Limbaugh's statement

[JimFromTN]

Reagan had a democrat congress led by Tip O'neal if you remember.  Clinton had a republican congress led by Newt Gingrich.  Congress approves all spending.  Now Obama has a congress led by Pelosi.  Give me a break.  O'bama might be good, if he can learn to compromise with republicans and if republicans take over in 2010 like they did under Bill Clinton. 

I'm not sure but I think trickle down economics was Reagans idea.

As for the poor being the reason for the economy, how do explain the fact that more middle and upper class are losing their homes than the poor?

[45-70.gov]

the  poor  don't have a house  to loose

they live  well  in the projects  i paid for

[lrs]

Well alsagr and jim, there is one bill in congress, hr45, which will require us to register our firearms.
In the near future it is anticipated the fairness doctrine will once again be in effect.
I hate to whine, rail, and contort too much, but,
So much for the 1st and 2nd amendments. 


You 2 should get together and celebrate.

[JimFromTN]

You are talking about a bill submitted by a single politician that has no cosponsers.

[lrs]

Whew, I was worried for a minute.  I guess everything is all right now.

[billy_56081]

You are talking about a bill submitted by a single politician that has no cosponsers.

Well how about you liberals on here post all your firearms and your addresses, I'll make a file of them then when this bill passes, I'll have my older brother get in contact with your local athorities to make sure you have registered all your firearms.

After all this bill was just submitted by a single politician with no cosponsors. Heck what do you have to worry about? Well Jim it's time to put your money where your mouth is, like the old saying goes, "put up or shut up".

[lrs]

You are talking about a bill submitted by a single politician that has no cosponsers.

I think you are minimizing. 
Very inappropriate for a socialist.  I mean if you are a socialist, jump out there and be a socialist. Make Obama proud of you.
Hey stupid, this is what socialists do. 
It all goes together.  It is part of the package.  There is no compartmentalization, such that you have some elements of freedom, and some elements of of dictatorship, with a benevolent ruler deciding when it is time to parcel out a little freedom from time to time.
If you want the govt to be in charge of everything, then the govt will also be in charge of determining which rights you can have.  That is part of it.
If they can confiscate my hard earned money, and redistribute it to whomever they feel is entitled to it, then they can also force us to register firearms.
If they can regulate, restrict, or outright ban talk radio, then there is no voice of opposition.
If they can disregard with impunity our most basic rights, then we live under a socialist oligarchy.

Isn't this what you want?
The idea of this is absolutely hatefull to me.  I have no intention of submitting to it.

[gypsyman]

I think some of you should go back and look up what really happened. It wasn't deregulation that caused the banking mess. IT WAS STUPID, regulation that started it. Gov't forcing the banking industry to make loans to people, mostly minority's, that couldn't pay back the loans. If the gov't would have kept it's stupid ideas out of the fray, maybe this mess wouldn't be so bad. Clinton made the gov't smaller by cutting military,CIA, and one good thing, putting limits on aid to some social programs. My opinion of Limbaugh is exactly the same as Cassius Clay.(Mohammed Ali to some of you youngsters), he brags to much. While I agree with alot of what he says, I'ld give him more credit if he kept his mouth shut about how great he is.  gypsyman

[JimFromTN]

I still don't get how forcing banks to give poor people home loans caused the middle class and the upper class to lose their homes.  Perhaps someone can explain that to me.

I'm not minimizing anything.  You have one politician in the congress that has submitted a bill that is not backed by anyone else in the congress or the senate.  It really doesn't make for a liberal conspiracy of stealing all of our guns seeing as you have to have more than one participant to make it work.

The simple fact is that under the systems that you support, there will always be a welfare system and socialist programs.  Even if Rush was elected president and only conservatives got elected to the congress and the senate, welfare would not go away and these socialist programs would continue on as they have always.  We are breeding and training these people to stay on the welfare system.  Its just that simple.  Another fact of life is that we are always going to be taxed.  The only difference between the democrats and the republicans is what the taxes are spent on.  You all would rather we spend trillions on war, overcrowded prisons, and the welfare system.  I would rather those trillions of tax payer dollars be spent on helping recover the economy, improving schools, and weaning people off of the welfare system so they can become self sufficient tax paying citizens that I don't have to pay for anymore. 

