Honest question about the stimulus bill...

[Gino]

Why did the house Dems want to argue down the amount of the tax credit for homebuyers from 15,000?

How does this help the "rich" more than "normal" people? More importantly, how does it hurt the middle class and poor?

Seriously? I thought that this one was probably the best part of the bill and they scaled it down!!!

[clambake]

you can't think of one reason?

[Gino]

you can't think of one reason?

So you got nothing either?

How could a tax credit that might help reverse the housing market collapse (which is the ROOT of this entire mess) possibly be a bad thing?

[clambake]

if i got a $15k tax credit, and i gave a shit about cheap homes like texas, i'd buy a dozen just to start.

in other words, the rich would gobble up homes and first time buyers would see nothing different.

[TDMVPDPOY]

if i got a $15k tax credit, and i gave a shit about cheap homes like texas, i'd buy a dozen just to start.

in other words, the rich would gobble up homes and first time buyers would see nothing different.

thats why there has to be a clause in it....

if you already owned a home, you cant apply for the credit,

if your a minor you dont qualify for the credit,

in other words this should be for first home buyers only whose looking at getting into the market, then again you got rich familys who have adult kids start jumping into the market cause they can afford it.

[FreeMason]

if i got a $15k tax credit, and i gave a shit about cheap homes like texas, i'd buy a dozen just to start.

in other words, the rich would gobble up homes and first time buyers would see nothing different.

so let's just flood the market with houses up for sale so the rich cant abuse the system LOL

If you can't buy a house yet, you can't buy a house yet.

While we're at it lets take everyone's (except our awesome government's) jets away so they can't enjoy luxuries. What? It'll put that industry out of jobs? Collateral damage on the war on rich whitey.

[clambake]

thats going to be a huge problem.

the amount of oversight would be enormous and extremely time consuming.

[LnGrrrR]

They just need to let housing tank, so the prices can reflect real-world supply and demand. Heck, I'm 27 and I don't plan on buying a house for awhile...

[FreeMason]

thats going to be a huge problem.

the amount of oversight would be enormous and extremely time consuming.

Government loves extremely enormous oversight that is time consuming for the citizens.

[clambake]

Government loves extremely enormous oversight that is time consuming for the citizens.

when you get older, i think you'll understand the importance of what they're trying to do.

it's been a long time since DC cared about whether you got raped.

[Gino]

So far I haven't read a single valid argument.

Its a 15,000 tax credit. Its not per home you buy.

I havent read anything to make any sense as to why the Dems wanted to negotiate it down.

I think because you guys dont have a freaking clue either.

[clambake]

So far I haven't read a single valid argument.

Its a 15,000 tax credit. Its not per home you buy.

I havent read anything to make any sense as to why the Dems wanted to negotiate it down.

I think because you guys dont have a freaking clue either.

let us know when it dawns on you. :lol

[TDMVPDPOY]

So far I haven't read a single valid argument.

1.Its a 15,000 tax credit. Its not per home you buy.

2.I havent read anything to make any sense as to why the Dems wanted to negotiate it down.

3.I think because you guys dont have a freaking clue either.

1.who says it was per home? if its per home...fkn rich familys/person will just exploit the credit available. It should only be per adult for "first home". So if your a newly married couple who dont owned a home individually previously and looking at purchasing a home, you fit the criteria legibility...still 15k applies..its not split per person, or you can buy it individually b4 getting married, so both of you owned house each and each qualifies for the credit, then go get married....loophole in system lmao.

2.someone has to pay for the credit, since they be loosing out on tax receive from registration/stamp duty.

Then again to avoid this exploitation of people who are buying houses but not living in it...increase fukn land taxes on residential investment properties.

[Gino]

All I have to say is thank God for our founding fathers for requiring 60 votes to pass a bill rather 51. They knew (as in this case) the majority is not always right.

Could you imagine the size of the bill, or what our country might look like if all the Dems needed was 51 votes?

Scary.

[doobs]

All I have to say is thank God for our founding fathers for requiring 60 votes to pass a bill rather 51. They knew (as in this case) the majority is not always right.

Could you imagine the size of the bill, or what our country might look like if all the Dems needed was 51 votes?

Scary.

I wouldn't thank the Founding Fathers for that.

[balli]

:lol

[Gino]

I wouldn't thank the Founding Fathers for that.

I would. They were able to foresee that political parties would able to take advantage of things like Hurrican Katrina to gain power.

Its been 14 years since the Dems controlled everything, and during their first month they want to increase federal spending by 25% (even though the country's already in serious debt). The deficit to GDP ratio is about to skyrocket, and theyre upset that Republicans aren't just going to go along with whatever they want.

[balli]

Its been 14 years since the Dems controlled everything
Boy, you think you'd be more pissed at Republicans and you'd give the Democrats a break for the shit storm they've inherited.

[ChumpDumper]

So you're upset that Democrats knocked $30 billion off the stimulus package?

