socialists movment woot woot!!!!

[Strauss]

Strauss--how's it hanging? Can you believe this mess the liberals have got us in? I think we are headed for a depression once Obama puts his "tax the businesses more" Economic plan into effect. What do you think?

BTW--we should have a Constitutional Amendment denying liberals the right to vote based on a very important criteria--brain dead!!!! :24:

Problem: We are heading into a recession, businesses are laying people off and/or going under.

Liberal solution: Let's tax them more!

Well I have to give Obama credit for his response today or I should say lack of response. He was asked if he intended to raise taxes on the "wealthy" come 2009. He, of course, avoided the question and reverted to campaign mode (that ends come 1/21/09) claiming tax reduction for 95% of "working Americans" but you could tell that reality has hit home. If he wants to stimulate the economy he can't raise taxes on anyone, including the alleged "wealthy" 5% and especially corporations. He's a soft socialist but he isn't politcally suicidal.

 

[trekguy]

Hey Trekguy--the government is taking 15% of your pay every week (have been since you started working). Do you really think there is going to be anything left when you retire? And does it not anger you that the government has used it for a giant liberal slush fund--basically wasted it? And your answer is to put into power people who are going to spend more of it. Seriously--what do you think Obama and the Democrats will be able to do? Where is the money going to come from?

I'm not counting on the gov't to provide for my retirement....never have.... I have my own plan.

Hmm, republican policies have been in place for the past number of years. Seems as though crippling debt and reckless spending have been the rule, rather than the exception. You blame the liberals, as you always do, but the conservatives have been calling the shots... and they dropped the ball... big time.

Where does the money come from? Where does it always come from? Geez, you
're so concerned about money... where'd the trillion dollars come from that we've spent on the war??

What I expect from Obama is intelligence, fairness, balance, transparency, honesty. I believe that his leadership will inspire confidence, and that (consumer) confidence, in part, will go a long way toward reviving the economy.

 

[Fox Mulder]

I'm not counting on the gov't to provide for my retirement....never have.... I have my own plan.

Hmm, republican policies have been in place for the past number of years. Seems as though crippling debt and reckless spending have been the rule, rather than the exception. You blame the liberals, as you always do, but the conservatives have been calling the shots... and they dropped the ball... big time.

Where does the money come from? Where does it always come from? Geez, you
're so concerned about money... where'd the trillion dollars come from that we've spent on the war??

What I expect from Obama is intelligence, fairness, balance, transparency, honesty. I believe that his leadership will inspire confidence, and that (consumer) confidence, in part, will go a long way toward reviving the economy.

Actually, Democrats have controlled Congress for two years now--are you not holding them accountable for anything? What happened to all that was going to be accomplished. What they fucking accomplished was sending the economy into a recession--the increase in the Minimum wage was just the start. Stupid fucking policies that harm the economy by make liberals feel good. The projects weren't a big enough disaster--next they gave us the sub-prime mortgage for the poor!

 

[Fox Mulder]

Now of course you liberals will discount the record growth in the economy we had during the Bush Presidency (coincidentally before the Democrats took over congress) and you'll blame him, but the truth is inescapable. While there is blame to go around for this current crisis, there is no fucking doubt this is another stupid liberal economic engineering policy that has come how to roost and it was predicted back in 1999 and it was Clinton that started it:

Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending



By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Its fucking prophetic, isn't it? Again--who fucking put pressure on Fanie Mae to offer sub prime mortgates to the "poor"???

Every stupid liberal policy designed to spread the wealth ends up backfiring because what liberals never seem to understand is that you can regulate the laws of economics any more than you can regulate the laws of physics. Liberal economic policies are as stupid as trying to regulate gravity yet they keep doing it over and over and over again.

Next we have the Messiah who is going to solve the current crisis by raising taxes on businesses and instituting a nationally funded healthcare system while also increasing government spending and social programs!!! Seriously--how do you see that working?

