Why should I vote for Bush

**markas214** · 02-10-2004, 05:52 PM

38 posts and still notone reason to vote for Bush?

**DADDYDBOL** · 02-10-2004, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by markas214

38 posts and still notone reason to vote for Bush?

I hearby nominate markas214 for president (aka superman). j/j bro

I gotta go see ya...

***50%Natural*** · 02-10-2004, 05:56 PM

and here now is the pointless bable of someone whose failure of education in economics is very apparent. It really is stupid that people try to point to figures and such as being GB's fault. Of course he has to take the wrap from the uneducated in the matter as such. I have already discussed(in a previous thread) the role of the business cycles as well as financial indicators for the reasons to send the business cycle in a downward slope to recover later. All throughout history, there are dips in the economy as well as high points. Blaming GB shows that you actually know nothing of this. I would never give any economic success as a job well done to a president nor an economic recession as the presidents fault. Prices of stocks and bonds, required rate of return, economic forecasts such as indicators that scare investors play more of a role in how the nation performs, gdp, employement, and inflation than a president's economic policies ever could. Why don't you think a sec and consider who is really the most powerful man in the united states. It aint the president...it's Alan Greenspan. He is the one who controls the economy not the president. Also, I pointed this out in another thread...you want to get pissed because of the national defficiet? Well lets talk a sec then. Who demolished the army after the persian gulf war? Who made our impressive military, built up in the 80's for the anticipation of nuclear war to protect us, and who trashed it? Who was attacked and our military was the weakest its ever been since preWWII? Why was it the weakest? Well, there is an easy answer and you should remember that. When the people are financing the largest and most advanced army in the world for OUR protection it takes money. That is why bush had to spend. We get attacked and we don't have ****. I'd really like you to take that first statement of your thread and show it to any soilder protecting our ass from the rag heads that live for our deaths to advance their own. And, for your information, since you love to quote such tell tale figures, how is the economy doing now? You won't give GB the credit for that so why stick him with the burden of a post 911 economy where millions of jobs were lost as the center of commerce in our nation was destroyed. Man, I wish I could be a hippy

**markas214** · 02-10-2004, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by jbol

i guess your not one of the educated people

Why, because I don't agree with you? Show me how intelligent you are by answering my original question instead of snide remarks which diminish your intellectual stature.

**jbol** · 02-10-2004, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by markas214

38 posts and still notone reason to vote for Bush?

42 posts and still no reason not to vote for bush

***50%Natural*** · 02-10-2004, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by markas214

Why, because I don't agree with you? Show me how intelligent you are by answering my original question instead of snide remarks which diminish your intellectual stature.

I'll go head to head with you over our nation's economy anytime. Being older doesn't make you smarter, just remember that.

**jbol** · 02-10-2004, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by markas214

Why, because I don't agree with you? Show me how intelligent you are by answering my original question instead of snide remarks which diminish your intellectual stature.

i might of actually done that, if you werent so close minded,so i choose not to waist my time

**bermich** · 02-10-2004, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by markas214

My stats: the defecit is from the CBO, job losses are from the dept of Labor and reprted monthly, I know how much I pay in property and state taxes (idoubt you could dispute that, Ashcroft speaks for himself, Halliburton is being investigated, have you bought gasoline lately or in the past 2 years for that matter, Bush tax policy is a matter of record as are our massive national debt (who do you think will pay for it if not future generations?). I stand by my information. Saying you can dispute it but won't even try seems like denial of how f*cked up this president is.

This is the first thread I will reply to.
Property and STATE taxes are determined by the STATE. Not the federal government. Contact your governor to bitch about that. Each state is different and has nothing to do with Bush. Future paying for OUR debt. This has been going on BEFORE Bush, before Clinton before Reagon. Give the arguemt a rest. Just because Dean or Kerry brougth that up means all the demos will too. KNOW WHY. Because that is the only thing you guys have to argue.