As for healthcare, we spend more per person for healthcare in this country than any other country and yet we are rated somewhere around 40th in the world.  We don't have to raise taxes in this country to give everyone healthcare, we just have to manage what we have already and everyone will end up paying less including me.  I probably pay more in taxes than the majority of people who come to this website and if I am going to be taxed that much, I'd rather it be spent on making this country as great as you claim it to be for everyone rather than spending it on stupid wars.

[SHOOTALL]

because opposite the bad loans is the investment of 401K plans and such .When the housing market went down , construction went down , plants no longer had a market for their products that went into construction , then the management firms and such had no work and then all other supporting industry started going down . Add to that the burden of fighting two wars at the same time and it should be easy for you to see !

[Dixie Dude]

The poor started loosing their homes 2-3 years ago.  I had a stepson who walked away from a 100% loan on his home.  His restaurant business failed.  He filed business bankrupcy, but he couldn't find a job immediately, (in Wisconsin), and walked away from his home to move to another state for a job.  He had a mortgage and second mortgage he took out to start his business.  This was 2 years ago.  It was only about a 1200-1500 sq. ft. home.  My wife works buying and selling stocks.  She saw it coming 2-3 years ago also.  ARM loans were comming due, banks had loaned 100% loans to the poor.  The started walking away first.  Then like Shootall said.  It trickled up to the middle class.  No homes being built, no homes being sold, real estate values go down, people can't sell them, they walk away.  No homes being built, no appliances, wire, lumber, pipe, being sold.  Companies start cutting back.  Oil prices skyrocked due to world demand, people cut back in their buying because of higher gas prices.  All the dominoes started falling, and it started when banks under pressure from ACORN, politicians, threated with discriminatory lawsuits, etc, had to give loans out.  It trickled up the the middle and upper classes.  When companies are not selling, their stock values drop.  The 25% of people in this country who have 401(k)s and other people who have IRA's for retirement saw their savings drop.  No early retirements, thus no new job openings for younger people, then the cycle of layoffs begin.  The only way out is to cut Capital Gains Taxes, and if the government would just buy new replacement vehicles, build and renovate existing buildings, and infrastructure, it will help, but not just GIVE money to companies to cover their losses.  Require that everything the government buys be American made.  The Federal budget is about 10-20% of the purchasing power of the economy.  States add another 10-15%.  They can help, but not much.  It still requires people to SPEND money, and who has the MOST money to SPEND to get the economy going, the rich.  If they are taxed too high, they just won't spend, they move their money offshore, and spend elsewhere.  50% of the American people don't pay any federal income tax.  90% is paid by the top 10% of earners, and you want to tax them more.

[rex6666]

Jim and obama sound a lot a like we need to give these people that are on
welfare a chance. We need to invest in them and bring them up, get
them jobs and they will work. HORSEPUCKY i don't know where Jim gets his education but i can see obama knows nothing of these people. After 2-3 generations of living on welfare and being taught how to work the program.
about 90% percent will not work at any thing and why should they, they
can sit on their butts and let the working people feed them, and don't talk
to me about their pride, they are doing what they want. I live in the Dallas-
Ft. Worth area their are jobs maybe not $50k jobs but jobs but they will not work. You might try teaching some of them to wear a belt or suspenders to
hold their paints up, would be easier to get a jobs with two hands, ask any
truly handicapped person.

[JimFromTN]

So your stepson owned his own resturaunt. I don't know that he would qualify as poor.  Your stepson chose to buy that house with a 100% loan.  Bill Clinton did not force him to do it.  Bill Clinton did not force anyone to make ARM loans, Interest only loans, or 100% loans.  Your stepson could have saved his money and bought a more affordable home with a standard loan.  Everyone who has lost their home has had that option which they chose not to take.  

