New home sales plunge 33% after tax credit expires

[Hardwork108]

Neither was making enough nukes to overkill the planet over 300 times. Bet the nukes cost more.

One can argue that the arms race helped the economy in many ways....Of course, it was not something any society desires, but spending on arms during an arms race is different from a spending spree when the government does not have the money to spend and has to borrow money and further sink the nation (read, the population) into debt.

Yep, I could be wrong, but the plan seems to be to destroy the US economy for the benefit of the NWO agenda.

Lets, wait and see.......

[Hardwork108]

Actually, most of the deficit is due not so much to Fmr Pres Bush, but the war on terror. He just happened to be head honcho when AQ launched their attack.

You are still selling the idea that some multimillionaire businessman, whose family happened to be business partners with Bush business interests, launched the 9-11 attacks, using alcohol drinking (in one case drug taking), strip club frequenting, middle class Arab kids, who seemed to leave copies of the Koran everywhere they happened to go.....??? LOL

Fmr Pres Clinton left us with a surplus, but then again, he had nothing of the magnitude of two wars and a housing meltdown to deal with, either.

You forgot to mention that former President Clinton was (and probably still is) a drug dealing, dishonest fraudester!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3120507357139#

And what mad spending sprees might you be referring to? And might you do me a favor of comparing his "mad spending sprees" with similar initiatives of past presidents? Like the war on drugs?

The War on Drugs was a scam. George Bush senior has been linked to drugs dealings (through the CIA) for years. So they were making money from importing drugs into the US while scamming the US population through taxes to fight the drugs problem....This would be funny, if it was not so tragic and vile!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0mDs...eature=related

The cold war? Maybe the cost of the arms race?

The cold war was used to make money for huge arms companies and the banks (as usual).

The agenda has moved further down the line now....the plan seems to be to destroy the US economy and make it fall in line with plans for a regionalized world government. To do so, the old US will have to be destroyed, while its population are sent into desperate panic, so as to accept any solutions that will be offered to them by the the same people who were behind the economic mayhem (and other "global" problems.).

So, Obama's spending at a time when the US is virtually bankrupt will only result in serious economic problems. Many say that this has been the plan all along and Obama was brought in to carry it out. He is doing things that George W Bush would not have been able to sell to the US public. So a new leadership for "change" was introduced to hoowink the masses for more "screwing", so to speak.

One thing about the internet... stupid people can talk as much as they want...

Not to worry, you can talk all you want as I won't hold it against you.....

[Hardwork108]

Where I disagree with Hardwork is not in the idea that there are people with long term agendas based on classist ideas of who should decide for whom, I think he's spot on there, but on that it requires anything more than a brave new world approach to do it, give people things and they will forget they never needed them. The 1984 approach has never and will never work.

You are probably right but the fact is that the powers that be are pushing for a Big Brother society. The constant fear mongering - The war on Terrorism; The War on Drugs; Man Made Global Warming; Threat from pandemics, and so on are used to bring in legislation that control every aspect of our lives. There has been an immense increase in surveillance in the US (and the UK). In some countries government employees are allowed to go through one's garbage to make sure that they have thrown the right stuff in the right bins, and if not then you can be fined, based on a fraudulent "global warming" scam.

So, there are plenty of things to worry about, specially when the level of technology used to further augment the surveillance society, is astounding. Lets not forget that children born into ever less freer society,will see it as the norm, hence they will not complain too much when their own freedoms are eroded even further....

[David Jamieson]

The banks should not have been given the greenlight to lend money to high risk applicants.

The banks should not have had the option of selling those bad buys and having them converted to credit swaps (this is where the shady part took place and really, people should be charged with fraud here).

No one should be able to convert vapour to a commodity that can be bought and sold only to have it discovered 3 buys in that it's a pig in a poke. That is also fraudulent at the core of it.

[SoCo KungFu]

It is really simple. Count the bodies.

Count the bodies (American and foreigners) under Bush/Cheney.


If the number is lower under Obama then that's less bad than Bush/Cheney.


We didn't vote for Obama cause we loved him. We voted for him because we hated Bush.

1Bad65 can whine, moan, cast aspersions, call names, criticize etc. till the cows come home...

but in the end in the choice between the lesser of the evils it's really quite simple.

You count the corpses. The guy with a smaller pile of corpses on his watch is preferably to the guy with the bigger pile of corpses.

It's really just that simple.

Its idiocy like this that's dragging not just our country but our world into oblivion.

[1bad65]

Neither was making enough nukes to overkill the planet over 300 times. Bet the nukes cost more.

One can argue that the arms race helped the economy in many ways....Of course, it was not something any society desires, but spending on arms during an arms race is different from a spending spree when the government does not have the money to spend and has to borrow money and further sink the nation (read, the population) into debt.

And the arms race accomplished it's goals, unlike the War on Poverty which only made poverty worse.

The goal was to cause the USSR's ecomomy to implode, Reagan was very clear on that. And he was 100% correct, and 100% successful. Obama should take note of success, and then emulate it instead of emulting a disaster like Jimmy Carter.

