Republican Candidates

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Actually, the message from the White House and many of the economists is that we are in a "slow down"; Not recession.
Only Democrats and liberal news outlets would hazard to redefine a slowing economy as a recession...
I think people are saying that we are close to a recession... I don't think its been offically called a recession yet... I also mentioned I don't believe it is political...My point is that given all the attention the White House and the Fed have been placing on it...it is much more serious than how you all see it. I would hate to say I told you so in this situation because I don't want this to happen, but you all have to agree that something needs to be done with our "slowing economy" and the morgage issue. 1/2 of these loans have still not matured yet...so it could get worse.
It seems like a lot of you feel its the people fault who signed up... you don't think the morgage lenders mislead people or misrepresented facts such as income?

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Wait... where did you get the idea foreign governments are doing this? Do you have a link? I have not heard that.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/22591504/for/cnbc
http://www.cnbc.com/id/22450334
There are a few reports that also include Kuwait and Singapore. Another person is Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia. The totals are around $20 billion or so.
They are relief funds because they are reporting each like $9-10 Billion in losses in the 4th qtr alone. From what I've heard... Citigroup and ML sought them out.

 

[stdreb27]

yes people who were foolish enough to borrow more than they could pay back, and the lenders who were foolish enough to lend money to people who couldn't pay it back don't deserve to be bailed out. I agree companies can be less than honest, but I seriously doubt that all there people were in the dark on those ballooning payments. forcloser is bad or the lenders too. why would they do something that hurts them financially? it doesn't make sense. as for you holding bush's package as proof there is going to be a recession. he is a politician, and like all of them they will do what enough people want them to do. so if they can do something that will gain them political points they will do it no matter how moronic it is.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I think people are saying that we are close to a recession... I don't think its been offically called a recession yet... I also mentioned I don't believe it is political...My point is that given all the attention the White House and the Fed have been placing on it...it is much more serious than how you all see it. I would hate to say I told you so in this situation because I don't want this to happen, but you all have to agree that something needs to be done with our "slowing economy" and the morgage issue. 1/2 of these loans have still not matured yet...so it could get worse.
It seems like a lot of you feel its the people fault who signed up... you don't think the morgage lenders mislead people or misrepresented facts such as income?
It's not being called a "recession" because it doesn't fit the definition of a recession... A recession is negative GDP growth for 2 or more quarters... I don't even think we've had a single month of negative GDP; much less 2 quarters..
The

[hr]
issue is 100% the fault of the buyer. If they cheated/lied on an application about how much money they were making then it is there fault. If they didn't read the fine print ot see how much interest they would eventually be paying it is their fault.
People got greedy and bought homes they couldn't afford. Now it's time to pay the Piper.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http://www.cnbc.com/id/22591504/for/cnbc
http://www.cnbc.com/id/22450334
There are a few reports that also include Kuwait and Singapore. Another person is Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia. The totals are around $20 billion or so.
They are relief funds because they are reporting each like $9-10 Billion in losses in the 4th qtr alone. From what I've heard... Citigroup and ML sought them out.
Ok.. that makes more sense. The money is coming from "investment" funds run by the governments.
That's typical. Foreign governments invest in the USA all of the time. The fact that they are investing here shows that the world has faith in the US economy.
Companies always look for Capital when they take a quarterly loss. To call that a "relief fund" means every company listed on Wall St. are getting "relief funds" every time they sell stock.

 

[reefraff]

The media have been trying to talk the economy down for four year. Now they are getting their wish