This was a GREAT THREAD and I would love it if someone found it. All the accopmplishments of BUSH. It was sarcastic with OPINIONS of his accomplishments. 80 percent were false and the other 20 percent were mixed with other crap that had nothing to do with Bush. Someone answered all the statements and proved the thread to be crap. I will look for it and I hope whoever started this thread looks at it too just to see how twisted things become.

**Mr. Death** · 02-10-2004, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by markas214

My stats: the defecit is from the CBO, job losses are from the dept of Labor and reprted monthly, I know how much I pay in property and state taxes (idoubt you could dispute that, Ashcroft speaks for himself, Halliburton is being investigated, have you bought gasoline lately or in the past 2 years for that matter, Bush tax policy is a matter of record as are our massive national debt (who do you think will pay for it if not future generations?). I stand by my information. Saying you can dispute it but won't even try seems like denial of how f*cked up this president is.

Property and state taxes are determined by each state's legislature, not the national government. Also, we pay less for gas than any country in the world. You say you don't like Bush's tax policy, does that mean you want your taxes raised? Maybe you forgot, but Bush lowered the tax rates.

**bermich** · 02-10-2004, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by markas214

Brainiac? The first sign of a small mind is name calling. Quoting Fox News is the second.

Who are you quoting. ALL of your posts are based on YOUR OPINION and TRYINGTOGETBIG is posting on FACT and transcripted documentation which was presented NOT JUST ON FOX but on CNN and others.
You are calling him a brainiac? He just proved two of your little quotes on OILprices and Jobs to be incorrect.

**Dude-Man** · 02-10-2004, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by DADDYDBOL

How many economies improve during war time?

who said we had to go to war?

**DADDYDBOL** · 02-10-2004, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by 50%Natural

and here now is the pointless bable of someone whose failure of education in economics is very apparent. It really is stupid that people try to point to figures and such as being GB's fault. Of course he has to take the wrap from the uneducated in the matter as such. I have already discussed(in a previous thread) the role of the business cycles as well as financial indicators for the reasons to send the business cycle in a downward slope to recover later. All throughout history, there are dips in the economy as well as high points. Blaming GB shows that you actually know nothing of this. I would never give any economic success as a job well done to a president nor an economic recession as the presidents fault. Prices of stocks and bonds, required rate of return, economic forecasts such as indicators that scare investors play more of a role in how the nation performs, gdp, employement, and inflation than a president's economic policies ever could. Why don't you think a sec and consider who is really the most powerful man in the united states. It aint the president...it's Alan Greenspan. He is the one who controls the economy not the president. Also, I pointed this out in another thread...you want to get pissed because of the national defficiet? Well lets talk a sec then. Who demolished the army after the persian gulf war? Who made our impressive military, built up in the 80's for the anticipation of nuclear war to protect us, and who trashed it? Who was attacked and our military was the weakest its ever been since preWWII? Why was it the weakest? Well, there is an easy answer and you should remember that. When the people are financing the largest and most advanced army in the world for OUR protection it takes money. That is why bush had to spend. We get attacked and we don't have ****. I'd really like you to take that first statement of your thread and show it to any soilder protecting our ass from the rag heads that live for our deaths to advance their own. And, for your information, since you love to quote such tell tale figures, how is the economy doing now? You won't give GB the credit for that so why stick him with the burden of a post 911 economy where millions of jobs were lost as the center of commerce in our nation was destroyed. Man, I wish I could be a hippy

Bro you are my freakin hero....the truth will set you free...

**bermich** · 02-10-2004, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by markas214

Why, because I don't agree with you? Show me how intelligent you are by answering my original question instead of snide remarks which diminish your intellectual stature.

I think TRYINGTOGETBIG answered two of your quesitons. No comeback to his two posts???

**DADDYDBOL** · 02-10-2004, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by chrisAdams

who said we had to go to war?

The rag head who flew two jumbo jets into the towers thats who, where have you been?

**Dude-Man** · 02-10-2004, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by DADDYDBOL

The rag head who flew two jumbo jets into the towers thats who, where have you been?