[1bad65]

That is your evidence? All he made were assertions. He literally quoted no evidence or studies supporting those assertions. Though I do like how he threw ACORN in there using words like "like" and "such as" for the old guilt by association trick. That article is polemic plain and simple. Try again.

No, I won't try again.

I'm sick and tired of being asked for proof and then when it's provided hearing 'Well that doesn't count' over and over. You asked for proof and you were provided it. I'm not going to run around in circles for you. You're like an OJ juror, you have your mind made up and no amount of evidence will sway you. I'm not debating to 'beat' or sway you, I do it so rational people reading this who are 'on the fence' on this can see your argument vs my argument and make their decision.

If you want to continue, we do it different now.

What do YOU say the CRA put into law?

Also, how do YOU think Bush's policies cause the sub-prime mess?

[1bad65]

The banks should not have been given the greenlight to lend money to high risk applicants.

They have every right to CHOOSE to make stupid decisions. But when Gov't backed the bad loans, it took away all the risks for the banks.

The banks should not have had the option of selling those bad buys and having them converted to credit swaps (this is where the shady part took place and really, people should be charged with fraud here).

No one should be able to convert vapour to a commodity that can be bought and sold only to have it discovered 3 buys in that it's a pig in a poke. That is also fraudulent at the core of it.

If anyone is charged with fraud it should be Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The banks never lied about the junk they were selling. They had junk and they sold junk. It was only purchased because it was Gov't guaranteed/backed junk.

FYI, I agree with your premise here. But in a pure capitalist society no one would have bought the junk. Once Go'vt intruded and backed the junk, it was now able to be sold. Had the Gov't not interfered in the market, the banks who made the loans would have to deal with the consequences of their actions instead of being able to sell them to someone else.

[1bad65]

I didn't realize that Fanny and Freddy were the government.

They were a government-sponsored enterprise. Their stated purpose is to expand the secondary mortgage market by securitizing mortgages in the form of mortgage-backed securities, allowing lenders to reinvest their assets into more lending and in effect increasing the number of lenders in the mortgage market by reducing the reliance on thrifts. On September 7, 2008, James Lockhart, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being placed into conservatorship of the FHFA.

As of 2008, Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) owned or guaranteed about half or 56.8% of the U.S.'s $12 trillion mortgage market.


Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/bu...prod=permalink
Fabozzi, Frank J.; Modigliani, Franco (1992), Mortgage and Mortgage-backed Securities Markets, Harvard Business School Press, p. 2

[Reality_Check]

No, I won't try again.

I'm sick and tired of being asked for proof and then when it's provided hearing 'Well that doesn't count' over and over. You asked for proof and you were provided it. I'm not going to run around in circles for you. You're like an OJ juror, you have your mind made up and no amount of evidence will sway you. I'm not debating to 'beat' or sway you, I do it so rational people reading this who are 'on the fence' on this can see your argument vs my argument and make their decision.

If you want to continue, we do it different now.

What do YOU say the CRA put into law?

Also, how do YOU think Bush's policies cause the sub-prime mess?

You have literally provided no proof to back up your assertion that the CRA both forced banks to make bad loans and that is was a cause of the sub-prime meltdown. Whereas I have provided links to studies that back up my remarks, you have linked to polemic opinion pieces. Do you see the disconnect?

Stop playing the victim card and find some solid studies backing up your assertions regarding the Community Reinvestment Act. Or stop making them. It's a fairly simple proposition.

[1bad65]

Stop playing the victim card and find some solid studies backing up your assertions regarding the Community Reinvestment Act. Or stop making them. It's a fairly simple proposition.

I'll keep speaking the truth whether you like it or not.

Care to take a shot at my two questions now, or do you feel I'm the only one in this debate who has to do that?

[Reality_Check]

I'll keep speaking the truth whether you like it or not.

Care to take a shot at my two questions now, or do you feel I'm the only one in this debate who has to do that?

I'll answer your questions as soon as you back up your remarks regarding the CRA. I did "ask" first after all.

[1bad65]

I'll answer your questions as soon as you back up your remarks regarding the CRA. I did "ask" first after all.

Then I'm done with you.

You asked for a source, and you got one. I'm not here to have to keep pulling sources until you get one you are happy with. And one of my questions was simple, I just asked what YOU say the CRA put into law.

But you not even trying to answer my questions speaks volumes. You may not like my answers, but at least I tried.

[Reality_Check]

Then I'm done with you.

So, you're going to take your ball and go home?

You asked for a source, and you got one. I'm not here to have to keep pulling sources until you get one you are happy with. And one of my questions was simple, I just asked what YOU say the CRA put into law.

But you not even trying to answer my questions speaks volumes. You may not like my answers, but at least I tried.

You did not provide a source. You provided an opinion piece. The fact that you can't see the difference says worlds about you...none of it good. I would hardly call that trying.

You have provided literally no evidence that the CRA forced banks to make bad loans or was a cause of the sub-prime meltdown. Which means, you can't find any studies that support your (repeated) baseless assertions. As such, you're going to metaphorically stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes in the hopes that you won't have to face the fact you are utterly, and demonstrably, wrong.

[1bad65]

So, you're going to take your ball and go home?

You already did that.

You did not provide a source.

I did, and he is a Professor at a friggin law school.