I want to see a candidate (or Bush) stand up and declare the oil situation a national security interest. At that point an executive order can allow drilling in ANWAR and federal waters and just about anywhere else. Dedicate 100% of the royaltys from all that production to alternative energy research.
We also need to take a look at corporate taxes. I think dropping the rates but reducing or disalowing tax deductions for foreign operating expenses might have positive results.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by reefraff
I want to see a candidate (or Bush) stand up and declare the oil situation a national security interest. At that point an executive order can allow drilling in ANWAR and federal waters and just about anywhere else. Dedicate 100% of the royaltys from all that production to alternative energy research.
I have been actually thinking that for a bit now. Not surprised you have been also. I would even through in the democrats face saying we will drill here for 10 years, get off of foreign oil and that gives us 30 years to find an alternative fuel. If in that time with funding and research we have not they need to be quiet about it and deal with an oil ran system.
But the greenies won't go for this, even if in the long run it would "save the planet"...because they would have to compromise.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
That may be true, however; based on % of taxable income...it seems from what I've been hearing lately from those like Buffet.." Any CEO who comes forward and and can show they pay a higher % of their taxable income than their secretary does... I will give them $1 million cash."
Buffet is a scam artist. He doesn't even know what he is talking about. Also, he can send all the money to the federal governemnt he wants to over and above what is due...here are the facts regarding Buffet and his "hot air"
Buffett told Clinton's supporters he makes $46 million a year in income, but is taxed only at 17.7%. Meanwhile, he claims, his secretary pays 30% in taxes, and the rates for others who work for him are as high as 39.7%.
...
Sounds unjust, if true. But we don't know what tax system Buffett is looking at. It certainly isn't the one we use here in the U.S. We went to the IRS' Web site and used its tax calculator. We put in various incomes, from $50,000 to $350,000 a year — the latter being quite a bit for a secretary to make in Omaha.
...
Here's what we found: At $50,000, the IRS asks for 13.5% of your income. At $75,000, it's 17.3%. You can keep going all the way to about $350,000 before you're in spitting distance (28.4%) of what Buffett's secretary supposedly pays."

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Actually, the message from the White House and many of the economists is that we are in a "slow down"; Not recession.
Only Democrats and liberal news outlets would hazard to redefine a slowing economy as a recession...
And the democrats and some liberal news media outlets need distraction away from the vast improvements in Iraq. They were banking that iraq would not turn around by election time so this was their cry...and I do beleive some even hoped we would fail...my opinion.
Now that the surge appears to be working...they have removed Iraq off the front pages and are screaming the economic sky is falling.
You do not see to many reports on just how well things are going in Iraq now....but the liberal media could not stop posting front page news when things were not so good in Iraq.
I'm convinced some liberals simply want us to lose in Iraq......and will simply create or fabricate more deception and distortion of fact regarding the economy. Lets just say..at best the most of liberal media is wreckless with the truth.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
For some unknown reason many Dems don't understand that employers assign a certain worth to an employee. If they have to pay more for Health insurance then they have to lower some other compensation component.
Another option would be to increase the cost of the good or service provided to offset the increased cost for health insurance and/or other
benefit(s).
They understand it IMO...they simply float these ideas around election time.....and usually do not deliver on their promise. Yet, many democrats take the bait over and over...drinking the Kool Aid without questioning each time.
Same old song once again..and folks are drinking it up.

 

[reefraff]

Maybe if Hillary gets elected that middle class tax cut her husband promised in 92 will finally get here.

I Just Kill Me!!!!