Oh yeah, i forgot, we got him. Osama is dead.

**DADDYDBOL** · 02-10-2004, 06:11 PM

I was wondering when Bermich would come in...good to see you bro.

**markas214** · 02-10-2004, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by bermich

This is the first thread I will reply to.
Property and STATE taxes are determined by the STATE. Not the federal government. Contact your governor to bitch about that. Each state is different and has nothing to do with Bush. Future paying for OUR debt. This has been going on BEFORE Bush, before Clinton before Reagon. Give the arguemt a rest. Just because Dean or Kerry brougth that up means all the demos will too. KNOW WHY. Because that is the only thing you guys have to argue.

This was a GREAT THREAD and I would love it if someone found it. All the accopmplishments of BUSH. It was sarcastic with OPINIONS of his accomplishments. 80 percent were false and the other 20 percent were mixed with other crap that had nothing to do with Bush. Someone answered all the statements and proved the thread to be crap. I will look for it and I hope whoever started this thread looks at it too just to see how twisted things become.

States and local govt recieve federal funds. When they are cut the staes and local must raise taxes to offset the loss.

**bermich** · 02-10-2004, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by markas214

Yes but in war time people are asked to sacrifice for the good of our nation. This President told us to continue as usual and go shopping. Instead of asking for all of us to contribute to the war effort he's pushing the costs off onto future generations.

How old are you? You cant be a year older than 18 and probably quoting from your history teacher.
Where do you get your info from? Seriously.
You really dont understand how the economy works cause if you did, you would see that shopping is the BEST advice anyone could give.. Whats he supposed to say "Everyone go out and buy a tank and let the military borrow it so the military doesnt have to buy any.
Once you understand how the economy works in regards to state taxes, oil, jobs, stock market, realstate interest rates, etc then come back with a real thread.

From all your posts you just make yourself look misinformed and uneducated in regards to such.

As far as you voting for Bush. He doesnt need your vote. Kerry sure the hell isnt gonna win. Clark has the best shot and he is not getting the democratic vote.
There are way too many threads about Bush and IRAQ to even bring it up here.

**bermich** · 02-10-2004, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by markas214

States and local govt recieve federal funds. When they are cut the staes and local must raise taxes to offset the loss.

Its called inflation. Check the charts. Property and state taxes went up during Clinton years too. Like I said. If you are gonna try to discuss facts, discuss both sides instead of being blind to it. See the over all picture instead of just what you choose to see.

You wanna know how well California is doing thanks to Bush. Almost anyone who wasnt able to buy a new first house is able to based on the economy and the interest rates lowering to a 30 year low.

**markas214** · 02-10-2004, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by bermich

Who are you quoting. ALL of your posts are based on YOUR OPINION and TRYINGTOGETBIG is posting on FACT and transcripted documentation which was presented NOT JUST ON FOX but on CNN and others.
You are calling him a brainiac? He just proved two of your little quotes on OILprices and Jobs to be incorrect.

Not quite Bermich. He called me "brainiac" As I don't engage in personal attacks. Are you saying I was wrong that gasoline prices are at historical highs or that 2 1/2 million net jobs were lost during GWs presidency? Do you know what the difference between fact and opinion even is?

**bermich** · 02-10-2004, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by chrisAdams

Oh yeah, i forgot, we got him. Osama is dead.

See. We get Saddam and the dems cant say anything about that anymore except now we are invading for no reason.
What happens when we get Osama? Oh he was no threat. But since we have no fact of catching him yet, he is a MAJOR threat to the US and we should have caught him by now instead of going into IRAQ.
No matter what happens, something will wrong with the equation.
I cant see my signature by TTGB reminded me of it. It says it all.

***50%Natural*** · 02-10-2004, 06:21 PM

Also a little side note, the state of the nation has come to where if the nation has to spend more than the minimum(**** near nothing) on the military, there is going to be a defficit. The nation screwed itself a long time ago when it had to get out of the depression. I forget, but who was the party in charge at that time?