It was everyone making bad loans.  I know peope who bought $350,000 homes 5 years ago with interest only loans and they were making $70,000 a year which I don't consider poor.  People who could afford a $150,000 homes were buying $350,000 homes and people who could afford $350,000 homes were buying $700,000 homes because they counted on the market to keep getting better and they figured they could sell the house before the loan came up and make a profit.  Banks weren't being forced to give anyone loans for houses they could not afford.  There are plenty of homes on the market that pretty much anyone can afford.  The banks chose to give people loans that they could not afford.  Everyone was being greedy and to put it off on Bill Clinton and the poor is just plain stupid.

[SHOOTALL]

if you buy snake oil is it the salemans fault or yours ?

[jimster]

"The collapse of the worlds financial system did not happen on the watch of Obama:  He inherited it.  Something needs to be done to get us out of this mess and like it or not, Obama is the man in the white house."

Really?  Seems to me Obama was a SITTING SENATOR when things crashed....and it also seems to me that all the Congress is responsible as well.
Also seems to me Obama voted for the first bailout, which failed, nobody even knows where billions even went...he signed this as a SENATOR as well....which makes him responsible as all hell.  He was a BIG part of what has ALREADY failed.  I suppose if he agrees that spending more money, printing more of it, and not cutting taxes back, and trying to lower the interest rates in a time when it should be raised(which he IS going along with)...he WILL keep failing, along with the other 535 people in congress.

Now convince me Obama walking away from his SENATE seat somehow makes him not responsible for being part of it all.
First thing is....everyone who was part of Congress is responsible....and even the people who were there several years ago responsible even if they are gone now.  
He is also responsible for telling people "government will create jobs"...which is a lie...he should be telling people government is the problem and must get out of the way.  

There is no way NOT to fail with the current plan in place...because it's the same plan that brought it all down...over tax...spend what you don't have, borrow what you can't pay back...and the government AND a good share of the people are responsible for all of this.
Obama is bound to keep failing same as when he was in the senate...if he does not do a 180 degree turn....and I do not think that is going to happen.  
The banks should be VERY careful who they lend money to now...but there is still pressure for them to loan out the money that was printed and thrown their way.  This is not hard to figure out, it's all just simple math, and if they continue to over tax the few businesses that are left, they will all go away as well.
Printing money and dropping it from airplanes does not seem like a good plan to me.  Government caused this mess by their actions (along with a good many people out there that were greedy and wanted what they could not afford) and it's impossible for government to fix it by doing the same things, only more of it. (See first failed bailout...yep, told ya so)  Your asking the government which is full of corruption and sopending problems to fix something they already broke...good luck with that.

[lrs]

I still don't get how forcing banks to give poor people home loans caused the middle class and the upper class to lose their homes.  Perhaps someone can explain that to me.

I know you label people in terms of various groups, as in this case lower class and upper class.  There was a time when liberals thought that labeling people was one of the worst crimes you could commit.
Rich or poor, black or white, Baptiste or Catholic, if you take out a mortgage on a home you can not afford, it does not have a happy ending.  Nor should it.  And the burden of this should not fall on my shoulders, but it does.

The mortgage crisis was the result of congress putting pressure on lending institutions to give loans to poor people who had virtually no chance of being able to repay the loan.  

Here is what I don't like.  Your question is not intended to solicit an answer from a knowledgeable person in this subject, that helps you to understand the issue better.  It is merely a dodge or a diversion.

That is why I always emphasize honesty in discussions with you left wing liberal democrats.  It is because you do not have any.

[JimFromTN]

if you buy snake oil is it the salemans fault or yours ?

Both.  Whose at fault for banks giving loans to people who could not afford them?  Clinton, of course.  You can't blame the banks because they were only trying to make as much money as they possibly could and the people just wanted a house they could not afford so obviously it must be someone elses fault for allowing them to do it.  We can't be holding anybody responsible for their own actions when it comes to capitolism and trying to squeeze the system for every last dollar.

The mortgage crisis was the result of congress putting pressure on lending institutions to give loans to poor people who had virtually no chance of being able to repay the loan. 

