.
.
.
I won't sign that GOP budget
What a sad story for our country when the commander-in-chief says he will veto legislation before it is even voted up or down in the House. President Obama. Why are you objecting to a balanced federal budget?
As I research the issue of balancing public sector budgets I discovered that only Vermont, North Dakota and Wyoming do not mandate balanced budgets. Looking further you will find that each of these states population is less than 700,000, not exactly major players when it relates to their revenue and expenditures.
If you or I as private citizens decide to buy now and pay later, be it for a new car or truck or perhaps a new home, the only people impacted are ourselves (and the lender). We do not burden our next door neighbors with our decisions by forcing them to bail us out by paying higher taxes if our decision making results in our becoming upside down.
When network and cable TV pundits say the president has not presented a budget perhaps they forget the 97-0 vote when this past May his $3.7 trillion dollar budget plan was rebuked by every Democrat in the Senate. It’s so easy to speak in generalities, and engage in scare tactics, when you do not present a plan that Congress might actually be willing to accept.
Question for readers: Should the Senate approve HR 2560, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act?
Gosh Larry, maybe if you pulled your head out of the muck that is Faux News you might HEAR why the Cut, Cap and Balance Act is such a TERRIBLE IDEA.
From Media Matters;
While Economic Experts On Both Sides Have Said A Balanced Budget Amendment Would Make Recessions Worse And Harm The Economy …
Former George H.W. Bush Treasury Official: Amendment “Would Force The Federal Government To Make Economic Recessions Worse.” Bruce Bartlett wrote in a Fiscal Times column that a balanced budget amendment “would force the federal government to make economic recessions worse. Since federal revenues fall and spending rises automatically in economic downturns, it would force spending cuts and tax increases at precisely the point when the economy is reeling, potentially turning a modest downturn into a depression.” [The Fiscal Times, 8/27/10]
AEI’s Ornstein: Balanced Budget Amendment Is “About The Most Irresponsible Action Imaginable.” CNN.com reported:
Striving to achieve a balanced budget by way of a constitutional amendment would be “irresponsible,” according to one seasoned congressional observer.
“It is about the most irresponsible action imaginable,” said Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “It would virtually ensure that an economic downturn would end up as a deep depression, by erasing any real ability of the government to pursue countercyclical fiscal policies and in fact demanding the opposite, at the worst possible time.” [CNNMoney, 3/29/11]
EPI: If Balanced Budget Amendment Was Already In Effect, It “Would Depress Our Nascent Recovery.” From a briefing paper prepared by the Economic Policy Institute:
While a BBA would force budget balance, it would have negative economic effects in both the short and the long run. Indeed, as with concerns about a global spending cap, one of the most troubling aspects of a BBA is the constraint imposed on countercyclical fiscal policy at times of economic downturn. During economic downturns, revenues fall while public expenditures automatically rise. A BBA would require the federal government to reduce its spending to match reduced revenues, or impose tax hikes in the midst of a recession, forcing a fiscal policy that would exacerbate the recession. Indeed, premature fiscal retrenchment was tried in 1937, causing a double dip in the Great Depression.
If previously in effect or if implemented today, a BBA would depress our nascent recovery. This policy would deprive government of the ability to step in and act during a recession, that is, at a time of exceedingly low consumer and business demand. The policy would in fact force the opposite–a pullback in federal demand for goods and services. With 14 million people still unemployed, a return to prerecession unemployment rates by 2016 is unlikely absent policies that work to fill the gap in private-sector demand for goods and services. The most promising policy lever to fill this gap in the near term is expansionary fiscal policy (Bivens 2011). A BBA would restrict the government’s capacity to pursue expansionary fiscal policies in times of economic crisis, and derail any recovery: For example, closing the current trillion dollar budget deficit projected for next year through any combination of spending cuts or tax increases would devastate the economic recovery.[[9]] [Economic Policy Institute, “Why Spending Caps Are Poor Policy”, 6/22/11]
CBO Director Elmendorf: Balanced Budget Amendment “Risks Making The Economy Less Stable, Risks Exacerbating The Swings In Business Cycles.” During his Juanuary 2011 testimony to the Senate Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said of a balanced budget amendment:
Amending the Constitution to require this sort of balance raises risks that you’re aware of. The — the automatic stabilizers that the government has, the federal government has, the fact that taxes fall when the economy weakens and that spending and benefit programs increases when the economy weakens, in an automatic way, under existing law, is an important stabilizing force for the aggregate economy; the fact that state governments need to work, as you said, against those effects in their own budget, need to — need to take action to raise taxes or cut spending in recessions undoes the automatic stabilizers, essentially, at the state level.
