WOOOT BARRACK OBAMA

[Ricky87]

To be completely honest, though, the HIGH value of the bail-out also was responsible for the difficulty in people that COULD pay the loan in getting a loan, too. It basically made it so the banks didn't HAVE to give out loans because of the government-driven affluence. You are correct in part, but such an oversimplification can prove anything even if it isn't the whole picture.

A tactic you would never use!.

Oh, great. In other words because some people CAN and some people are unable, we have to tax those that can and give it to the others. The heart of socialism. I'd be mad, but I believe you might be a Canadian and can't vote in America, so what do I care? LOL. (That's not an insult - I like Canadians, but I only care what American voters think on such issues. If you aren't Canadian, then I just have you confused with someone else. Sorry.)

Nova C is pretty dead on for a Canadian. You should at least respect that he's giving you honest points, plus I'm sure all your knowledge on the subject comes from the same sources; TV and the internet!. At least he's looking in the right places!.

 

[tsst]

...Why do you think no one else will co-sponsor this bill with him? Do you think it's because they're anti-extremists or possibly because they can see the futility, motivation and obvious duplicity behind this "dead horse" bill. It has repeatedly been established and confirmed that Obama is a US citizen, but like the earlier poster and this Rep. they want to continue to make an issue out of a non-issue, been there done that. He has already released a copy of the original, but the issue won't die.....

Sorry I misunderstood. I assumed (not knowing about the bill) that if passed it would be law for any president. I agree with you, since it was specifically an Obama only bill, that is extremist. :shrugs:

 

[ForkedTung]

Sorry I misunderstood. I assumed (not knowing about the bill) that if passed it would be law for any president. I agree with you, since it was specifically an Obama only bill, that is extremist. :shrugs:

Actually I believe, in theory,it would've been for any president. That was NOT the motivation though, it was to once again attempt to create confusion, etc... about the legitimacy of Obama's presidency. I don't care whom is behind this type of political smear, muckraking, crap, there is too much going on in the US/world that makes drawing attention away real problems and issues practically criminal.

ps) Obama has a drivers license...

 

[Em Wright]

http://www.artbistro.com/news/artic...m_source=nlet&utm_content=ab_r3_20090428_moba

I get Art articles in my email and this was one of the stories. I know you guys are discussing Obama, so figured I'd share this. I'm not politically savvy, so I have no opinion.

 

[ForkedTung]

http://www.artbistro.com/news/artic...m_source=nlet&utm_content=ab_r3_20090428_moba

I get Art articles in my email and this was one of the stories. I know you guys are discussing Obama, so figured I'd share this. I'm not politically savvy, so I have no opinion.

That's a bad painting with a poor likeness, designed to stir controversy, piss off Christians, demean Obama supporters and pander to Obama haters. just IMHO.

 

[tsst]

....I don't care whom is behind this type of political smear, muckraking, crap, there is too much going on in the US/world that makes drawing attention away real problems and issues practically criminal....

That would be nearly ALL politicians from my experience. lol

ps) Obama has a drivers license...

lol well then his birth certificate should be on file. Call the DMV. :rofl:

 

[Em Wright]

Yeah, that's kind of what I had been thinking as well... At least to me it's just down right silly.

 

[tom e]

Pull the other leg or at LEAST admit how many restrictions are on WHO can get that $8k credit.

I didn't leave anything out intentionally, I just figured the restrictions are very well known. But I may be wrong, I'm in taxes after all..
The restrictions are:

1. Your income needs to be under 75K if you're single, 150K if married
2. You need to be a first time buyer and your name has got to be on the note. A first time buyer is defined in this case as one who hasn't owned a home in 3 years.
3. The credit will actually be 10% of the purchase price or 8K whichever is lower.

I don't understand saying it doesn't go anywhere toward helping someone buying. It would be stupid to buy for the credit, but if you are buying anyway, it's a huge help.

If people who are on the government dole weren't allowed to vote, I would agree that this would settle any option for disagreement that think I have.... It's like voting on your own pay level at work - that would drive the company (or the country!) out of business pretty fast.

It goes without saying, but WOW (!!!) don't we have very different ideas about America!