There are plenty of homes that the poor can afford.  No one said that had to lend more than they could afford.  I went out and looked at my local real estate listings.  There is a house for $10,500.  Certainly a poor person could afford that.  Did congress force the banks to give loans to the middle class and the wealthy that they had no chance of paying back?

Here is what I don't like.  Your question is not intended to solicit an answer from a knowledgeable person in this subject, that helps you to understand the issue better.  It is merely a dodge or a diversion.

Your only explanation is that its Clintons fault for giving poor people loans they could not afford.  You can't accept the fact that the poor weren't the only ones that got these loans.  God forbid a rich person gets a loan they can't afford to pay back.  That never happens.  They are too smart with their money.  You can't accept the fact that at the same time the poor were defaulting on their loans, the middle class and the wealthy were defaulting on their loans too.  I bet if you look at the average income of people who were forclosed on, they will probably fall into the middle class catagory.

[lrs]

 
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz

[Dixie Dude]

I consider my stepson poor, he was a restaurant manager, and had his house paid for.  He wanted to run his own restaurant, but the bank loaned him money at 100% of the home.  We advised against it.  It was his decision.  Now he is back to manageing a large restaurant in another state but renting.  Bill Clinton got the senate republicans to go along with him to deregulate the banking industry and for the deregulation, they had to make loans to minority poor at 100%.  So they opened it up to all at 100%.  This should never have happened.  On another note, McCain with two other senators saw the problem coming 3 years ago, but couldn't get the senate to vote on re-regulation of the mortgage industry.  Of course Dems took over knowing this in 2006, but they wanted the crash to take place on Bush's watch and did nothing.  It is not my fault for the banks making bad loans, if they did, let them fail, don't bail them out with taxpayer money.  Let their assets be taken over by more solvent banks, like Wells Fargo did with Wichovia. 

[Dixie Dude]

Also, Obama is doing nothing to try to keep people in their homes, like using Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to refinance at a very low interest.  He wants to give money to ACORN and take over banks and business to socialise them.  His plans are not going to get people back to work anytime soon, it is just going to prolong the agony and make more people on the fed to take care of them.  Socialism = everyone suffers because what little wealth there is is spread around.  Capitalism = everyone has a chance to improve and move up in the world.

[billy_56081]

You are talking about a bill submitted by a single politician that has no cosponsers.

 Well Jim from Tennesee, I am still waiting for you to put your guns where your mouth is! After all this law won't pass by what  you are saying. So are you going to pull thos guns or whistle Dixie?

[JimFromTN]

Yea right.  Let me post all of my guns and my address to let everyone know what house to break into.  Should I post the hours I'm not at home so they know when to break in?  The government would be the least of my worries.

This confuses me.

I consider my stepson poor, he was a restaurant manager, and had his house paid for.  He wanted to run his own restaurant, but the bank loaned him money at 100% of the home.   

Are you saying he used his home that was paid for as collateral for the resturaunt and they gave hime 100% of the value of the home or are you saying he sold his home bought a resturaunt and financied a new home with a 100% loan?

[Dixie Dude]

That is right, 100% of a home worth about $120,000 back then.  His home was paid for with inheritance money.  He borrowed against it to finance his business.  We also gave him $30,000 to help keep his business affoat, and will never see it again.  Home values dropped about the same time he went out of business.  He had to find work, so he just walked away, we just couldn't help him anymore.  Value dropped to about $100,000.  That is for a 12-1500 sq. ft. home.  It was 1200 upstairs with a half basement (former garage) that he finished out into a room and kitchenette with the laundry downstairs.  Not too big.  He brought home maybe 30,000 a year with a family of 4, that is poor.  As I said, we advised against it.  Also, he is half native american from his fathers side.  So, he was considered a minority, thus 100% loan.  I know what I am talking about.  He had good food, but didn't know how to manage the finances, no college or business training.  So, if a lot of minorities got loans like he did, no wonder the fall.  When the poor fall, the middle class suffer, because the home builders, electricians, plumbers, etc, can't build homes they can sell, so they go out of business, thus the middle class forcloses, then it begins to hit the rich when their companies suffer.  Trickle up dominoes.  Is that simple enough of an explaination.  I see it in the home market.  I design gas systems for new subdivisions and industries.  They are still building homes for upper middle class and rich here, but not small homes.  I have seniority in my job, there were 3 of us working engineering in my district, now I am the only one left.  No one was laid off, just one was promoted, the other retired, and they decided not to replace them with the bad economy.  However, I am very busy, thank goodness.  I see these poor, I see a whole page of forclosed homes, almost all are in poor neighborhoods here.  Your idea of middle class and rich having more forclosed homes, well I know Florida has been hit hard, but most of these are second or vacation homes.  Rich may have abandoned these because of their businesses suffering, but they have probably kept their primary homes.  Most people I am associated with who had these Florida homes and condo's rented them out about half the year.  When people can't afford vacations, they can't get rent, when they can't get rent, they have to sell or abandon something. 

