319 Responses to ** Republican happy hour at Dubliner **

Pages: « 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16]

1. 301. nojokin | July 31st, 2008 at 1:59 pm

   MidnightRacer wrote:

   strand tramp wrote:

   you don’t mean it. you think you mean it, but you do not. there is absolutely NO reason to vote for hussein obama. except of course for…for…wait for it…waaaaaait…FOR CHANGE !!! YEAH YEAH, LETS ALL HAVE SOME CHANGE….YEAH VOTE FOR CHANGE !!! YEAAAAAAAAH!

   Of course I don’t mean it. But I really wish those who want it would suffer the consequences of their denial before it hurt the rest of us.

   OK, I’ll revise my plan…

   The U.S.A. gets a new structure in the republic which is our government (not a democracy). Elect whoever, whatever. But make policies a choice and separate entity (with accountability, of course).

   All those in favor of Obama and significant tax hikes in person and capital gains tax increase shall be taxed at those higher rates (across the board, same taxes for everyone).

   All those in favor of the McCain and his policies in taxes shall be effected in that tax structure, across the board (same).

   True representation.

   If you favor tax hikes, you get taxed more - directly, individually.

   If you support only limited government and basic standard tax rates, then you get taxed at that rate.

   What do you think?

   I think that those with lower taxes would get lower services for one. How would you propose allocating shared services like defense and roads to those who are paying less?

2. 302. strand tramp | July 31st, 2008 at 2:05 pm

   or you could look for 2 minutes of the effect of tax rates on real revenue collected and THEN consider the reality of our extremely progressive tax code. then, just then you might see thru all the class warfare bulls!t put out by the left. 70% of the income tax revenue is paid by 50% of the population. 50% of the revenue is paid by the top 10%…do you think these people might be able to control when they generate taxable revenue? pal you really gotta step back and take a look. it’s all published. there’s no big secret going on. the Bush tax cuts produced the biggest tax revenue stream in the history of this country. obama will push us off a cliff with his asinine economic ideas. this d-head has never had a job in his life. most of the posters here have a more impressive resume’

3. 303. matt_72 | July 31st, 2008 at 2:08 pm

   nojokin wrote:

   I’m a fiscal conservative. I don’t want a tax hike. But when we have a half trillion dollar deficit, we really have little choice. We either cut spending or raise taxes.

   With Social security, medicare, medicaid, defense, and intelligence accounting for 90% of the budget, where are you going to cut?

   If you got rid of only the farm subsidies and earmarks, that would easily take care of $100mm of that $500mm. You telling me you don’t think they can cut most of that deficit by either cutting spending or reducing the rate of growth in spending? There are litterally hundreds of other programs they could trim to reign in spending if they wanted to. And they could repeal laws like the Davis-Bacon Act which force federal contractors to pay above market wages to workers on federally funded construction sites (costs the Fed almost $10bn/yr - states that have similar laws also waste tens of billions a year). The cuts are there……..you just have to make them.

4. 304. bradykp | July 31st, 2008 at 2:10 pm

   matt_72 wrote:

   I agree on your theories that a home isn’t an investment. But that doesn’t change the fact that prices are still too high, that the buyers are still at lower price points and that a bailout will only keep prices from falling to a market clearing price. We need the market to hit rock bottom before there is any recovery, not more government intervention. And it will take a very long time to get to that bottom so long as the government is bailing out troubled borrowers. And I don’t even get why they are doing it. People that are underwater on their mortgages are better off walking away - and taxpayers are better off not having to help out people w/ negatve equity in their homes.

   i agree that prices are still to high, i think the government feels the need to step in to stop the rates of foreclosures and the overall drag on the economy.

   i read something 6-9 months ago how if all the expected foreclosures happen, the result would be a huge net loss in the value of everyone’s homes….i forget the figures….but this would then resonate throughout the economy.

   i’m not saying the gov’t is right by doing what they’re doing, but i understand the approach and the attempt to fend it off.

5. 305. MidnightRacer | July 31st, 2008 at 2:11 pm

   RE: #301

   How? You act responsibly and look at your revs and priorities in a limited government and spend only on your direct duties at each level - Federal protects the homeland (military) and sets the standard for interstate commerce, State managements each state’s commerce and economic growth (merit/reward to counties which perform), City does the same for their areas.

