Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 25, 2009 at 7:19 PM in reply to: $15,000 Home Buyers Credit Costs $43K or $133K or $292,000 per home! #473996October 25, 2009 at 7:19 PM in reply to: $15,000 Home Buyers Credit Costs $43K or $133K or $292,000 per home! #474220
sd_matt
Participant[quote=Arraya]It’s no subsidy to the people for being tricked into buying increasingly over priced homes. It’s a crime against American people.
This is a last ditch desperate attempt to keep the whole banking system alive. Which will invariably fail.
FHA is practically giving subprime loans again. With an ever deteriorating real economy. Eventually, they will run out of buyers.[/quote]
Or maybe fence sitters will wait for ever bigger tax credits.
I still don’t quite understand the math in the article. Can someone here put it in laymans terms?
October 24, 2009 at 6:25 PM in reply to: $15,000 Home Buyers Credit Costs $43K or $133K or $292,000 per home! #473237ParticipantMaybe if we wait long enough we can all get a $360,000 tax credit.
October 24, 2009 at 6:25 PM in reply to: $15,000 Home Buyers Credit Costs $43K or $133K or $292,000 per home! #473417ParticipantMaybe if we wait long enough we can all get a $360,000 tax credit.
October 24, 2009 at 6:25 PM in reply to: $15,000 Home Buyers Credit Costs $43K or $133K or $292,000 per home! #473779ParticipantMaybe if we wait long enough we can all get a $360,000 tax credit.
October 24, 2009 at 6:25 PM in reply to: $15,000 Home Buyers Credit Costs $43K or $133K or $292,000 per home! #473856ParticipantMaybe if we wait long enough we can all get a $360,000 tax credit.
October 24, 2009 at 6:25 PM in reply to: $15,000 Home Buyers Credit Costs $43K or $133K or $292,000 per home! #474081ParticipantMaybe if we wait long enough we can all get a $360,000 tax credit.
Participant[quote=sd_matt]So some are indeed “more equal than others”
The baby didn’t ask to be brought over to that house. It was brought there. And now it has to play by that houses rules?[/quote]
And now the next definition regarding values;
What is your definition of fair?
Participant[quote=sd_matt]So some are indeed “more equal than others”
The baby didn’t ask to be brought over to that house. It was brought there. And now it has to play by that houses rules?[/quote]
And now the next definition regarding values;
What is your definition of fair?
Participant[quote=sd_matt]So some are indeed “more equal than others”
The baby didn’t ask to be brought over to that house. It was brought there. And now it has to play by that houses rules?[/quote]
And now the next definition regarding values;
What is your definition of fair?
Participant[quote=sd_matt]So some are indeed “more equal than others”
The baby didn’t ask to be brought over to that house. It was brought there. And now it has to play by that houses rules?[/quote]
And now the next definition regarding values;
What is your definition of fair?
Participant[quote=sd_matt]So some are indeed “more equal than others”
The baby didn’t ask to be brought over to that house. It was brought there. And now it has to play by that houses rules?[/quote]
And now the next definition regarding values;
What is your definition of fair?
Participant[quote=briansd1]Allan, here’s my view on Clinton.
Clinton had sex and he lied about it to cover up his affair. Sure he lied, but if nobody had asked about the trysts then he would not have had to lie.
It was chicken shit for the right to try to get our president over sex by using technicalities in the law.
What the right did was not honorable. They couldn’t get him on the important issues so they tried to get him for sex.
So, yes, I excuse Clinton’s misdeeds.
And, yes, all politicians’ ethics are questionable. Some politicians are much worse than others.
But, unlike conservatives, liberals are more willing to look at the context of the transgressions.
To me, conservatives are like communists. They hide behind ideals that nobody can live up to and they use ideology to control people. And they misunderstand human nature.[/quote]
Calling an affair a national security issue was indeed chicken shit. It lowered the bar.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Allan, here’s my view on Clinton.
Clinton had sex and he lied about it to cover up his affair. Sure he lied, but if nobody had asked about the trysts then he would not have had to lie.
It was chicken shit for the right to try to get our president over sex by using technicalities in the law.
What the right did was not honorable. They couldn’t get him on the important issues so they tried to get him for sex.
So, yes, I excuse Clinton’s misdeeds.
And, yes, all politicians’ ethics are questionable. Some politicians are much worse than others.
But, unlike conservatives, liberals are more willing to look at the context of the transgressions.
To me, conservatives are like communists. They hide behind ideals that nobody can live up to and they use ideology to control people. And they misunderstand human nature.[/quote]
Calling an affair a national security issue was indeed chicken shit. It lowered the bar.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Allan, here’s my view on Clinton.
Clinton had sex and he lied about it to cover up his affair. Sure he lied, but if nobody had asked about the trysts then he would not have had to lie.
It was chicken shit for the right to try to get our president over sex by using technicalities in the law.
What the right did was not honorable. They couldn’t get him on the important issues so they tried to get him for sex.
So, yes, I excuse Clinton’s misdeeds.
And, yes, all politicians’ ethics are questionable. Some politicians are much worse than others.
But, unlike conservatives, liberals are more willing to look at the context of the transgressions.
To me, conservatives are like communists. They hide behind ideals that nobody can live up to and they use ideology to control people. And they misunderstand human nature.[/quote]
Calling an affair a national security issue was indeed chicken shit. It lowered the bar.
-
AuthorPosts
