Sibirsky wrote:KiloMikeAlpha wrote:Sibirsky wrote:KiloMikeAlpha wrote:Goath wrote:Timesjoke wrote:Kashindahar wrote:Timesjoke wrote:
In most cases it is Government that caused the lack of jobs. Government regulations and taxes are the biggest reason jobs leave America. By trying to rape the rich with unfair taxes, you make them react by figuring out ways to protect their income. Look At California, employers leaving the State and going to friendlier States next door. Greedy? None of us would pay more than we have to so why does anyone else believe business owners should act differently then we do? Do any of you decline to take your legal deductions on your tax returns?
Another mistake many make is they don't understand that government employees do not pay taxes. Sure they have tax deductions on the stubs but they are recycling the same tax dollars, there is no gain for the Government tax collecting. New government jobs hurt the economy, they don't help it for the same reason. The only thing that helps the economy is new earned dollars, and unfortunately liberals in general, and this President specifically hurt business. Obama will be responsible for the loss of more private sector jobs than any other President in history.
Instead of being mad that you don't have as much money as someone else, how about instead just get off your behind and go get your own prosperity?
How does this help someone who isn't able to work, rather than someone who just can't get a job? Someone on disability legitimately, in other words.
greed and death explained the difference well but I will go further than that.
Why is the inability to work the responsibility of the Government to fix? As I already pointed out, to give that person a dollar the Government must take $1.70 from "someone else". Government meddling caused most of the lost jobs in the first place so why would anyone believe more Government will have any better results?
Less government means more jobs, more jobs means everyone is making more money and then these very few who can't work (not to be confused with those who can but choose not to) can be easily taken care of by their family. Charity is not the responsibility of the Federal Government and it is costing more than it can ever help.
I know I'm jumping into a deep puddle here, but on what can you base the statement "government meddling caused most of the lost jobs in the first place [...]?" From what I can see, it was the lack of appropriate government regulation of the financial system that has caused this most recent economic kerfluffle.
it was the government forcing banks to lend to people who couldnt afford it. This was a political move to get people into houses. This ended up being fine, for a while, while jobs and the economy was good. As soon as the economy took a bad turn, the house of cards fell down.
The "Flip this house" culture at the time also caused it. I bought a house in Austin TX for 217K in 2000. That same house by 2005 was worth 350K. Well, it wasnt WORTH 350K, but that is what houses on the block were selling for at the time. People didnt care about the value, all they knew was that they could buy a house, make some changes and sell it 6 months later for some huge profit. THAT is why there were so many funky loans. You couldnt possibly afford a 350K house, but you could afford 1K/month payments. The banks knew(or gambled) that once you sold the house in 6 months, they would get thier money back.
Now, that, also, is good if the economy is good. Once there is some sort of hiccup, it all falls apart. Now, the dude who has the 350K house, and who can onoly afford the 1K/mo payments, either has to sell the house (which no one is buying at 350K) OR come up with the ~3K/mo payments. He can't do either, so he hands it back to the bank. Now the bank has a house for 350K that THEY cant sell.
Essentially, people were using thier houses as a business. They gambled. They lost. The banks gambled. They lost. Boo Hoo. Thats business.
Agreed on all counts. Also, banks thought they had almost no risk because the government would back them. Fannie and Freddie anyone. And were they wrong? Of course not.
Your house somewhat surprises me, because Texas, during the growing of the bubble had some of the least growth in real estate prices. Sounds shitty. As a result, after the bubble burst, they also had the lowest declines in the nation. Sounds wonderful!
well, thats not the whole story. When the dotcom bubble collapsed, so did the housing market in Austin. After getting laid off, I began missing payments and ended up short selling the house for ~150K. I move to a small town and started renting.
That's a tough story KMA
Yeah it sucks. Not really crying about it because I have the right to fail. I have the right to pick my self back up and try again. I am just too afraid right now to buy a house.
They want my money!