Taking those away at the federal level risks making the economy less stable, risks exacerbating the swings in business cycles. [CQ Transcriptions, 1/27/11, via Nexis]
CBPP: Amendment “Would Threaten Significant Economic Harm.” The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained why a balanced budget amendment “would be a highly ill-advised way to address the nation’s long-term fiscal problems”:
It would threaten significant economic harm while raising a host of problems for the operation of Social Security and other vital federal functions.
The economic problems are the most serious, and they would pertain to any version of a constitutional balanced budget amendment. By requiring a balanced budget every year, no matter the state of the economy, such an amendment would raise serious risks of tipping weak economies into recession and making recessions longer and deeper, causing very large job losses. That’s because the amendment would force policymakers to cut spending, raise taxes, or both just when the economy is weak or already in recession — the exact opposite of what good economic policy would advise.
When the economy slows, federal revenues decline or grow more slowly and spending on unemployment insurance and other social programs increases, causing deficits to rise. Rather than allowing the “automatic stabilizers” of lower tax collections and higher unemployment and other benefits to cushion a weak economy, the amendment would force policymakers to cut spending, raise taxes, or both. That would launch a vicious spiral of bad economic and fiscal policy: a weak economy would lead to higher deficits, which would force policymakers to cut spending or raise taxes more, which would weaken the economy further.
The fact that states must balance their budgets every year — no matter how the economy is performing – makes it even more important that the federal government not also face this requirement and thus further impair a faltering economy. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/6/11]
OMB Watch: Balanced Budget Amendment “Could Impede Economic Recoveries.” According to OMB Watch:
Over the past 30 fiscal years, the federal government has run a surplus only three times. In the past three years, the government has seen deficits totaling almost $3.5 trillion, and the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) baseline prediction shows deficits for at least the next decade. With such a history and with the recent rise of the Tea Party and its fiscally conservative contingent in Congress, it is unsurprising that balanced budget amendments to the Constitution are once again finding their way to the national agenda. While forcing Congress to balance the books through a constitutional mandate may be appealing to many fiscal hawks, a balanced budget amendment could impede economic recoveries following Wall Street meltdowns and other calamities. [OMB Watch, 1/25/11]
Klein: Balanced Budget Amendment Would “Make Future Recessions Worse.” Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein wrote:
Another problem: In a recession, tax revenue plummets and GDP stops growing, but spending has to be sustained, or even increased, to a) give people unemployment insurance and Medicaid and other services they need and b) keep the economy from contracting violently. This amendments includes no provisions for recessions, meaning that when the economy contracted, the government would have to contract as well. That is to say, we’re still not out of one of the deepest recessions in American history, and every Senate Republican has co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to make future recessions worse. It’s just breathtaking. [The Washington Post, 4/1/11]
Progressive And Good Government Organizations: Balanced Budget Amendment “Would Damage The Economy.” A letter co-signed by 247 progressive and good government organizations sent to Congress stated:
A balanced budget constitutional amendment would damage the economy, not strengthen it. Demanding that policymakers cut spending and/or raise taxes, even when the economy slows, is the opposite of what is needed to stabilize a weak economy and avert recessions. Such steps would risk tipping a faltering economy into recession or worsening an ongoing downturn, costing large numbers of jobs while blocking worthy investments to stimulate jobs and growth and address the nation’s urgent needs in infrastructure and other areas.
