Posted on 02/16/2006 11:38:31 AM PST by Willie Green
That's funny, I was kind of thinking the same about you!
Why the American Public Rejects the Bush Economic "Plan" (Part I)
Because he's p1ssing away OUR money?
If you seriously think we are going to buy your "I'm a VICTIM of that big meanie Bush" mantra, and that you are incapable of changing your direction, then you are seriously in need mental counseling.
Right, but they're taking Creative Writing, Environmental Conservation and 5 study halls in high school - not mathematics, real English, 3 semesters of taxation planning, 3 semesters of retirement planning, and 3 semesters of Constitutional theory, etc., etc. So they know they've got a pocketbook, but most of them don't have a clue about how to protect it.
Finally, when they get out of school, they're instructed in political life by attack ads on the teevee, which present the Donks versus the Elephants as a Punch N Judy Show.
Give up...you are surrounded by boot lickers...
Your claim was that the fed counts equity as an asset. If that's true then why aren't there federal taxes like they tax corporations' assets?
Earlier, you said they did not own their home. Now you've had to qualify it by saying they do not own it outright. Nice back peddle.
I have always meant "outright ownwership". People who carry a mortgage do not own their homes outright. I am not sure what context you mean by own but I know that mortgaged homes are not "owned" by the people that carry the mortgage.
So those people would be better off renting? Admit it, those numbers show that the average American is doing damn well in this economy and that fact makes it much harder for you to sell your doom and gloom.
I am not selling doom and gloom. I am also not pollyannish.
That's right. Look at the fed funds report and you'll see that homeowner equity, at market value, is absolutely considered an asset.
Fed Funds Report: page 110 of 124
If that's true then why aren't there federal taxes like they tax corporations' assets?
We pay capital gains taxes on the equity if it's more than $250k for singles and $500k for married couples.
People who carry a mortgage do not own their homes outright.
Yup, can't argue with you there. Will you at least admit that there are many more advantages to buying a home than renting one?
Something you notice about the free traitors on this board is that they never have anything intelligent to say so they just throw around insults. Smug fools do that.
Psycho-freep, why are you so incapable of actuat thought ?
I know this. My point is that corporations are taxed on assets yearly, not just if they sell them for a capital gain.
Will you at least admit that there are many more advantages to buying a home than renting one?
Without a doubt. My contention arises from economists claiming that equity as an asset is an indicator that the economy is better. I disagree. Mortgages are a debt, not an asset. The equity is an imaginary number that even appraisers will disagree on. How they can come up with a finite value on home equity is what I don't agree with. They don't know how much equity I have in my home. How can they possibly compute this and declare a value?
I disagree with using home "ownership" as a definitive indicator that the economy is booming. Most of those people are carrying debt that is called a mortgage. Also, consider that for the average home buyer he will pay more than 2X the cost of his home by mortgage's end. To me that is a net loss.
On the other hand, I would much rather have the home I live in than rent one or an apartment. It's a headache at times but the three acres of land and open space I have is a blessing compared to living in a hellhole like New Haven, CT which is the nearest city. Even the suburbs are getting overcrowded.
I grew up in the city of Chicago and the houses were about fifteen feet apart. We didn't complain. I don't think I could do it again, though.
"To put any credence behind such poll number from those seditionists is insane, IMO."
Can you show us some reputable poll numbers that show something different?
"Because he's p1ssing away OUR money?"
I think Bush's economic plan is to see how much money he can spend in 8 years, and how much he can expand government.
I'm going by the government's latest report.
Government workers don't make nearly as much as those in comprable positions in the private sector do, so your alleged influx of government jobs wouldn't explain why wealth is at an all time high. Indeed, if government jobs were a greater parter of the mix, wealth should actually go down.
You forget the other side of outsourcing: it controls inflation. If prices are higher, people don't buy, or they buy less. That's very bad for the economy.
We live in the information age now, when non-tangibles like ideas and service are valued commodities.
And how come we weren't wealthier forty years ago, when we were a manufacturing based economy, rather than the service based one we are today?
and if you took those wealth stats, and broke them down, you would find they were heavily generational. who has wealth in the US, real wealth, not debt. older americans do. now of course, that's a normal phenomena, because they have had more time to accumulate it. but if you look at the wealth held by senior citizen americans today, and look at how their children and grandchildren are making their way through the economy - you'd see it is going to be a tough ride for the younger people. pensions are becmong a thing of the past, so is retiree medical coverage, middle aged and young people paying into social security today will get little return on that investment. 40 year interest only mortgages are becoming the norm, and debt loads are generally higher for younger and middle aged people. all these factors will mean that young and middle aged persons today, will have much harder financial times in their retirements, then current seniors do.
the best bet that these younger and middle aged persons have at accumulating real wealth is - inheritance.
let's hope grandma and grandpa don't blow it all at the casinos and the nursing homes.
I guess whoever came up with those figures hasn't looked at the taxes on his/her phone bill, cable bill, gas bill, electric bill, water bill, cell phone bill, sewer bill, airline tickets, etc--not to mention the higher federal/state taxes on gasoline, higher real estate taxes, and higher state sales taxes. I guess that THOSE don't count.
Yep, we certainly are paying less taxes under President Bush and taxes need to go up! (rolling eyes--sarcasm/off)
I made no such comparison to myself and Einstein. I can assure you however, that most jobs "possibilities" that are thrown to us engineers are similar to the analogy I provided. Since you don't understand what we do, however, you don't understand the analogy. This is just like Bush, who presumes to represent me.
It is foolish of you to presume that tough engineering curriculum's and thirty years of experience and study constitute "menial" or "rote" labor. I dare say I could indeed burn your brain by exposing you to a sample of what I do for a living. I'm no Einstein, but I'm not a dim bulb either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.