   The rest of the money stay with the people who take a risk and invest in free market ideas they believe will create growth for the country and a good return personally.

6. 306. MidnightRacer | July 31st, 2008 at 2:13 pm

   I like my “Vote Your Own tax Rate” idea. Anyone else interested?

   Government would be limited to only spend what they have. We cut up the credit card.

7. 307. Stabone130 | July 31st, 2008 at 2:13 pm

   Arguing politics in a post about a Happy Hour. Got love it.

   As they say, arguing on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Even if you think you’ve won, you’re still retarded.

8. 308. bradykp | July 31st, 2008 at 2:15 pm

   MidnightRacer wrote:

   Being that I’m one of those in the market for a new home, I agree this is the rationale. I’ve been waiting on the market to hit rock bottom. My original plan was to get a single family house in the burbs. But because prices sky rocketed at multiples within a few years, I’ve steered towards thinking a 2-bedroom condo in Hoboken is a lot safer than a single family house in the burbs. There’ll always be a stronger market in Hoboken and NYC than suburbia. And with the recent uptick in energy costs, I’d say that those in urban centers are also waiting for rock bottom home prices before moving further away from the cities. As well, those jumbo loans are near extinction for the average home buyer = less buyers at the current prices which require jumbo loans. There’ll always be a segment of the population who can buy the higher priced homes, but without easy credit for the average home buyer, there’s no cash for them to get a loan. So, homes sit in inventory for an undetermined length of time.

   Im ready to buy, but am unwilling to purchase a single family house when I see the asking prices continue to fall every month - which I watch daily. Why would I want to buy something that’ll be worth less at closing.

   so are you going to wait til they hit bottom by waiting to see when they start to rise again? getting in at the bottom would be mostly luck, though there are some indicators to follow.

   i think you just have to ask yourself how long you’ll be in that place. if it’s 5+ yrs, you’ll weather out whatever small remaining downturn there is. if you have the means to do it, you’d most likely come ahead with getting out of rent and getting into a home, even if it drops 5% in the next 2 yrs, then slowly recovers. i forget the stat, but i think homes on average return 7% over inflation….but that’s probably assuming 10+ yr chunks. i’m just waiting til i have the down payment (which cost is also a factor in…)

9. 309. MidnightRacer | July 31st, 2008 at 2:15 pm

   You can’t say that Stabone130. The guy dressed as a burrito and helmet from Kick’n It Old School is gonna kick your arse.

10. 310. strand tramp | July 31st, 2008 at 2:15 pm

    I AGREE! CUT THE FARM SUSIDY NOW!. and pull the ethanol mandate immediately! ethanol doesn’t work. was a worse idea than social security. the minute you cut it grain prices will drop, all food prices will drop for that matter. the falling commodity prices will cause a decline in inflation, the dollar will rally. and rally. and rally. and as a result oil prices (in dollars) will also drop. equity markets would also rally in a huge way as dollar assets are bought up by non-dollar investors as well as domestics. other classes of assets (uh, that would be homes) will be buoyed to some degree, but the resurgence of 401k’s and cash accounts will restore consumer confidence and people will spend freely again.
    problems all solved. i will be available to accept the nobel prize in person. i need a drink. you are all welcome.

11. 311. Hosea220 | July 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pm

    Term limits for congress!!!

    I say throw them ALL out this year. Vote for the opposer, regardless of party.

12. 312. MidnightRacer | July 31st, 2008 at 2:22 pm

    bradykp wrote:

    so are you going to wait til they hit bottom by waiting to see when they start to rise again? getting in at the bottom would be mostly luck, though there are some indicators to follow.

    Would be nice, wouldn’t it. But in reality, it’ll be based on numbers and emotion of wanting a house. There are a ton of resources out there which allow you to view the recent sales of specific homes (for sale) and see that sales history of the previous owners. That, and a review of the appraisal value gives you a ball park number to target. NJ, FL, and CA have all speculated upwards of 4-6 times market values of several years ago. And I know what the homes in the areas I’m interested in hover around for decades. I’m OK paying a little above 2003 prices. That’s my target. That’s my buy-in.

    And, luckily, I’m seeing prices right now that interest me. I’ll put in an offer ~10% less than asking for units on the market for 6-12 months already, and I believe I’ll get it. But most likely, the sellers will be someone who bought it 10-15 years ago and still gain modestly from their original price. Win win.