In short, this amendment is a recipe for making recessions more frequent, longer, and deeper, while requiring severe cuts that would harshly affect seniors, children, veterans, people with disabilities, homeland security activities, public safety, environmental protection, education and medical research. [Mother Jones, 7/13/11]
… And That A Balanced Budget Amendment Would Force Drastic Cuts To Major Government Programs
Bartlett: If Already In Force, Balanced Budget Amendment Would Have Cut More Than $300 Billion From Social Security And Medicare in 2009. Bruce Bartlett, former George H.W. Bush Treasury official and Reagan domestic policy advisor, wrote in a Fiscal Times column that: “It’s doubtful that BBA supporters really understand the composition of federal spending. In fiscal year 2009, we would have had to abolish every discretionary spending program, including national defense, to balance the budget and that still wouldn’t have been enough without higher revenues. We would have had to cut more than $300 billion out of Medicare and Social Security as well.” [The Fiscal Times, 8/27/10]
CBPP: A Balanced Budget Amendment “Would Inexorably Subject Social Security And Medicare To Deep Reductions.” From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
The measure does not cut Social Security or Medicare in 2012. And it does not subject them to automatic cuts if its global spending caps are missed. It is inconceivable, however, that policymakers would meet the bill’s severe annual spending caps through automatic across-the-board cuts year after year; if they did, key government functions would be crippled.
Policymakers would have little alternative but to institute deep cuts in specific programs. And as noted elsewhere in this statement, before the debt limit could be raised, Congress would have to approve a constitutional balanced budget amendment that essentially requires cuts even deeper than those in the Ryan budget. Reaching and maintaining a balanced budget in the decade ahead while barring any tax increases would necessitate deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. After all, by 2021, total expenditures for these three programs will be nearly 45 percent greater than expenditures for all other programs (except interest payments) combined. Big cuts in these programs would be inevitable. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11]
EPI: “Not Even Eviscerating Medicare, Medicaid, And Social Security” Would Meet Goals Of A Balanced Budget Amendment And Spending Cap. The Economic Policy Institute analyzed a plan to cap spending and institute a balanced budget amendment:
In short, not even eviscerating Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security would generate adequate savings to meet the balanced budget amendment global spending cap within 50 years.
Put differently, the balanced budget amendment would require more than twice the deficit reduction proposed in the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission report, but over a considerably shorter time horizon and with all deficit reduction placed on spending cuts. (The Bowles-Simpson report was widely criticized at the time for cutting roughly $2 in spending for every $1 in revenue raised). Again, this cap is a political non-starter. [Economic Policy Institute, 3/31/11]
Klein: Entire Reagan, Bush Administrations Would Have Violated Amendment’s Spending Cap. Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein noted:
Not a single year of the Bush administration would qualify as constitutional under this amendment. Nor would a single year of the Reagan administration. The Clinton administration would’ve had exactly two years in which it wasn’t in violation.
Read that again: Every single Senate Republican has endorsed a constitutional amendment that would’ve made Ronald Reagan’s fiscal policy unconstitutional. [The Washington Post, 4/1/11]
Anonster. Media Matters. A great and reputable source. Let’s see how many Democrats in the House vote in support of HR 2560.
Perhaps you might share your own views rather than cutting and pasting the encyclopedia Britannica
Beat me to the punch Larry. What a hypocrite Anonster is for attacking your purported source with one from the leftist hallowed halls.
I am sorry about the length of the above article, but this is important and I know that the conservatives never go to provided links, they prefer to only hear/see crazy Faux News talking points.
What made me laugh was the very first sentence of this post. Ohhhh, what a sad day for America! Ohhh the horror. The President says he’ll veto something before it’s voted on. Like no other President has done that. Ohhh the weeping and gnashing of teeth. Ohhhh, how will we survive?
Anon. It’s OK for el presidente to scare those on Social Security that if the GOP does not cave by Aug 2nd seniors may not receive their monthly checks.
What BS. Don’t screw up my 50th birthday bash with trivial stuff such as this bill
Nice piece Larry. I view the length of Annonster’s replies to be directly proportional to the soundness of the logic of the original piece. Keep it coming Larry.