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
I have been actually thinking that for a bit now. Not surprised you have been also. I would even through in the democrats face saying we will drill here for 10 years, get off of foreign oil and that gives us 30 years to find an alternative fuel. If in that time with funding and research we have not they need to be quiet about it and deal with an oil ran system.
But the greenies won't go for this, even if in the long run it would "save the planet"...because they would have to compromise.
Once it's declared a national security interest and does an executive order I think it would take another executive order to reverse it. I suppose they could go to court to make the claim that the oil crisis doesn't rise to the level of a national security issue but I think there are 6 or 7 votes on the Supreme Court that would back it.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
Another option would be to increase the cost of the good or service provided to offset the increased cost for health insurance and/or other
benefit(s).
I don't agree. If the company could make more money by charging more for the good/service then they would have already raised the price. Typically the higher the price the lower the damand so by raising the price they would probably actually sell less and make less money resulting in layoffs.
Just my opinion though.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
I don't agree. If the company could make more money by charging more for the good/service then they would have already raised the price. Typically the higher the price the lower the damand so by raising the price they would probably actually sell less and make less money resulting in layoffs.
Just my opinion though.
The possiblity I stated is based on some businesses would pass the increased cost of doing business to consumer...happens all the time. Others may do as you have suggested. Some may do an increase in the cost of a good or service , reduction in workforce and/or reduction pay/benefits.
A direct pass on to consumers are partial is possible and has been done as the cost of doing business increases. Naturally, if all competitors in a given market are not raising prices then the strategy might be to do as you have suggested.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
I don't agree. If the company could make more money by charging more for the good/service then they would have already raised the price. Typically the higher the price the lower the damand so by raising the price they would probably actually sell less and make less money resulting in layoffs.
Just my opinion though.
Well, except that all companies would be suffering the same cost increases; Therefore, they could raise prices confident their competitors will have to as well.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Well, except that all companies would be suffering the same cost increases; Therefore, they could raise prices confident their competitors will have to as well.
On a basic level this is true, the thing is not all companies have to follow the same regulations. ie a company in china doesn't not have the labor standards as the us. Likewise, there is only so much the public will pay for such products.
There are huge mathimatical models that can "predict" what is the most profit producing output and price. When due to artificial stimulus cost are raised, then companies will raise their prices as much as they can, while protecting their bottom line. But at some point, (and this is different due to the elasticisty of the product) people will stop buying these products. So they have to lower costs other ways in order to protect their targeted bottom line. And usually the easiest way is to reduce labor costs. That is why regulations such as minimum wage, environmental, ergonomical, and other standards can be very harmful to our economy and devistate the "middle class." They need to be very carefully examined and cost benifit analysis needs to be run.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
On a basic level this is true, the thing is not all companies have to follow the same regulations. .
They will if the federal government mandates they must provide health care to all workers...or if the federal goevernment increases the cost of doing business in order to provide socialized medicine via tax increases to fund same.
We all will pay more for the goods/services...and also pay increase taxes to fund socialized medicine.
Any rise in the cost of doing business usually will lead to increased cost of goods/services....as well as layoffs, cutbacks in other areas, etc. It's predictable and happens all the time.

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
It's not being called a "recession" because it doesn't fit the definition of a recession... A recession is negative GDP growth for 2 or more quarters... I don't even think we've had a single month of negative GDP; much less 2 quarters..
The

[hr]
issue is 100% the fault of the buyer. If they cheated/lied on an application about how much money they were making then it is there fault. If they didn't read the fine print ot see how much interest they would eventually be paying it is their fault.
People got greedy and bought homes they couldn't afford. Now it's time to pay the Piper.
I couldn't agree more. I'm so tired of hearing all of this nonsense about how people were tricked, et al. It makes me ill that people go on trolling through society with this new-found "right" to free healthcare, education, and of course a house; all without hard work. I guess I'm just not with the times so to speak.

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I think people are saying that we are close to a recession... I don't think its been offically called a recession yet... I also mentioned I don't believe it is political...My point is that given all the attention the White House and the Fed have been placing on it...it is much more serious than how you all see it. I would hate to say I told you so in this situation because I don't want this to happen, but you all have to agree that something needs to be done with our "slowing economy" and the morgage issue. 1/2 of these loans have still not matured yet...so it could get worse.
It seems like a lot of you feel its the people fault who signed up... you don't think the morgage lenders mislead people or misrepresented facts such as income?
I don't think I've ever heard of someone not being allowed to read the fine print. Even if I concede to you enumberable accounts of trickery it still doesn't alleviate people from their responsibility to know what they are getting into. Personally, when I bought my first home, I went through my finances and decided upon what I could afford.
IMHO, from all of the recessions and panicks I've seen, it always starts with people just agreeing that we are in a recession. Makes since; get enough people to bark about going into a recession, then we will go into a recession because everyone thinks we are.

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
It was a big mess in 2002... Question is has there ever been an emergency bailout or "boost" for the economy such as this one? I believe inflation is up to over 4% when normally its around 2%.
Also, Rylan, I would like to say, that although we may banter back and forth, I respect your open minded-ness and willingness to at least look into facts.
On a different politically charged thread there is a certain member who panders through a nincompoopery time after time, offering only childish thoughts; it becomes hard to believe a word he/she says. So in other words, you're alright in my book!