13. 313. strand tramp | July 31st, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    i would wait for the property tax hikes before buying. prices will drop like a rock.

14. 314. jscirish27 | July 31st, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    Cut the farm subsidy. Absolutely agree. Not only would it cause food prices to fall, but it would encourage diversity in US agriculture.

15. 315. MidnightRacer | July 31st, 2008 at 2:33 pm

    strand tramp wrote:

    i would wait for the property tax hikes before buying. prices will drop like a rock.

    Good advice. Yeah, I know. I watched it happen last year with the tax increases in South Orange and Maplewood - that whole county. That’s why I’m sticking with Morris County. Unless Gov. Corzine goes crazy and strong arms Morris County, I feel pretty safe.

16. 316. Easy-E | July 31st, 2008 at 2:34 pm

    Stabone130 wrote:

    Arguing politics in a post about a Happy Hour. Got love it.

    As they say, arguing on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Even if you think you’ve won, you’re still retarded.

    Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!

17. 317. bradykp | July 31st, 2008 at 10:39 pm

    here’s an interesting article to think about (not in response to the wsj article, i just happened to read this today):

    money.cnn.com/2008/07/24/magazines/...neymag/105711588.moneymag/index.htm

18. 318. matt_72 | July 31st, 2008 at 11:48 pm

    bradykp wrote:

    matt_72 wrote:

    I agree on your theories that a home isn’t an investment. But that doesn’t change the fact that prices are still too high, that the buyers are still at lower price points and that a bailout will only keep prices from falling to a market clearing price. We need the market to hit rock bottom before there is any recovery, not more government intervention. And it will take a very long time to get to that bottom so long as the government is bailing out troubled borrowers. And I don’t even get why they are doing it. People that are underwater on their mortgages are better off walking away - and taxpayers are better off not having to help out people w/ negatve equity in their homes.

    i agree that prices are still to high, i think the government feels the need to step in to stop the rates of foreclosures and the overall drag on the economy.

    i read something 6-9 months ago how if all the expected foreclosures happen, the result would be a huge net loss in the value of everyone’s homes….i forget the figures….but this would then resonate throughout the economy.

    i’m not saying the gov’t is right by doing what they’re doing, but i understand the approach and the attempt to fend it off.

    Any “net loss” in value is irrelevent. The gain was a paper gain, the loss will be a paper loss. You don’t have a real loss unless you try and sell the house and the vast majority of homeowners have no intention of selling and moving. And even if they did move, the house they move into would be also cheaper so they are just swapping into another place that is also at a lower price point. All the government is doing is artificially propping up prices and preventing prices from quickly correcting to where the real market is.

    And the government stepping in isn’t at all going to help the market recover. Bailing out underwater homebuyers doesn’t help sell homes. It may help people who have no equity in home and are unable to afford their mortgage stay in their home for a while, but it won’t at all help new homebuyers be able to afford a new home. If you want the market to correct and to recover, you have to hit bottom. Otherwise, you will just limp along in a la-la-land like the Japanese real estate market did back in the 1990s when their real estate bubble collapsed. Their real estate market (and economy) limped along for years b/c the government never forced the banks to clean up the problem loans. They never wrote them down, foreclosed on the assets or sold the assets (or loans) at distressed prices to investors. Instead of quickly taking the write-offs and pain all at once, the whole market just drifted in no-mans land and dragged down their entire economy for over a decade. You had people that owned all this real estate and had massive mortgages that they couldn’t pay, banks that never foreclosed on the assets or wrote the loans down and absolutely no buyers. If you want the buyers to buy, you have to get the prices down to where they are, and that means foreclosures.

19. 319. bradykp | August 1st, 2008 at 12:19 am

    i understand your points matt, but people that have a lot of equity in their house might use that equity to build an addition, remodel their kitchen, take a vacation, etc etc. debt is a big part of our economy no?

    take away that “paper net worth” and you take away an effective line of credit that they qualify for, that is tax deductible interest. just a point. i agree with you that the market needs to bottom out, the government’s thoughts is just that they don’t want it to be a completely dropout all at once. right or wrong, that’s what they’re thinking.

Pages: « 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16]

You must be logged in to post a comment.