I can actually understand that went too damn far. What I don't understand is the adjustable rate for those people and why sell them houses way outside their income means?
I'm saying his assertion is stupid in multiple ways: 1) I think it is pretty well accepted that a huge part of this recession is due to the housing market crash. This was because people got into home loans they couldn't afford. I don't think most of the foreclosures and subprime loans can be blamed on the "rich". 2) He seems to be making the assertion that if the government gives people their own money back, they will make "stupid investments". Well, guess what, that isn't for the government to decide. That is part of our freedom. Additionally, poor and middle class are definitely at risk of making "stupid investments" if given their own money back. Why don't we just give all of our money to the government and let them decide where to invest it? That way the government can protect us from ourselves. 3) There are LOTS of small-business owners that aren't "those people" who are considered the "very rich" receiving Bush's tax cuts. It is ridiculous to think that this tax will only affect those evil, large corporations.
Because the secondary market assumes all the risk and the secondary market for conforming loans are implicitly backed by the US Government because of FNMA and FHLMC. That's why Congress could push the banks; they were playing with the Government's money, not the banks.
Oregon politics is dominated by the public employee unions and while it has had one record breaking spending increase after another, it has not had a tax cut in over twenty years. (The last tax limitation was Measure 5 which represented a tax shift rather than a tax cut.) More importantly, the massive tax increase sought by the public employee unions under Measures 66 and 67 have nothing to do with funding “social spending programs” or even “educational improvement programs.” The total $733 Million dollar tax increase will be used to fund the additional 2400 public employees hired by Gov. Kulongoski and the gratuitous five percent pay increase over and above the regular salary increases authorized by Kulongoski during his second term in office. While over 130,000 Oregonians have lost their jobs in the last two years, Gov. Kulongoski, with the approval of the Democrat dominated legislature, has hired 2,400 additional state employees. Almost all of those employees have become members of Oregon’s powerful public employee unions by virtue of collective bargaining agreements executed by Kulongoski that requires employees to be members of the unions or to pay the dues required of union members. The cost of those additional dues paying public employee unions members is $192.5 Million annually or $385Million for the biennium – half of the total proposed tax increase. And while Oregonians in the private sector were losing jobs, losing hours and absorbing pay decreases, Kulongoski granted the public employee unions a five percent pay increase over and above the bargained for increase and the step increase (the one you get for just showing up for the job each year). Three salary increases in a year. Those salary increases added another $296 Million dollars for the biennium. That brings the total to $681 Million. I also read that the last argument for voting No on the phamplets you get was written by a pary in favor of 66 & ^7==67. They were crafty enough to know the last submitted argument against 66 & 67 will be the last one the voters will read in the arguments against voting yes. I thoiught that was bullshit. NO on both 66 & 67
Umm..you do remember that state workers had to take several furlough days last year, right? And I'd like to see the collective bargaining agreements to see what the raises for the state workers were.
The complete fallacy of this argument is that companies already go in droves outside the U.S. The only way you'll nullify that is to equalize currencies across the world so that some countries don't get an added government benefit. Once you figure out a bill that will accomplish that, then perhaps you'll gain more traction.
Is every government employee necessary? I think the fact we've had furlough days and the government still runs just fine tells me we should have more of those days, or better yet, start firing employees to lower the tax burden on Oregonians.
Not to tell anyone how to vote, but if you have kids/grandkids in school, this is something to consider: For Eugene School District 4J, whether these two measures pass will cause an $8.5M swing in their next budget cycle. This is against a budget of about $115M. I don't recall the amount cut last year, but it was bigger than worst case senario this year. Their administrators and professionals gave up a 3.5% COLA they were due last year. All other employees took furlough days. They used up most of their reserves last year. It's about the same situation for all school districts, just bigger or smaller numbers, depending on the size of the district. Go Blazers
There are too many administrators in schools. Fire administrators and put the ones you don't fire in a classroom.
BTW, have you ever noticed that when there's a tax increase on the ballot, it's always schools and prisons that are on the front lines for cuts? Why not the DMV or ODOT or some silly backwater? I'll tell you why: If you can't scare people, they won't vote for the increase. We all have to do with less these days. Government should be no exception.
Uh, we're in a recession. Most people in this country aren't getting COLAs, and many are just happy to have a job. It is a tough argument to convince those citizens who are getting hit hard by the recession to pay more taxes so that state employees can get their 3.5% COLA.
Not a bad gig if you ask me. Most are getting no raises, decrease in pay or losing their jobs. Gov't employees get a raise and then forced furlough. I would happy with more vacation days with no pay . . . if I got an icrease in salary.
That theory never pans out. There's nobody else able to pick up the enormous cost and disastrous end results of bribing businesses to locate. Every business has highly negative impacts on roads, traffic, parking, pollution, communication avenues, police/fire/medical services, regulatory agencies, water supply...pretty much anything taxes pay for will grow in cost due to any new business. Massive subsidy of businesses simply to attract them is why our entire nations infrastructure has rotted away to third-world condition. Ideally, all tax revenue would come entirely from business, and individuals would therefore pay only their fair share by consumption of goods.
Spoken like a true real estate agent. I think the gov't should get the money from an increase in property taxes.
Your lack of comprehension has no bounds. Hey, at least you make everybody around you appear smarter.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, I guess. Check tax studies and you'll see that business provide a net positive in terms of taxes while "rooftops" (meaning residential homes) are a net negative.
