Thread: Obama: U.S. has lost some sense of 'shared prosperity'
View Single Post
Old 03-28-2008, 01:13 AM   #8 (permalink)
nuttyjoe
Council Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,219
Points: 5,103, Level: 45
Points: 5,103, Level: 45 Points: 5,103, Level: 45 Points: 5,103, Level: 45
Level up: 77%, 47 Points needed
Level up: 77% Level up: 77% Level up: 77%
Activity: 7%
Activity: 7% Activity: 7% Activity: 7%
nuttyjoe is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gadgetory View Post
That puts Obama's spending over 5 years to almost 13 Trillion. He is going to make the economy worse. The GOP line of Dems = more taxes is true but I see tax as an investment in the country so I don't mind but there is a limit. Shared prosperity isn't bailing out idiots who keep refinancing their homes to pay their credit card bills. What is needed is a change in attitude towards credit and consumerism. Whilst Hilary is clearly politicing (and aren't they all) there is no need to bail out any lender who has bad lending practices designed to make maximum profits in the shortest period of time. And there is no need to 'save' the people who don't borrow from a reputable lender at some time shared prosperity has to met personal responsibility.

Obama your going to increase my taxes to a level that many will find unacceptable. Stop all the huge spending policy initiatives, their is only short term political gain derived from such a move. If you are the Dems candidate you're going to end up like you're robbing peter to pay paul. By this I mean and true or not you're going to have to increase the taxes on the people you are trying to bail out and that isn't going to actually win you any votes, those people being those who earn a 'middle' income
I don't understand exactly how you can place that pricetag of 13 trillion dollars squarely upon Obama's shoulders, Gadgetory. Have you placed the cost of our war in Iraq in this category?
All in all; whatever candidate any of us believe in; I believe most of the "help" people seek must come from within ourselves first.
Should the government crack down upon predatory lenders? Sure. But why should you (or anyone else) agree to terms that you know you can't possibly afford? Whom do we blame for this mistake?
Are there some things the government can do to regulate this problem? Sure.
Personally, I would like to see all adjustable-rate mortgages abolished. This would make sure homeowners do not get an unwelcome financial surprise every few years. Another thing: All mortgages need to be capped at no more than 12%. Yes, it seems harsh. But it makes lenders think before granting such loans to those whom might be unable or unworthy of such debt. Mortgage guidelines should be regulated so that an applicant's debt ratio can be no more than 35% of their income.
All said, we have the responsibility ourselves not to get in over our heads in debt. We need to start educating ourselves and our children on the vast differeces between needs and wants.
And we also must take it upon ourselves to plan ahead for our retirements.
We cannot continue to delude ourselves that Social Security will be able to take care of us in our elderly years - even if it still is solvent; which is open for debate.
Right now, I would gladly speak for any candidate whom would be willing at this time to put forth their such plans before Congress right now. McCain, Clinton, and Obama are all still US senators; and could do so. I know they are all trying to say their plans are the best ones to follow; and therefore they are trying to ride this thought into theWhite House. Add this to the Iraq war question and I think that the first one to make an effort to do so gets the prize. We'll see which one does.