- This topic has 50 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
Huckleberry.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 22, 2009 at 8:22 PM #16541October 23, 2009 at 7:44 AM #472607
scaredyclassic
Participantthe problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.
October 23, 2009 at 7:44 AM #472786scaredyclassic
Participantthe problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.
October 23, 2009 at 7:44 AM #473143scaredyclassic
Participantthe problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.
October 23, 2009 at 7:44 AM #473219scaredyclassic
Participantthe problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.
October 23, 2009 at 7:44 AM #473445scaredyclassic
Participantthe problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.
October 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM #472732jonnycsd
Participant[quote=scaredycat]the problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.[/quote]
Scaredy, excellent post! ROTFLMAO! This is a great parody of all the political patronage that is masquerading as “stimulus” or “social justice” today. There is nothing accidental about the economic “distortions” of evolving new politics. Politician 1 takes from group “A” and gives to group “B” to indirectly buy votes. Education, infrastructure and public services fail while the costs of running a paternalistic government destroy the value of the currency. The good ol’ USA is turning into a banana republic, especially California. Redistribution is a joke, regardless of if the beneficiary is Goldman Sachs, the widow on social security who gets a second $250 bump right at the time her Medicare is getting cut, the unionized “civil servant”, the suburban dual income family who just got a home buyers credit or the third generation welfare family. Maybe the Supreme Court will dust off the tenth amendment and put an end to all these shenanigans, but I doubt it.
October 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM #472906jonnycsd
Participant[quote=scaredycat]the problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.[/quote]
Scaredy, excellent post! ROTFLMAO! This is a great parody of all the political patronage that is masquerading as “stimulus” or “social justice” today. There is nothing accidental about the economic “distortions” of evolving new politics. Politician 1 takes from group “A” and gives to group “B” to indirectly buy votes. Education, infrastructure and public services fail while the costs of running a paternalistic government destroy the value of the currency. The good ol’ USA is turning into a banana republic, especially California. Redistribution is a joke, regardless of if the beneficiary is Goldman Sachs, the widow on social security who gets a second $250 bump right at the time her Medicare is getting cut, the unionized “civil servant”, the suburban dual income family who just got a home buyers credit or the third generation welfare family. Maybe the Supreme Court will dust off the tenth amendment and put an end to all these shenanigans, but I doubt it.
October 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM #473268jonnycsd
Participant[quote=scaredycat]the problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.[/quote]
Scaredy, excellent post! ROTFLMAO! This is a great parody of all the political patronage that is masquerading as “stimulus” or “social justice” today. There is nothing accidental about the economic “distortions” of evolving new politics. Politician 1 takes from group “A” and gives to group “B” to indirectly buy votes. Education, infrastructure and public services fail while the costs of running a paternalistic government destroy the value of the currency. The good ol’ USA is turning into a banana republic, especially California. Redistribution is a joke, regardless of if the beneficiary is Goldman Sachs, the widow on social security who gets a second $250 bump right at the time her Medicare is getting cut, the unionized “civil servant”, the suburban dual income family who just got a home buyers credit or the third generation welfare family. Maybe the Supreme Court will dust off the tenth amendment and put an end to all these shenanigans, but I doubt it.
October 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM #473344jonnycsd
Participant[quote=scaredycat]the problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.[/quote]
Scaredy, excellent post! ROTFLMAO! This is a great parody of all the political patronage that is masquerading as “stimulus” or “social justice” today. There is nothing accidental about the economic “distortions” of evolving new politics. Politician 1 takes from group “A” and gives to group “B” to indirectly buy votes. Education, infrastructure and public services fail while the costs of running a paternalistic government destroy the value of the currency. The good ol’ USA is turning into a banana republic, especially California. Redistribution is a joke, regardless of if the beneficiary is Goldman Sachs, the widow on social security who gets a second $250 bump right at the time her Medicare is getting cut, the unionized “civil servant”, the suburban dual income family who just got a home buyers credit or the third generation welfare family. Maybe the Supreme Court will dust off the tenth amendment and put an end to all these shenanigans, but I doubt it.
October 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM #473568jonnycsd
Participant[quote=scaredycat]the problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.[/quote]
Scaredy, excellent post! ROTFLMAO! This is a great parody of all the political patronage that is masquerading as “stimulus” or “social justice” today. There is nothing accidental about the economic “distortions” of evolving new politics. Politician 1 takes from group “A” and gives to group “B” to indirectly buy votes. Education, infrastructure and public services fail while the costs of running a paternalistic government destroy the value of the currency. The good ol’ USA is turning into a banana republic, especially California. Redistribution is a joke, regardless of if the beneficiary is Goldman Sachs, the widow on social security who gets a second $250 bump right at the time her Medicare is getting cut, the unionized “civil servant”, the suburban dual income family who just got a home buyers credit or the third generation welfare family. Maybe the Supreme Court will dust off the tenth amendment and put an end to all these shenanigans, but I doubt it.
October 23, 2009 at 4:49 PM #472890sobmaz
Participantwith the credit about the expire, the last minute frenzy buying will cease.
It won’t matter if it is extended, the rush to buy to get the credit before it expires is over.
I thought inventory would rise about a month before it expired and in the last week it has a bit. Next week will be very telling.
It ought to help your situation.
October 23, 2009 at 4:49 PM #473068sobmaz
Participantwith the credit about the expire, the last minute frenzy buying will cease.
It won’t matter if it is extended, the rush to buy to get the credit before it expires is over.
I thought inventory would rise about a month before it expired and in the last week it has a bit. Next week will be very telling.
It ought to help your situation.
October 23, 2009 at 4:49 PM #473433sobmaz
Participantwith the credit about the expire, the last minute frenzy buying will cease.
It won’t matter if it is extended, the rush to buy to get the credit before it expires is over.
I thought inventory would rise about a month before it expired and in the last week it has a bit. Next week will be very telling.
It ought to help your situation.
October 23, 2009 at 4:49 PM #473509sobmaz
Participantwith the credit about the expire, the last minute frenzy buying will cease.
It won’t matter if it is extended, the rush to buy to get the credit before it expires is over.
I thought inventory would rise about a month before it expired and in the last week it has a bit. Next week will be very telling.
It ought to help your situation.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