Only simpletons demand simple answers.
sim·ple·ton (s m p l-t n). n. A person who is felt to be deficient in judgment, good sense, or intelligence; a fool. …
simpleton – a person who quotes a bunch of random crap from questionable sources and then screams really loud.
Geoff: Over time you discover who these unnamed people are, and where they stand, by their leftist comments.
The House just passed the Cut, Cap and Balance Act. From the Hill: Dem. “Reps. Heath Shuler (N.C.), Dan Boren (Okla.) Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.) and Jim Cooper (Tenn.) all voted for the GOP “cut, cap and balance” plan that passed the House Tuesday on a vote of 234-190. The support from Democrats was a surprise, one GOP leadership aide said.
GOP presidential candidates Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Ron Paul (Tex.) were among the nine House Republicans to vote no. The others were Reps. Paul Broun (Ga.), Quico Canseco (Tex.), Scott DesJarlais (Tenn.), Morgan Griffith (Va.), Connie Mack (Fla.), Walter Jones (N.C) and Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.).”
As president Obama keeps referring to the Gang of Six perhaps we should have the Orange Juice Gang of Six with Anon, Anonster and Vern on one side and Cook, me and yourself as their opponents.
Just a thought as we debate this issue.
The House Republicans…redefining the word “compromise” before our very eyes.
Noah Webster, your services are no longer needed.
I would have told them not to be “surprised” by the support of Heath Shuler and the other three DINOS.
As far as your OJ Gang of Six goes, I think Newbie will resent being supplanted by Cook, who is actually somewhat unpredictable.
” random crap from questionable sources”
I know that actually taking the time to EDUCATE yourself on the subject you’re pontificating upon is an anathema to you conservatives, but if you had bothered to READ the above article you would have LEARNED that it quotes;
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Bruce Bartlett (former Reagan policy advisor) from the Fiscal Times
Economic Policy Institute
Norman Ornstein from the American Enterprise Institute
CBO
OMB Watch
Ezra Klein from the Washington Post
Hardly “questionable sources” that is unless of course, you are a purveyor of KNOWN FALSEHOODS and DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION.
Oh, that would be YOU, Geoff.
Wait, there’s really no danger of any constitutional amendment happening. Is there? From what I’ve heard, Congressional Republicans have proposed over a hundred of them this year. They’re just snake-oil salesmen yelling on top of soapboxes, not serious people governing. Let them prattle on about their Constitutional amendments, for all I care.
And if anyone wants to know why this “Balanced Budget Amendment” WOULD be a bad idea, you should really put the five minutes into reading what anonster posted.
I don’t think the country need a balanced budget amendment, all we need is a congress that will do its job.
cook,
Since that will never happen, the BBA is the next-best thing because it makes them do their job.
*Whoa….how about a Balanced Federal Deficit? Or a Balanced Federal Debt Projection? Or how about a Balanced Republican Spending Bill? How about……
oh …so much hogwash…..so little time!
R & A. Obama Republicans .I see that your man just issued the following comment relating to a senate plan and the stalemate. “Said Obama: “The problem we have now is, we’re in the 11th hour, and we don’t have a lot more time left.”
Ok Mr. President. And you have been in office since Jan 20, 2009. How many budgets has Congress approved since your taking office? How many “continuing resolutions” were enacted since you took office?
Respectfully, you have the gall to say we’re in the 11th hour. Look in the mirror.
email from a college teacher: “Do you suppose that President Obama is just a front man for a subversive organization and answers to them, not the American people?”
Gilbert note: We receive all forms of feedback on our posts
U.S. social security shouldn’t be cut: poll
DAVID MILSTEAD – The Globe and Mail
The American people are eager for their leaders to get something done and solve the country’s budget impasse. The only problem is their proposed solutions for it.
A recent Pew Research Center poll found that although a majority of respondents believe the financial health of social security, Medicare and Medicaid is only fair or poor, majorities also believe the programs’ benefits shouldn’t be cut.