 

[trekguy]

Actually, Democrats have controlled Congress for two years now--are you not holding them accountable for anything? What happened to all that was going to be accomplished. What they fucking accomplished was sending the economy into a recession--the increase in the Minimum wage was just the start. Stupid fucking policies that harm the economy by make liberals feel good. The projects weren't a big enough disaster--next they gave us the sub-prime mortgage for the poor!

Wait a minute, you say that Bush inherited a recession back in '00. Then when it serves your purpose better... you blame the democrats after the '06 elections. Or maybe now it will be Obama's fault?? So, which is it?

Reckless spending, heavy debt, and an overall mistrust and lack of confidence in our leadership have created this mess.

How about we just see what happens in the next four years??

 

[Fox Mulder]

Wait a minute, you say that Bush inherited a recession back in '00. Then when it serves your purpose better... you blame the democrats after the '06 elections. Or maybe now it will be Obama's fault?? So, which is it?

Reckless spending, heavy debt, and an overall mistrust and lack of confidence in our leadership have created this mess.

How about we just see what happens in the next four years??

Yes--spending was too much--that Bush is responsible for. But the economy did VERY WELL if you actually look at all the economic indicators--we had record growth, record low unemployment--all this after 9/11, which was a huge hit on the economy. When did it go south? For six years things ran fine and its gone south in the last year. Who's fucking fault is that? Do you not see the connection?

And do you really think that Obama is going to cut spending? If spending is really a concern for you, are you telling me that a Democrat is going to cut it? Democrats have never ever cut spending--ever

 

[Alien Allen]

both parties are fucked up beyond reason

just a matter of degrees

 

[Strauss]

And do you really think that Obama is going to cut spending? If spending is really a concern for you, are you telling me that a Democrat is going to cut it? Democrats have never ever cut spending--ever

I think Kennedy cut spending (along with cutting taxes) but, then again, Kennedy would be a conservative today, at least, as to fiscal matters.

 

[Alien Allen]

Wait a minute, you say that Bush inherited a recession back in '00. Then when it serves your purpose better... you blame the democrats after the '06 elections. Or maybe now it will be Obama's fault?? So, which is it?

Reckless spending, heavy debt, and an overall mistrust and lack of confidence in our leadership have created this mess.

How about we just see what happens in the next four years??

what exactly did the dems do that got them elected though??

the same shit that always gets one elected

nothing different this time

make promises for change

 

[Fox Mulder]

I think Kennedy cut spending (along with cutting taxes) but, then again, Kennedy would be a conservative today, at least, as to fiscal matters.

I'm not sure he cut it overall, did he? I know he cut military spending significantly, which started the downward spiral that Reagan finally addressed. But you are right--Kennedy is not a Democrat--not as that term is understood today. In fact, Kennedy was more conservative than Bush was in terms of economic policy for Godsakes.

 

[Fox Mulder]

BTW--I posted that NY Times Article over at TSG--should lather up all the Moore-Ons into an asbolute frenzy--you know how they simply hate the truth!!!!

 

[Alien Allen]

I'm not sure he cut it overall, did he? I know he cut military spending significantly, which started the downward spiral that Reagan finally addressed. But you are right--Kennedy is not a Democrat--not as that term is understood today. In fact, Kennedy was more conservative than Bush was in terms of economic policy for Godsakes.

Kennedy make Bush Jr look like a frgigin flaming liberal. The only difference would have been where the money was spent.

 

[Fox Mulder]

I'm not counting on the gov't to provide for my retirement....never have.... I have my own plan.

So what the fuck gives them the right to take 15% of your pay every week for your retirement???

 

[Strauss]

BTW--I posted that NY Times Article over at TSG--should lather up all the Moore-Ons into an asbolute frenzy--you know how they simply hate the truth!!!!

Please keep them stirred up and posting really stupid things. Between Eggy and Paq I haven't read such economic stupidity in such a long time. Do you know that Eggy compared Lehman Brothers with Enron? And Paq agreed with him! I swear ignorance knows no bounds.