We are a wellfare nation, lets just accept it. Look at all the money that goes to programs that in the eyes of the average tax payer(middle class) that are a waste and suck. We got welfare, wic, programs to help the inner city youth, blah blah blah. This nation's economic problems started the second the government decided it had the right to interviene in everyone's lifes to try to make it better(social security). It just got the snowball rolling and now, it is George Bush's fault because it is an avalanche and always will be because public officials would be beaten if they withdrew all the aid oh so common that "helps" the deprived. If one politician said he wanted to just cut those stupid ass programs that the government wastes money on(such as income supplementation of the indians) then then next politician would come along only to make a career out of blowing our money. Wake up, it is a never ending cycle and will only get worse. Like the day when social security fails, but we wont' worry about that, it will just be the presidents fault at the time right?

**Dude-Man** · 02-10-2004, 06:21 PM

All i want to know is, Where's osama? why are there still terrorists? Why hasn't bush solved the problem?

The answers please.

**markas214** · 02-10-2004, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by bermich

Its called inflation. Check the charts. Property and state taxes went up during Clinton years too. Like I said. If you are gonna try to discuss facts, discuss both sides instead of being blind to it. See the over all picture instead of just what you choose to see.

You wanna know how well California is doing thanks to Bush. Almost anyone who wasnt able to buy a new first house is able to based on the economy and the interest rates lowering to a 30 year low.

Is that why only 6% of the people who work in San Jose are able to afford to buy a house there. The whole point of an argumentative discussion is that you have opposing viewpoints. Why would I want to bring in Bush positives? That is what you are here to do.

**bermich** · 02-10-2004, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by markas214

Not quite Bermich. He called me "brainiac" As I don't engage in personal attacks. Are you saying I was wrong that gasoline prices are at historical highs or that 2 1/2 million net jobs were lost during GWs presidency? Do you know what the difference between fact and opinion even is?

Yeah I notice you didnt engage him since he proved you wrong on all your counts.
Historical highs? Like I said. Inflation. If you compare prices of a pack of gum to 5 years ago, it will be at an ALLTIME HIGH.

What does the price of gasoline have to do with BUSH? I thought Bush had IRAQI oil now. So now you are saying we should use IRAQI oil to help decrease gas prices? That would go against everythign you are saying.
What do you want? High gas or do you want to use IRAQI oil?

**DADDYDBOL** · 02-10-2004, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by chrisAdams

All i want to know is, Where's osama? why are there still terrorists? Why hasn't bush solved the problem?

The answers please.

Why didn't Clinton??

Why don't you??

You annoy me...

**bermich** · 02-10-2004, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by markas214

Is that why only 6% of the people who work in San Jose are able to afford to buy a house there. The whole point of an argumentative discussion is that you have opposing viewpoints. Why would I want to bring in Bush positives? That is what you are here to do.

lol. That is the best post you ever typed and the first one I can relate to since I often do the same thing. TTGB is the man for this thread. He has all the facts on this stuff. I cant compete with him and I dont think you can either. He already brought up the job issue. Im done with itl.

***50%Natural*** · 02-10-2004, 06:26 PM

markas you got anything to say about my long ass post? I want to know because you demanded an educational viewpoint to the topic.

**DADDYDBOL** · 02-10-2004, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by 50%Natural

Also a little side note, the state of the nation has come to where if the nation has to spend more than the minimum(**** near nothing) on the military, there is going to be a defficit. The nation screwed itself a long time ago when it had to get out of the depression. I forget, but who was the party in charge at that time?

We are a wellfare nation, lets just accept it. Look at all the money that goes to programs that in the eyes of the average tax payer(middle class) that are a waste and suck. We got welfare, wic, programs to help the inner city youth, blah blah blah. This nation's economic problems started the second the government decided it had the right to interviene in everyone's lifes to try to make it better(social security). It just got the snowball rolling and now, it is George Bush's fault because it is an avalanche and always will be because public officials would be beaten if they withdrew all the aid oh so common that "helps" the deprived. If one politician said he wanted to just cut those stupid ass programs that the government wastes money on(such as income supplementation of the indians) then then next politician would come along only to make a career out of blowing our money. Wake up, it is a never ending cycle and will only get worse. Like the day when social security fails, but we wont' worry about that, it will just be the presidents fault at the time right?