Asked “which is more important – taking steps to reduce the budget deficit or keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are,” 60 per cent chose keeping the benefits, versus 32 per cent opting for deficit reduction.
Anonster. The Globe and mail. Are they part of Rupert Murdoch’s media family?
Are they a US based newspaper or simply outsiders telling us how to spend our money?
Perhaps you might identify your source as it is written on the Globe and Mail:
“Where savvy Canadians go for overviews on the latest investment ideas”
Larry,
The “Pew Research Center” is a non partisan fact tank based in Washington DC.
But hey, ignore the facts!
“Are they a US based newspaper or simply outsiders telling us how to spend our money?”
Oh, heaven forbid anyone from outside the country having an opinion or real, valuable insight into issues here.
The American financial system almost dragged the entire world economy down into oblivion…you’re damn outsiders have an opinion about policy in this country.
Your insular, arrogant point-of-view is one of the things dragging this country down.
Sometimes, it takes an “outsiders” perspective to see through the complexity of an issue. Geez Larry, that’s like Leadership 101. Do you ever stop to think before you write this stuff?
* damn right
anon. I almost always double check our domestic media on their stories. However, in this case, he has no skin in the game. What makes him any better source than those I listen to from our many think tanks.
Perhaps you might provide the credentials of those whom you choose to reference in the future whose names are not well known to our readers.
There are two major newspapers in DC that I subscribe to. The Washington Times and the Washington Post. Which one offers the best and most accurate data? For extremists on both ends of the spectrum it’s subjective based in part as to what you wish to hear. You know. Like the wonderful Media Matters.
You don’t get it. It isn’t about being a “better” source. It’s about seeking outside perspectives…because sometimes those prove to be valuable. Ever heard of people becoming clueless because they remain inside their little bubble?
Credentials? You’re a blogger, right? Do you think that a blogger from, say, Columbus, OH could offer an insight that would alter your perspective? If you don’t, then nothing you write could do that either.
anon. I am in constant contact with out of state bloggers. In fact Americans for Prosperity hosted a Dream Summit event in DC that included training for bloggers where almost 100 of us gathered to compare notes, strategy and tactics for reaching the masses.
I do not live in any bubble. Several of my Orange Juice posts have been reposted in PA, FL and OK.
There is nothing wrong with a balanced budget. A balanced budget would be preferred and ideal. However, a demand to balance the budget thats out of control, is like threatening a guy who is sinking in quick sand that if he doesnt stop trying to get out he will be sunk. hes gonna sink anyway. A copnstitutional ammendment would yield only out of control spending by Reps to get to the threashold and the chance to launch another attack. They wan tot hrink government to the point it can be dronwed in the bath tub. An ammendement would be an annual game of russian roulette.
Paul. At times we need to slam on the brakes. The alternative is to keep printing more money and watching the GDP ratio to our debt continue to climb as pointed out by Wikipedia.
“In fiscal 2007, U.S. public debt was approximately $5 trillion (36.8 percent of GDP) and total debt was $9 trillion (65.5 percent of GDP.)[20] Public debt represents money owed to those holding government securities such as Treasury bills and bonds. Total debt includes intra-governmental debt, which includes amounts owed to the Social Security Trust Funds (about $2.2 trillion in FY 2007)[21] and Civil Service Retirement Funds. By August 2008, the total debt was $9.6 trillion.[22]
Based on the 2010 U.S. budget, total national debt will nearly double in dollar terms between 2008 and 2015 and will grow to nearly 100% of GDP, versus a level of approximately 80% in early 2009.[23] Multiple government sources including the current and previous presidents, the GAO, Treasury Department, and CBO have said the U.S. is on an unsustainable fiscal path”
anon. Outsiders with a perspective on our policy issues? Like telling Israel what to do in protecting their nation. Sure, we’ve got your back.
Yes, exactly like that. We have opinions on other country’s policy. There’s no reason they can’t have an opinion on ours.
anon. true. And generally speaking, they are not controlled by the residents at 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue
You mean, our President?
Vern. Read into it whatever you will. We’ve had more than one president living in that big White House.