 

[Strauss]

So what the fuck gives them the right to take 15% of your pay every week for your retirement???

Its the right thing to do, ask Joe Biden.

 

[Alien Allen]

anybody notice that the socialists have abandoned this thread :24:

guess they got nothing to defend :cool

 

[Fox Mulder]

I'm not counting on the gov't to provide for my retirement....never have.... I have my own plan.

Oh--and I hope you've got that money hidden in offshore accounts, because your Democratic heroes are seriously discussing taking over private pension and 401K plans to fund social security--so the fact they've robbed you of 15% a year isn't going to be enough for these communinist bastards--they are going to take everything else you've save as well. This is no fucking joke by the way:

Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans? - Capital Commerce (usnews.com)

Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans?

October 23, 2008 10:47 AM ET | James Pethokoukis | Permanent Link | Print

I hate to use the "S" word, but the American government would never do something as, well, socialist as seize private pension funds, right? This is exactly what cash-strapped Argentina just did in the name of protecting workers' retirement accounts (Efharisto, Fausta's Blog). Now, even Uncle Sam isn't that stupid, but some Democrats might try something almost as loopy: kill 401(k) plans.

House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."

A few respectful observations:
1) McDermott is right when he says the savings rate isn't going up. But the savings rate doesn't include gains to money you invest in the stock market. It ignores the buildup of net worth. (If you bought a share of XYZ Corp. in January at $100, for instance, and its value doubled by December, the savings rate measure would still value that investment at $100. In short, the savings rate is a phony number.)

2) So based partly on the above faulty logic, the $4.5 trillion, as of the start of the year, invested in 401(k) plans doesn't count as savings.

3) Ghilarducci would have workers abandon the stock market right at the bottom of the market. A stupid idea, according to Warren Buffett: "I don't like to opine on the stock market, and again I emphasize that I have no idea what the market will do in the short term. Nevertheless, I'll follow the lead of a restaurant that opened in an empty bank building and then advertised: 'Put your mouth where your money was.' Today my money and my mouth both say equities."

4) Ghilarducci would offer a lousy 3 percent return. The long-run return of the stock market, adjusted for inflation, is more like 7 percent. Look at it this way: Ten thousand dollars growing at 3 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with roughly $22,000. But $10,000 growing at 7 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with $150,000. That is a high price to pay for what Ghilarducci describes as the removal of "a source of financial anxiety and...fruitless discussions with brokers and financial sales agents, who are also desperate for more fees and are often wrong about markets." Please, I'll take a bit of worry for an additional $128,000.

5) What effect would this plan have on an already battered stock market? Well, I would imagine it would send it even lower, sticking a shiv into the portfolios of everyone who didn't jump aboard. But I am sure the Chinese would love to jump in and buy all our cheap stocks to fund the retirement of their citizens.

My bottom line: If you believe in the long-run dynamism of the American economy, then you have to believe in the stock market. Listen to superinvestor Buffett, not the prof from the New School.

You know I can understand losers like bassetman and poochee voting for Democrats because they've got nothing to lose (or very little)--but a guy like you with a family who's worked hard to put a savings and retirement plan together--I can't comprehend you putting people in power that would sieze it from you (or even consider it). That's just absolutely fucking baffling to me.

 

[trekguy]

So what the fuck gives them the right to take 15% of your pay every week for your retirement???

That would be The Social Security Act of 1935, right??

 

[Fox Mulder]

I know WorldNetDaily isn't a very good source, but the author of this article is Roger Hedgecock, who is a former mayor of San Diego and very bright guy.

Democrats target your 401(k)

Democrats target your 401(k)

[SIZE=-1]Posted: October 27, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]© 2008 [/SIZE]

Democrats plan to tap your private retirement plan to fund Barack Obama's many promises to expand the power and size of the federal government.