Exactly and instead of rewarding the bussiness owners who provide jobs and secure the growth of the economy we try to tax the hell out of them and punish them for working hard and having sucess.

**bermich** · 02-10-2004, 06:31 PM

As far as the patriot act that Bush signed. I disagree with that and he totally walked over the constitution. He said it was temporary for a year but I dont believe it. I can say though, he is the better of the two as far as a race between demos and repubs.
This is not a time for the nation to be weak with a demo in office. It is not a time for America to let the terrorists rest and regroup. It is time to continue hitting them and using our resources to obtain a territorial advantage. I dont feel a democratic president is a good thing to have right now. Maybe later, but not now.

**markas214** · 02-10-2004, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by 50%Natural

and here now is the pointless bable of someone whose failure of education in economics is very apparent. It really is stupid that people try to point to figures and such as being GB's fault. Of course he has to take the wrap from the uneducated in the matter as such. I have already discussed(in a previous thread) the role of the business cycles as well as financial indicators for the reasons to send the business cycle in a downward slope to recover later. All throughout history, there are dips in the economy as well as high points. Blaming GB shows that you actually know nothing of this. I would never give any economic success as a job well done to a president nor an economic recession as the presidents fault. Prices of stocks and bonds, required rate of return, economic forecasts such as indicators that scare investors play more of a role in how the nation performs, gdp, employement, and inflation than a president's economic policies ever could. Why don't you think a sec and consider who is really the most powerful man in the united states. It aint the president...it's Alan Greenspan. He is the one who controls the economy not the president. Also, I pointed this out in another thread...you want to get pissed because of the national defficiet? Well lets talk a sec then. Who demolished the army after the persian gulf war? Who made our impressive military, built up in the 80's for the anticipation of nuclear war to protect us, and who trashed it? Who was attacked and our military was the weakest its ever been since preWWII? Why was it the weakest? Well, there is an easy answer and you should remember that. When the people are financing the largest and most advanced army in the world for OUR protection it takes money. That is why bush had to spend. We get attacked and we don't have ****. I'd really like you to take that first statement of your thread and show it to any soilder protecting our ass from the rag heads that live for our deaths to advance their own. And, for your information, since you love to quote such tell tale figures, how is the economy doing now? You won't give GB the credit for that so why stick him with the burden of a post 911 economy where millions of jobs were lost as the center of commerce in our nation was destroyed. Man, I wish I could be a hippy

50% I appreciate your opinion. While I disagree at least you present it in an intelligent way. But, please don't tell me I know nothing of business cycles. At my age I've lived through several including ones with 10% unemployment or 20% interest rates. I think my biggest gripe is the transfer of wealth from the middle class to a very few wealthy elite. It used to be that if profitability and productivity increased the workers pay went up in proportion to to execs. Now the extra profits are being hoarded by the CEOs and wealthy shareholders. Look at these guys. Cisco's chairman makes 700 million dollars in a year that the companies valuation was cut in half. Real wages of working Americans is declining while there is an accumulation of wealth not seen since the days of the oil barons.

**bermich** · 02-10-2004, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by DADDYDBOL

Exactly and instead of rewarding the bussiness owners who provide jobs and secure the growth of the economy we try to tax the hell out of them and punish them for working hard and having sucess.

How else are we supposed to take care of our debt that our kids are gonna pay off if WE dont pay our taxes???? You want lower taxes and yet you dont want your kids to have a national debt to pay??

So let me get this straight. You dont want to pay the debt and leave it for the kids, BUT you dont want to leave the debt for your kids?
So what do you want???