I'm sure the homebuilders are pissed.

[Gino]

So you're upset that Democrats knocked $30 billion off the stimulus package?

I'm sure the homebuilders are pissed.

Ah..chumpdumper. Surely you can explain why they would want to cut the size of the tax credit.

And yes, cutting parts of a bloated bill that actually make sense is pretty stupid.

[ChumpDumper]

Because $8000 is enough, perhaps?

I'm a little more interested in keeping people who bought on the bubble in their homes at this point. Prices and interest rates are low enough that an extra $8000 should be quite a decent incentive for anyone who hasn't owned a home in three years and can actually get a mortgage.

[Gino]

so let's just flood the market with houses up for sale so the rich cant abuse the system LOL

If you can't buy a house yet, you can't buy a house yet.

While we're at it lets take everyone's (except our awesome government's) jets away so they can't enjoy luxuries. What? It'll put that industry out of jobs? Collateral damage on the war on rich whitey.

This is an interesting point.

Since the whole point is just to spend money, why dont we buy corporate jets for every CEO in America?

Jobs for everyone!

[ChumpDumper]

This is an interesting point.

Since the whole point is just to spend money, why dont we buy corporate jets for every CEO in America?

Jobs for everyone!If only you got paid for all the straw men you guys build....

[Gino]

Because $8000 is enough, perhaps?

I'm a little more interested in keeping people who bought on the bubble in their homes at this point. Prices and interest rates are low enough that an extra $8000 should be quite a decent incentive for anyone who hasn't owned a home in three years and can actually get a mortgage.

Thats fine. But where did they come up with this number? What does 8000 protect us from that 15000 doesn't?

Its not a refundable tax credit. At worse, the people who buy a primary residence this year wont have to pay any income taxes. At best, the housing market might recover.

[Gino]

If only you got paid for all the straw men you guys build....

Well why not? The president laughed when Republicans just called it a giant spending bill.

"SERIOUSLY!!! Thats the whole point!"

This is from Obama's mouth, not any strawman.

[ChumpDumper]

Thats fine. But where did they come up with this number? What does 8000 protect us from that 15000 doesn't?$30 billion more federal debt.


Its not a refundable tax credit. At worse, the people who buy a primary residence this year wont have to pay any income taxes. At best, the housing market might recover.We need another housing bubble?

[ChumpDumper]

Well why not? The president laughed when Republicans just called it a giant spending bill.

"SERIOUSLY!!! Thats the whole point!"

This is from Obama's mouth, not any strawman.Your refusal to understand is expected.

[Gino]

$30 billion more federal debt.

We need another housing bubble?

I seriously doubt the price of the credit was cut because theyre worried about the federal debt considering they want to increase it by 800 billion.

Tell me that cant be the reason. Please.

Give me my faith back in my fellow americans.

[ChumpDumper]

I seriously doubt the price of the credit was cut because theyre worried about the federal debt considering they want to increase it by 800 billion.

Tell me that cant be the reason. Please.

Give me my faith back in my fellow americans.So don't complain about the size of stimulus package anymore.

[ChumpDumper]

I'll add something here -- if you're really upset about it, why don't you get your state to give homebuyers a break on their state taxes? Texas is sitting on a $10 billion surplus. What is the state lege doing to encourage home sales here?

[Gino]

So don't complain about the size of stimulus package anymore.

Ah, I see. So youre in the "all or nothing" boat.

Well I go back to the corporate jet analogy. Or lets just buy everyone in America new car. Dont complain about the price.

I highly doubt the they reduced the size of the tax credit because of the price. Try again.

[Gino]

Your refusal to understand is expected.

Understand what, exactly?

You claimed that i was using the tactic of a political strawman. Kind of like how Obama is claiming Republicans want to do "nothing".

But Im not the one who is saying "ANY spending is good, no matter what its spent on." Democrats ARE saying that.

[ChumpDumper]

Ah, I see. So youre in the "all or nothing" boat.No, you are arguing both sides of that issue. No need to me to get involved there.

[ChumpDumper]

Understand what, exactly?

You claimed that i was using the tactic of a political strawman. Kind of like how Obama is claiming Republicans want to do "nothing".What do Republicans do want to do besides vote no?


But Im not the one who is saying "ANY spending is good, no matter what its spent on." Democrats ARE saying that.There is plenty of stimulative spending to go with the pork. You are saying that you didn't think Democrats would spend money when they got back into power, which is pretty damn stupid.

[Gino]

What do Republicans do want to do besides vote no?
Bigger tax cuts including the housing one we've been arguing about for three pages, remember?



There is plenty of stimulative spending to go with the pork. You are saying that you didn't think Democrats would spend money when they got back into power, which is pretty damn stupid.


Spending is one thing. 60 Billion for childrens healthcare is spending. Increasing all federal spending by 25% in the first month is quite another.

[ChumpDumper]

Bigger tax cuts including the housing one we've been arguing about for three pages, remember?So they got a smaller one. What else?