Larry’s going on about nothing as far as I can tell. The Globe and Mail – a foreign publication – reported on a Pew Research Poll – which IS American. So don’t chase his red herring.
But I’ve gotta chase this one. Hell yeah we can tell Israel what to do. They wouldn’t exist without our aid, and their irresponsible policies are constantly reflecting badly on us in the region. Yes, we got their back. And yes, they need to get back to SOMETHING resembling the 1967 borders, and let the Palestinians have their nation.
*Just in case no one noticed: Raising the Federal Debt Limit…..is for money we have already spent. When the dumbo’s out there in Congress refuse to raise that limit….they are saying …..we are willing to default on that debt. What amount of gray
mass should be necessary to simply say……Yes or NO? NO – you say no to life. Yes, you say….you are willing to pay what we owe or borrow what we need to make it through the next fiscal year.
RAW. The current debt speaks for itself. Raising it covers FUTURE borrowing.
We’re not in a City Council meeting where we vote to approve Routine Change Order Items on a Consent Calendar for work that has already been performed and is payable as we have experienced in Mission Viejo.
“The current debt speaks for itself. Raising it covers FUTURE borrowing.”
Now we have Larry on record, absolutely, incontrovertibly wrong. I wonder how many other Republicans are that mistaken.
Vern. I can now join you by stating that neither of us is perfect.
That is why I often tell people to “Trust, but verify,” even my own statements.
Well, a misunderstanding that fundamental could explain why you and many other Republicans are so unconcerned with the ceiling. And should disqualify you from opining on this weighty issue at least until you get it straightened out in your head.
Vern. Let’s get back to the premise of the story.
What’s wrong with a balanced federal budget?
Balanced federal budget would be nice, if possible. Clinton managed it a few times, back when the economy was better (thanks to the dot-com boom.)
But a balanced budget should not be the priority right now. Getting our economy back on track, getting jobs for us Americans, rebuilding our infrastructure, are bigger priorities, all of which conflict with the goal of a balanced budget.
And this particular amendment would cause a lot of problems, some of which you should be aware of if you took the time to read anonster’s first long medley of articles on the subject. You should.
Vern. Glad we agree. In reference to your opening sentence.
As to the Juice Gang of Six feel free to substitute Newbie for myself. It would be unfair to have three conservatives on the panel all from Mission Viejo.
“Jobs, jobs, jobs” is a no brainer. We can agree on several fronts. Sadly we are in OC not DC
Wow Larry promoted himself to the National Affairs Desk? He couldn’t get it right about Mission Viejo so decided to tackle the big time?
For anyone interested in math, you can cut all the services out there and still not balance the budget without raising taxes.
Nice try, though, Larry.
LBM. You simply can’t get over our throwing Mayor Lance MacLean out of office.
I wore my Commission T shirt with the number 19 at a breakfast meeting this morning. It reminds me not to support people who flip after helping them get elected.
But then again we put him in office and took him out even after the OCSD union spent over $100,000 to save his job during our successful 2010 recall. Not too bad. Within 8 years time we recalled and or rejected two sitting mayors in Mission Viejo.
Yes folks. For this MV antagonist I break my pledge and gladly go off thread. If he was a regular he would know that I have covered many national and international stories in the past five years
*So Pappa Lorenzo……let’s go borrow some more money from Fanny and Freddy…sell some “Liar Loans” to Iceland and then simply blame it on over spending at the Greek
Festival in Irvine. Logic requires raising the Debt Limit……..when you owe it. Not before……Of course if your Government is insolvent….and bankrupt like Iceland or Greece or Portugal or soon Spain and others…..you can always borrow more Euros from your friendly neighborhood German bank…..who will borrow the equivalent in US dollars from….guess who?
Please…..grasp the fact that we live in a Global Economy that is operating out of a shoebox. Saying we won’t borrow more money to keep it afloat doesn’t mean a thing…but then Lyndon Larouche and Ross the Boss have been trying to tell us that ….for years…….like not to send American Jobs to Burma and such. But figure it this way…..Rupert Murdoch didn’t know a thing……he lives in a vacuum…..like so many folks that claim to be top level economists.
