush would of or not.
Anyways, if you create too much lending, people get in too deep with debt. So spending is tight, and than when you add prices going up *(inflation) and high gas prices.. Now your maxing out credit cards & falling behind filiing bankruptcy & having your home foreclosed which the ripple effect is the banks failing...
-
It was done during the Clinton era, but it was solidly republican backed (at first...passed overwhelmingly....McCain missed the vote as usual)
-
tjamz;244611 wrote:
It was done during the Clinton era, but it was solidly republican backed (at first...passed overwhelmingly....McCain missed the vote as usual)Missed? Or Maybe was against it? That's definately debateable..
This measure was to help the middle-class.. It was highly more backed on the democratic side versus the Republican side.. We all know it was more-so the Democrats to blame, but not entirely..
-
Parker;244654 wrote:
but most of all... your welcome for sugar.....OMG too funny!
fat ass...[/QUOTE]
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login