Spending is one thing. 60 Billion for childrens healthcare is spending. Increasing all federal spending by 25% in the first month is quite another.Depends on what it's spent on. The spending can be quite stimulative. I agree there is pork in there, but it's not like Republicans can claim to have been fiscally responsible while they were in complete control of the government and there was no need for this Keynesian spending.

[Gino]

So they got a smaller one. What else?

Depends on what it's spent on. The spending can be quite stimulative. I agree there is pork in there, but it's not like Republicans can claim to have been fiscally responsible while they were in complete control of the government and there was no need for this Keynesian spending.

Thats another thing. I never want to hear another word about Bush's spending.

Remember how we use to freak out anytime we saw how much we've spent in Iraq?

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

We're almost to 600 billion and its been six years.

The dems blew Bush away in their first month in control.

Remember when McCain said we should have a spending freeze and Obama said that would be using a hatchet instead of a scalpel? He said it in all three debates.

:lol

Obama needs to stand up to Pelosi. Obama won on change and a call for bi-partisanship. Now we have drama unfolding like a bad espisode of "90210".

[ChumpDumper]

Thats another thing. I never want to hear another word about Bush's spending.

Remember how we use to freak out anytime we saw how much we've spent in Iraq?

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

We're almost to 600 billion and its been six years.

The dems blew Bush away in their first month in control.Yeah, the economy might not be in the shitter quite as badly had that money not been wasted.


Remember when McCain said we should have a spending freeze and Obama said that would be using a hatchet instead of a scalpel? He said it in all three debates.

:lolMcCain said the economy was strong. You remember that.

:lmao


Obama needs to stand up to Pelosi. Obama won on change and a call for bi-partisanship. Now we have drama unfolding like a bad espisode of "90210".Who needs bipartisanship? All Obama needs is a couple of Republican votes.

[Gino]

Yeah, the economy might not be in the shitter quite as badly had that money not been wasted.

McCain said the economy was strong. You remember that.

:lmao

Who needs bipartisanship? All Obama needs is a couple of Republican votes.

We'll see. The last time the Dems had congress and the white house, they passed things like the Brady Bill and higher taxes and they got thrown out of office in no-time.

[ChumpDumper]

We'll see. The last time the Dems had congress and the white house, they passed things like the Brady Bill and higher taxes and they got thrown out of office in no-time.If they raise taxes during a recession, they should be thrown out.

The last time the Republicans had Congress and the White House, they got us into an unnecessary war in Iraq and loosened up regulations to enable the current shitty economy.

There is a reason the Republicans lost so badly.

[I. Hustle]

They should just print a bunch more money out and tell the fed res to stop shredding old money and boom we are back in business. Damn I'm smart.

[ChumpDumper]

They should just print a bunch more money out and tell the fed res to stop shredding old money and boom we are back in business. Damn I'm smart.They are pretty much doing that already.

[Gino]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/real_estate/homebuyer_tax_credit_finalized/index.htm?postversion=2009021712

Interesting. There's an imcome limitation on those who receive the credit. Thus the idea that the "rich" would have benefited more from a 15k tax credit is stupid.

Still dont understand why the Dems negotiated it down to 8k. Chumpy said it was the price (30 billion), but thats just asinine considering all of the stupid stuff they're spending money on.

Priorirty number one should have been to shore up the housing market.

[Winehole23]

Priority number one should have been to shore up the housing market.The cratering of home equity was the catalyzing event, but the real culprits were over-indebtedness and a failure to analyze the risk of MBS's. The effects of this risk have already cascaded into the financial system. Helping the mortgage sector doesn't put the genie back in the box.

The homes market is important, and there's a lot we can do in the to help the lenders and borrowers out, but by now it is epiphenomenal. Solving banking insolvency puts the housing market in the shade IMO.

[ChumpDumper]

Priorirty number one should have been to shore up the housing market.Fuck shoring it up -- it was overvalued to begin with.

Now, keeping people in their homes should be a priority -- but the lenders we bailed out are fighting that effort as much as they can.

[Gino]

The cratering of home equity was the catalyzing event, but the real culprits were over-indebtedness and a failure to analyze the risk of MBS's. The effects of this risk have already cascaded into the financial system. Helping the mortgage sector doesn't put the genie back in the box.

The homes market is important, and there's a lot we can do in the to help the lenders and borrowers out, but by now it is epiphenomenal. Solving banking insolvency puts the housing market in the shade IMO.

I could see that. But it could help build consumer confidence when a million people are no longer upside down on their homes by 100k.

[Winehole23]

I could see that. But it could help build consumer confidence when a million people are no longer upside down on their homes by 100k."Animal spirits" are the least of our concerns now, and reinflating the mortgage bubble only kicks the can down the road. The paradox of thrift is real, but in the deflationary scenario it isn't alleviated by cheering everyone up.

Contrary to the prevailing myth, recession isn't just an attitude problem.