They were stupid for not reading/understanding the contract or even asking, "what do you mean by a variable interest rate loan?" In other words, I CAN say they were stupid for not budgeting for that.

Some of them were! And in some markets the numbers made it look like the thing to do. There were some markets where people were taking neg am loans and the note was growing with each payment (the payments were LESS than the monthly interest).. Why would some idiot do that? Because the values of the home were rising even faster. Some very smart people were taken in by that, and it's not really fair to call them stupid when you have the benefit of hindsight. Besides that, some of them made a killing if they sold before the bust.. I'm not saying they were right, and I'm not saying it isn't just what you describe (making money by shuffling money around etc) I just don't think they're necesarilly dummies.

 

[kathylove]

Question for Tom E:

Sorry - a little off topic, but seems a good place to ask:

If two people buy a house together and it is worth at least $160 K, and one qualifies for the 8K exemption, but the other doesn't, can the qualified individual get the 8K credit for their half of the house?

I am considering buying one with a family member who qualifies, but we (hubby and I) don't.

Thanks!

 

[tom e]

Kathy, right now we're telling people we think they can. We've been told as long as their name is on the note they should qualify, and there is nothing in the qualifications that seems to say otherwise. I've even prepared a client's taxes to show them getting the credit and they were accepted by the IRS.
If you want, I can keep you posted about this particular case and how it ends up- In other words when and if they actually get the money.

More in PM!

 

[kathylove]

...we're telling people we think they can"...


Hey, I thought it was "Yes, we can", lol!

Yes, let me know how it goes.

Thanks for the info in the PM!

Kathy

 

[jazzgeek]

Ahhhhhh, but Bush didn't spend the amount of money on the entire war to help you stay ALIVE from terrorist attacks....

Is there any chance you'd allow the current administration co-opt the catchphrase that has come from the noise machine from the past administration?

Because, when you think of it...OVER THE COURSE OF HIS ENTIRE PRESIDENCY, there has not been ONE attack on US soil during the Obama Administration.

Bush only "kept us safe" since 9/11....

Isn't spin fun?

The banks. I agree with you, Roy, and I already blamed the banks (here or in other threads somewhere already) for giving out loans to people they should have KNOWN wouldn't be able to pay those bills in the future. The low interest rates aren't at fault - it's dumb & greedy people on BOTH sides of the bank counter.

And with no regulations, it's apparent that the banks found this to be an "acceptable level of risk". (Because it was NO risk.)

Actually, my post was originally misleading in some ways. Confiscation of arms was actually the spark that started the revolutionary fire - that at some incidents where Americans were killed (even though they DID kinda start the fight) - and not the <2% taxation. Taxation is emphasized because Americans now think money drives EVERYTHING, but that was only one small factor hidden behind MOST of the other factors that really did spark the war.

Regardless of whether it was taxation or confiscation, the colonists HAD NO REPRESENTATION. That's why Tom's reply was cogent, direct, relevant, and to the point. That's why the "Tea Parties" were mocked across all but the most right-wing of media outlets. I'm all for getting behind a cause, and the freedom of expression via public protests (and wouldn't it have been deliciously ironic if the current administration deemed it necessary to have designated "free speech zones" on April 15th like the last administration did when their employers decided to protest?) - but if the historical context is missing or ignored, it renders the "protest" pointless.

Basically, it was sour grapes and a whole bunch of butthurt by those who LOST in November.

Bread and circuses - that's what has been voted in again. When an administration can buy votes with public dollars, I don't have to like it.

You've made the claim - now cite the evidence.

If people who are on the government dole weren't allowed to vote, I would agree that this would settle any option for disagreement that think I have.

Factoid: The amount of people on the government dole isn't all that big....and the majority of them are white.

However, I have trouble respecting a vote that is given based on race (my vote had nothing to do with anything so minor)

And the grand majority of exit polls showed that the election was won based on a "desire for change" than for "I want a minority President".

I don't know anything about this bill but why would it be considered "extremist" to require a birth certificate for the highest office in the country?

Perhaps because the eligibility requirements to hold the office of President are already set forth in The Constitution?

My personal favorite would be to have Steven Stewart and Jon Cobert ringside anounce a cage match between Janeane Garofalo and Ted Nugent

Ted would kill her.