**markas214** · 02-10-2004, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by DADDYDBOL

Exactly and instead of rewarding the bussiness owners who provide jobs and secure the growth of the economy we try to tax the hell out of them and punish them for working hard and having sucess.

True but don't forget who's busting his *ss to make him that money. Also there used to be a thing called corporate responsibility where the employer rewarded the employee with decent pay, medical and pension benefits, The trend now is to pay as little as possible and keep all the profits for themselves. Who do you think is better off? A guy making 25k a year taxed at 20% and being left with 20k or the guy making 600k taxed at 40% and being left with 360k. Also these noble business owners are moving jobs overseas to squeeze every penny possible into their own pockets.

**bermich** · 02-10-2004, 06:42 PM

Speaking of Alan Greenspan. You can look at this one of two ways or both ways. I brought up the house issue earlier in CALIF. I dont know about other states but before 3 years ago, CAs interest rate was about 7-8 percent. Now, Alan G felt that the economy was doing good so he dropped the interest rate to an average 4-5 percent. That is a savings on average of 4-500 dollars a month on a house.
At that point, a lot of first time home buyers were able to qualify for a house.
All those elidgable looked for houses at the SAME TIME. Houses were in demand and quantities were limited so houses at 200,000 dollars went up LITERALLY in 2 years to 400,000. The next year they went up still. Now that same 200,000 dollar house sells for 500,000. All the first time home buyers have a sizeable profit in their home they just bought without putting a dime into it. GOOD THING.
BAD THING. Now everyone who doesnt own a house CAN NOT buy a house at 500,000 dollars. Especailly since those houses once cost 200,000 only 2 years ago and are not worth 500,000.
So ALAN really ****ed up CA on that one.
It has nothing to do with BUSH. It has to do with much more indepth workings that I dont fully understand.
The market will stabalize, the interest rates will go up. People wont qualify and houses wont sell as fast. People selling their house will find it more difficult to find buyers, the house will sell for less to make a quick sale. People will wait for that good deal on a house and wait forcing other houses to lower their prices.
In 4 years, those same 500,000 houses will once again be selling for 300 maybe 350.
It has nothing to do with who is president.

***50%Natural*** · 02-10-2004, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by markas214

50% I appreciate your opinion. While I disagree at least you present it in an intelligent way. But, please don't tell me I know nothing of business cycles. At my age I've lived through several including ones with 10% unemployment or 20% interest rates. I think my biggest gripe is the transfer of wealth from the middle class to a very few wealthy elite. It used to be that if profitability and productivity increased the workers pay went up in proportion to to execs. Now the extra profits are being hoarded by the CEOs and wealthy shareholders. Look at these guys. Cisco's chairman makes 700 million dollars in a year that the companies valuation was cut in half. Real wages of working Americans is declining while there is an accumulation of wealth not seen since the days of the oil barons.

I know you have lived through several. I would think though that maybe you would understand that the president has little control over the economy. That is my point. I don't like it when people hide behind figures that don't really tell the whole story. Graphs of unelmployemnt and such should include a z axis or something to include investments or some sort of a financial position that shows why the jobs are being lost or something and they have nothing to do with the president. Yes, I agree that it does suck that ceo's are making so much money but that didn't seem like a big topic of your original post. It was the bashing of a president who pulled us out of the worst domestic terrorist attack to day. I think you should give some credit to a man who is trying to keep our asses alive.

**DADDYDBOL** · 02-10-2004, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by bermich

How else are we supposed to take care of our debt that our kids are gonna pay off if WE dont pay our taxes???? You want lower taxes and yet you dont want your kids to have a national debt to pay??

So let me get this straight. You dont want to pay the debt and leave it for the kids, BUT you dont want to leave the debt for your kids?
So what do you want???

Huh? I don't understand the question.

I am saying we should not put the majority of the tax burden on the rich, why tax them heavier for their sucess? I think they should pay their share but they should not carry the majority due to their sucess.

What motivates me to open another branch? So I will have higher taxes? My family has owned a very sucessfull bussiness and they sold it and sent it down the drain because of this. Its not what America is about, I understand that it must get paid but when you take the motivation out of small business owners you are cutting Americas throat.

