Thanks a ton Obama, really appreciate it.

[LobsterX]

Originally Posted by SANguru

but do you seriously think McCain or Palin for crying out loud would do any better? McCain is so old he can't even lift up his arm to count his fingers and Palin and counting.. not a chance...

McCain can no longer lift his arms up because of his wartime injuries being a POW, NOT because he is old. Shame on you...

[X5Dawg]

I really think we are giving Obama too much credit here. We need to realize HE IS A PUPPET!!!!

There is no way he put together all of this crap for the short amount of time he has been in office. This has all been in play in the background as the Dems took over the congress and senate (I put those in lower case bc that is where they deserve to be). If (sorry, WHEN) all of this goes to hell, he (Obama) is going to be the scape-goat. I can hear it now, "It's all his fault!!" while all of the others are still serving in their elected positions bc the majority of America would rather spend their time watching American Idol or Entertainment Tonight rather than vote these losers out to get some real leadership.

My vote is for all of those that are sick of what is going on is to join together and not pay their taxes for one year so that the money is not there to fund all of this crap. They can't put everyone in jail bc they don't even have room to put actual criminals in there. Plus, with all of the elected officials that we are now seeing that have not paid their taxes, why should we be motivated to do so. Isn't that some shit - they have no problem raising taxes because they don't pay them!!!

Damnit - time for another drink!!!

[jewelthief]

i sure miss mccain

[jewelthief]

according to the media x5dawg most support his plan

Polls: Most support Obama's economic plan - White House- msnbc.com

Maybe the poll results are correct.....but all of the people that support it I'm sure [#1] Understand NOTHING about what is in it, and [#2] Are surely NOT the people that will ever have to PAY for it.


They are probably the leeches who were laying home from work and able to be in a poll.

[X5Dawg]

Originally Posted by jewelthief

but all of the people that support it I'm sure [#1] Understand NOTHING about what is in it, and [#2] Are surely NOT the people that will ever have to PAY for it. They are probably the leeches who were laying home from work and able to be in a poll.

Exactly!!!! Hell, the people who approved the bill didn't know what all was in it!!! Thank goodness, there were no earmarks in it!!!!

[JCL]

Originally Posted by FSETH

What I have heard is that there are some supporters of decreasing mortgage interest deductions for homes over 3,000 sq.ft. and basically eliminating them on homes over about 4,200 sq.ft. for environmental reasons. They basically state that the larger homes have a bigger carbon footprint and should be punished.

The entire real estate industry is a huge part of our overall economy. I really don't think eliminating mortage interest deductions across the board is a good thing. The problem isn't with people wanting to be home owners. It is with the banks giving people who were not economically qualified to be "owners" in the first place a mortgage. Or getting them into a larger house than they could afford with ARM mortgages. This goes back to the loosened Fannie Mae requirements of the Clinton era, IMO.

That seems silly to me, to have different deductions based on the size of the house. If you want to promote saving energy, tax carbon and not the size of the house, since some large houses have heat pumps and some small houses have single pane glass, just as an example.

The problem that I am talking about isn't just with the unqualified lenders. It is with a society that has lived on credit beyond its means, at many levels, from the unqualified borrowers to the banks running on handouts. If that is recognized as a problem, then promoting personal borrowing (which is unproductive, unlike business borrowing) with tax deductions is part of the problem.

[FSETH]

Originally Posted by JCL

That seems silly to me, to have different deductions based on the size of the house. If you want to promote saving energy, tax carbon and not the size of the house, since some large houses have heat pumps and some small houses have single pane glass, just as an example.

The problem that I am talking about isn't just with the unqualified lenders. It is with a society that has lived on credit beyond its means, at many levels, from the unqualified borrowers to the banks running on handouts. If that is recognized as a problem, then promoting personal borrowing (which is unproductive, unlike business borrowing) with tax cuts is part of the problem.

I agree with you as well. It is silly to do it based on size alone, but this was their response;

Though he says he recognizes that newly constructed houses may be "more energy efficient" than older ones, their "sheer size, sprawl and commutes lead to dramatically more energy use - or to put it more simply, a larger carbon footprint."

This idea has been thrown around for over a year or so and I think the biggest supporter was Rep. John Dingell, D-Michigan.

I agree 100% that we have become too dependent on financing for everything in our lives. Mortgage financing (when done correctly) is very important and a necessity because of the sheer cost of the purchase, but we as a society have become too dependent on finacing for everyday purchases like furniture, appliances, electronics and so on. I read an article today that suggested that this recession could be the beginning of a new trend toward a savings based lifestyle in the US with smaller homes and more economical choices all around. I guess only time will tell.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by SANguru

I find that number 2.3% hard to believe considering 250K in CA is really lower middle class with the cost of living here.

That might be just a bit of a stretch. I used Wikipedia (sorry, it was convenient). It says that the US Census Bureau in 2007/2008 ranked California median household income at #8 of the US states. The figure is $59,950 for California, well above the national median household income of $50,740. You could double it, or triple it, if you like, but to suggest that four times the median is really lower middle class doesn't seem right. Just saying. Maybe I am missing something.

[FSETH]

Originally Posted by JCL

That might be just a bit of a stretch. I used Wikipedia (sorry, it was convenient). It says that the US Census Bureau in 2007/2008 ranked California median household income at #8 of the US states. The figure is $59,950 for California, well above the national median household income of $50,740. You could double it, or triple it, if you like, but to suggest that four times the median is really lower middle class doesn't seem right. Just saying. Maybe I am missing something.

I don't want to speak for anyone, but he was probably referring to his local area. Seems like many of the California X5 world members tend to live in very upscale parts of the state where the average incomes would typically be well above the state and US averages.

[JCL]

Yeah, I know. It was a bit tongue in cheek.

I think it is great that a lot of us can buy and enjoy BMW vehicles. Some of us have other luxury or sport cars as well, and that is great. I don't begrudge anyone their success, in any way. I do think, however, that it is good to keep a perspective across the broader socio-economic spectrum.