Of course, you could call Goldman-Sachs and ask them all about it……but then they would just have to call Bernie Madoff for the answers! Raise the Debt Ceiling please!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
United States public debt – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*Just in case anyone wants to check our work!
RAW.
As someone who carries no personal debt I am not as tuned in as those who do
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/charts/charts_debt.htm
*Official Government view….
*Living without debt….is UnAmerican….isn’t it? At least that’s what they told people about the American Dream of everyone owning or borrowing their own home!
Pappa Lorenzo……it must be nice to own your own home outright…huh? But then,
don’t you have to pay property taxes, sales taxes, state licenses and fees…County road taxes, Measure M…..and of course any State and Federal Taxes due on any
of your investmest or retirement income? Also, doesn’t count paying your patient
co-pays for health insurance…….and…..and….all the added Toll Road fees one might
have to pay to traverse the highways and bi-ways of our Free America!
RAW. The concept of “everyone owning a home” is how we got ourselves in trouble.
Thank you Barney Frank. The key should be everyone “qualified” to make the monthly payments being able to own a home. The following is from Andy Breitbart, I know it will not make you feel better.
The notion of “housing” as a God-given right had been promoted by people like Barney Frank for nearly two decades. Their vehicles to expand homeownership for all were “government-sponsored enterprises” Fannie and Freddie — which, starting in the mid 90s, began buying up and placing guarantees on mortgages taken out by people with lower incomes and lousy credit histories.
Giving low-income people access to the housing market sounds nice enough — but the reality was far different. Housing prices were bid up to levels that made repaying mortgages nearly impossible. When the bubble burst, the government “sponsored” agencies were in hock for billions — and so was their “sponsor,” the US taxpayer.
And once Fannie and Freddie stopped making loans to anyone with a hearbeat (and many people without jobs), housing prices began to deflate, taking the banking system and the rest of the economy with it.
Now it looks like Fannie and Freddie are back to their old tricks — with the evident support of both Barney Frank and President Obama.
Spencer Bachus, the top Republican on Frank’s Financial Services Committee, tells me that both agencies have started new programs that once again make loans and guarantees to “subprime” borrowers, or people with the lowest credit ratings — the same sort of lending practices that contributed to their collapse back in 2008.
Barney Frank? I actually associate the term “ownership society” with George W. Bush. That’s where I first heard it.
Vern.
“Redistribution of wealth” started by enabling everyone who wanted one to get one. A home of their own. Regardless of whether or not we could afford it when you add in our other expenses for food clothing and entertainment. Hang on and watch the market climb until we overbuild and competition and surplus inventory drive the inflated values back to earth to where we owe more than the paper value of our homes.
President Herbert Hoover promised “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.”
And whom may I ask was to pay for those entitlements? History does repeat if you look hard enough.
Every working American deserves a home of his own. Says who? Every working American can save his or her money and purchase a home in this country. That statement is truthfull.
RAW.
You of all people know that we were not born with a pot of gold. I know you are familiar with the expression “risk–reward.”
We lived very frugally so that we could afford to purchase our home. let’s not forget all the years I worked over 80 hours per week building our corporation from nothing more than a new concept. I make no apologies for not having to pay a mortgage.
The rest of your list of tax payments most of us deal with has zero connection to this post
*We also forgot to mention the cost of owning a “NO Annual fee Credit Card”…unless of course you pay it off every month!
RAW. You’ve figured it out. How od you think banks are making money today when they are not lending to developers? It’s perfectly legal. vig: the interest payment on a loan from a loanshark (short for “vigorish”). Synonym: juice.
so as your local FDIC insured savings account may pay you 25 basis points in interest they charge around 18% on unpaid balances or rates in that range.
One current offer from B of A as found on the Internet
12.99% – 20.99% Variable* on Purchases and Balance Transfers
Read more: http://www.creditcards.com/low-interest.php#ixzz1SfcbelgG
Compare credit cards here – CreditCards.com