***50%Natural*** · 02-10-2004, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by bermich

Speaking of Alan Greenspan. You can look at this one of two ways or both ways. I brought up the house issue earlier in CALIF. I dont know about other states but before 3 years ago, CAs interest rate was about 7-8 percent. Now, Alan G felt that the economy was doing good so he dropped the interest rate to an average 4-5 percent. That is a savings on average of 4-500 dollars a month on a house.
At that point, a lot of first time home buyers were able to qualify for a house.
All those elidgable looked for houses at the SAME TIME. Houses were in demand and quantities were limited so houses at 200,000 dollars went up LITERALLY in 2 years to 400,000. The next year they went up still. Now that same 200,000 dollar house sells for 500,000. All the first time home buyers have a sizeable profit in their home they just bought without putting a dime into it. GOOD THING.
BAD THING. Now everyone who doesnt own a house CAN NOT buy a house at 500,000 dollars. Especailly since those houses once cost 200,000 only 2 years ago and are not worth 500,000.
So ALAN really ****ed up CA on that one.
It has nothing to do with BUSH. It has to do with much more indepth workings that I dont fully understand.
The market will stabalize, the interest rates will go up. People wont qualify and houses wont sell as fast. People selling their house will find it more difficult to find buyers, the house will sell for less to make a quick sale. People will wait for that good deal on a house and wait forcing other houses to lower their prices.
In 4 years, those same 500,000 houses will once again be selling for 300 maybe 350.
It has nothing to do with who is president.

\

Actually, Greenspan will only drop interest rates if the economy is slowing to spur people to spend money

**bermich** · 02-10-2004, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by markas214

True but don't forget who's busting his *ss to make him that money. Also there used to be a thing called corporate responsibility where the employer rewarded the employee with decent pay, medical and pension benefits, The trend now is to pay as little as possible and keep all the profits for themselves. Who do you think is better off? A guy making 25k a year taxed at 20% and being left with 20k or the guy making 600k taxed at 40% and being left with 360k. Also these noble business owners are moving jobs overseas to squeeze every penny possible into their own pockets.

Well now. With the democratics forcing companies to provide health care and workmens compensation and all that, I wonder why companies are being forces over seas. People want FREE medicare and they also want to be paid more. People must see that there has to be a balance.

Without the rich, the middle class wouldnt have any jobs. Dont start griping at the rich cause if you were rich you wouldnt be griping.
Workmens comp PER employee is 400 dollars a month. That is a lot of money. Not including his medicare which is another 100 dollars average.
So it costs 500 dollars out of the business owners pocket just to HAVE an employee.

***50%Natural*** · 02-10-2004, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by markas214

True but don't forget who's busting his *ss to make him that money. Also there used to be a thing called corporate responsibility where the employer rewarded the employee with decent pay, medical and pension benefits, The trend now is to pay as little as possible and keep all the profits for themselves. Who do you think is better off? A guy making 25k a year taxed at 20% and being left with 20k or the guy making 600k taxed at 40% and being left with 360k. Also these noble business owners are moving jobs overseas to squeeze every penny possible into their own pockets.

actually, the trend is to help make stock holders happy as the are the center point of the economy. If the stockholders aren't happy or don't want to invest then the company will fail to exists except in bankruptcy.

**DADDYDBOL** · 02-10-2004, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by bermich

Well now. With the democratics forcing companies to provide health care and workmens compensation and all that, I wonder why companies are being forces over seas. People want FREE medicare and they also want to be paid more. People must see that there has to be a balance.

Without the rich, the middle class wouldnt have any jobs. Dont start griping at the rich cause if you were rich you wouldnt be griping.
Workmens comp PER employee is 400 dollars a month. That is a lot of money. Not including his medicare which is another 100 dollars average.
So it costs 500 dollars out of the business owners pocket just to HAVE an employee.

Uhh my point exactly...