Your pre-tax annual contribution to a 401(k) will be taxed under a plan considered by House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support.
Worse yet, instead of the familiar, tax-deferred plan which typically invests in diversified mutual funds, in turn investing in private companies, these Democrat leaders want to create a new system of mandatory worker-retirement accounts which would invest only in government debt (bonds) and yield 3 percent per year.

In other words, Miller and McDermott want to redirect trillions of dollars of workers' savings from private investments to fund the ballooning government deficit.

In 2008, a typical 401(k) plan (there are many variations) allows an employee to contribute up to $15,500, often matched in whole or part by a corresponding contribution from the employer. Most plans are participant directed, meaning the employee selects from an assortment of mutual funds for diversified investment in stocks, bonds and money market investments.

Of course, this year the best advice financial planners can give you is: Don't even look at that 401(k) earnings statement! The Panic of '08 has crashed stock markets all over the world. More than one-third of the value of all 401(k) accounts has evaporated. It's not much comfort to those thinking of retiring this year or next, but these stock markets will come back. They always have, despite wild fluctuations, the value of stocks overall rises over time.

Democrats Miller and McDermott offer a tantalizing alternative to stock market uncertainty.

They would eliminate the annual tax deferral for 401(k) contributions, which reduces federal revenues by about $80 billion per year. Instead, they propose that the federal government pay every worker $600 per year (inflation adjusted each year) and require every worker to invest 5 percent of their after-tax pay into a new retirement account to be administered by the Social Security Administration.

The money would be invested in a new class of government bond which would yield 3 percent per year, adjusted for inflation.

This plan was originally proposed by Theresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, and presented to Miller and McDermott last week at a House hearing.

These liberal Democrats thought the plan ingenious. They could take over the largest pool of private savings in the U.S., redirecting some $3 trillion to government spending.

In one move, the hated private market would be deprived of the capital that makes "capitalism"
possible, and the government would have the money to fund the massive expansion of government programs, subsidies and tax "cuts" promised by Barack Obama.

And, as with Social Security itself, the government could borrow and spend all the annual proceeds over and above any payout to retirees.

The history of the federal government raiding the Social Security fund provides a warning to anyone seduced by the promise of government guaranteed retirement funds.

In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson promised "guns and butter" (i.e. money to fight the Vietnam War would not be raised by higher taxes on consumers, but by "borrowing" money from Social Security not used that year for retiree payout).

The federal government has borrowed this annual "surplus" every year since. With the number of retirees growing, and the benefits expanded by Congress over the years, this "surplus" turns deficit in a few years – with no accumulated, invested trust fund to pay the retirees. What's left in the fund is the government promise to pay but no money.

Obama has promised to solve this problem by making "rich people" pay more into Social Security while reducing their benefits, transforming a retirement plan into a wealth transfer plan.

The Miller/McDermott plan creates a new government-guaranteed retirement plan to begin the scam all over again.

Seriously Trekguy, does this kind of fascist crap not scare you? 401K plans have saved (or will save) millions from a retirement of poverty since the government has squandered all of the money that was taken from them over the years.

 

[trekguy]

Oh--and I hope you've got that money hidden in offshore accounts, because your Democratic heroes are seriously discussing taking over private pension and 401K plans to fund social security--so the fact they've robbed you of 15% a year isn't going to be enough for these communinist bastards--they are going to take everything else you've save as well. This is no fucking joke by the way:

Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans? - Capital Commerce (usnews.com)



You know I can understand losers like bassetman and poochee voting for Democrats because they've got nothing to lose (or very little)--but a guy like you with a family who's worked hard to put a savings and retirement plan together--I can't comprehend you putting people in power that would sieze it from you (or even consider it). That's just absolutely fucking baffling to me.

Just because someone talks about something, doesn't mean it will happen. It's just talk. Gov't takeover of private retirement plans will not happen.... no way. Sounds a lot like more propaganda BS... much like the "democrats are going to take your guns away"... ain't gonna happen.