Literally.


Dale

 

[ForkedTung]

Regardless of whether it was taxation or confiscation, the colonists HAD NO REPRESENTATION. That's why Tom's reply was cogent, direct, relevant, and to the point. That's why the "Tea Parties" were mocked across all but the most right-wing of media outlets. I'm all for getting behind a cause, and the freedom of expression via public protests (and wouldn't it have been deliciously ironic if the current administration deemed it necessary to have designated "free speech zones" on April 15th like the last administration did when their employers decided to protest?) - but historical context is missing or ignored, it renders the "protest" pointless.

Basically, it was sour grapes and a whole bunch of butthurt by those who LOST in November.

The whole post was well said Dale, but I really like the above quote! Nuff said about the "Tea Bagging" parties as quite a few networks chose to refer to them? Oh what the heck, here it is again:

if the historical context is missing or ignored, it renders the "protest" pointless.

 

[KJUN]

When a vote on the largest tax bill in history is forced through before any of the general representatives even had a chance to read it...well, is that what you call representation?

 

[tom e]

Forced through with or without their votes? How does one side force the other into passing something that they are opposed to? I'm not making any claims about what they read, you may be right, but our representatives do have the power to squash it. Did you ever consider though that the majority of them wanted it to pass? And that the majority of us pressured them to do so? I'm pretty certain that they mostly knew what was in the dang thing, whether or not they read it word for word. Some of them would probably like to try to use that as an out, but I don't see letting anybody who voted for it evade that responsibility.

More to the point are any of your representatives crying out, "I voted for it but I didn't know what was in it! He tricked me!!" Or is it more a case of those who would have voted against it ANYWAY saying, "He didn't even give me time to read it all word for word so I had no choice but to vote against it." I think the difference is important because that's just stalling for time with the hope the public turns against it..

 

[Ricky87]

Is there any chance you'd allow the current administration co-opt the catchphrase that has come from the noise machine from the past administration?

Because, when you think of it...OVER THE COURSE OF HIS ENTIRE PRESIDENCY, there has not been ONE attack on US soil during the Obama Administration.

Bush only "kept us safe" since 9/11....

Isn't spin fun?

Very!.

Factoid: The amount of people on the government dole isn't all that big....and the majority of them are white.

I agree, plus, what would happen if people on "government dole" couldn't vote at all. We would become a Dictatorship, which is a lot more accurate than the "Socialist" label we have now.

And the grand majority of exit polls showed that the election was won based on a "desire for change" than for "I want a minority President".

I agree, which is especially ironic, because if it were solely up to the "Caucasian" population, McCain would be in office right now. The irony being that the minority vote made the difference, which is an indication of the importance of an "outside opinion"!.

 

[ForkedTung]

TED

Interesting talk here ( Dale you've probably already seen this Eh? I know you're also a big fan of TED).
Again the stats show that education and racial tolerance go hand in hand.

Nate Silver: Picking apart the puzzle of racism in elections

Nate Silver has answers to controversial questions about race in politics: Did Obama's race hurt his votes in some places? Stats and myths collide in this fascinating talk that ends with a remarkable insight on how town planning can promote tolerance.

LINK:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/nate_silver_on_race_and_politics.html

 

[tsst]

...Perhaps because the eligibility requirements to hold the office of President are already set forth in The Constitution?...

Its been awhile since I looked at the constitution. 35 years old, natural born citizen, and like 15 years residency?! Eligibility requirements may already be there but that's not quite the same as proof of eligibility. My daughter met the eligibility requirements for a learning permit too but still had to provide proof.

...Ted would kill her.

Literally.

:blowup::madeuce:

 

[Michael823]

I'm not sure what you mean, are you actually questioning Obama's proof of eligibility to be the president?
I doubt that's what you meant, so I'll take it as a misinterpretation.

 

[tsst]

I'm not sure what you mean, are you actually questioning Obama's proof of eligibility to be the president?
I doubt that's what you meant, so I'll take it as a misinterpretation.

You indeed misinterpreted. I questioned why it was considered "extremist" to require a birth certificate for proof when such proof is required for things far less important than leading the nation.