[JimFromTN]

Your step son does not need to be a minority to get a 100% loan, an 80/20 loan, or an interest only loan.  Anyone can get them.  One of my brothers and my sister both live in what I would consider wealthy neighborhoods where the house values range from $500,000 to over a million.  Their neighborhoods are filled with for sale signs and absolute auction signs.  These are people homes, not their vacation homes.  In my sister's nieghborhood, a house went at auction for $400,000 that originally sold for $650,000.  A friend of mine where I works has a brother who moved up from Atlanta.  He used to live in a neighborhood where houses averaged $350,000.  The people who lived there were young white 30 somethings where both husband and wife worked and the average combined income was somewhere in the $100,000 to $120,000 range.  Of all the people that his brother hung out with in the neighborhood, his brother was the only one who did not have an interest only loan on his house.  They were all planning to refienace or sell when the prices went up.  Now they are all screwed.  They have paid no principle and they own more on the houses then they are worth.

[Dixie Dude]

Like I said, I don't agree with everything the Republicans do, nor everything Rush Limbaugh says, BUT I don't trust the Liberal Democrats at all period.  With the exception of Reagan, I have voted the lesser of two evils, since first voting for Nixon.  I agree with the Republicans about 75% of the time and about the same with Rush.  Obama doesn't want anyone against him at all.  He is scary.  He wants to shut up Rush, Shawn, and others who disagree with him.  He wants to do away with guns also, and he is pro abortion.  This takes away the first amendment of free speech and the second of self defence and preservation.  Abortion is just plain murder of unborn humans, there are so many ways of birth control, abortion is just plain unnecessary.  I believe in free trade IF it is fair trade.  If foreign countries can't improve their working conditions, child labor laws, offer social security or some type of savings plan, institute environmental laws like us, than it isn't FAIR trade.  I don't mind trading with Europe, Canada, or Japan who's living conditions are similar IF their governments aren't subsidising the industry like Airbus of France who competes against Boeing and Lockheed here.  There needs to be a tarriff on any imported good equal to their government subsidies if they want to sell to Americans and American owned companies. 

[45-70.gov]

obama  goes  on  muslim  television
and starts  a fued  with  a major media figure  in america

i  have heard  it said
''he will  be too busy with the economy to go after gun control''

between  gitmo limbaogh and  muslim TV
all  the pork  in  the stimulus package
what  trouble is a few gun laws??

[billy_56081]

Yea right.  Let me post all of my guns and my address to let everyone know what house to break into.  Should I post the hours I'm not at home so they know when to break in?  The government would be the least of my worries.

This confuses me.

I consider my stepson poor, he was a restaurant manager, and had his house paid for.  He wanted to run his own restaurant, but the bank loaned him money at 100% of the home.  

Are you saying he used his home that was paid for as collateral for the resturaunt and they gave hime 100% of the value of the home or are you saying he sold his home bought a resturaunt and financied a new home with a 100% loan?

Well PM them to me and I'll forward it to my brother, oh wait you are a liberal, your word means nothing. Sorry Jim I forgot that I was not dealing with anyone who has ethics and morals.