RIP Logic and Intelligence

Except of course almost none of the bad loans are CRA ones. Most of the bad subprime loans were done by companies that were not covered by CRA. But don't let facts interfere with your reality.

read closer wrote:

Fishing Instructor wrote:

I'm not sure what your point is. Current estimate is that the net cost of TARP is $25B versus an August estimate of $66B loss.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1647

Even that is ridiculous. The Banks will have paid back all of the money plus a profit to the treasury. The bad mortgages, that were forced on Fanni/Freddie by Democratic Senators, is what will result in a net los to the TARP funds.

oh no you dint wrote:

Boy these semantic games sure are fun

Your reading comprehension and/or logical thinking is not up to snuff.

First of all, everyone wants taxes to be lower, not just "many republicans". But the reality is that a certain level of taxation is necessary.

Secondly, it cannot be considered an "increase" if it based on a tax rate that does not exist except in your mind. On the other hand, existing federal law stipulates what the tax rates are to be effective January 1. This is very real, not a figment of your imagination. The new bill lowers these existing rates which means that the taxes will be CUT. It's pure and simple.[/quote]

If you pay x now in taxes and tomorrow you pay x+ in taxes then it's an increase! If you pay x now and tomorrow you still pay x then there's no change. Nowhere in this argument is there a cut. Many people refer to this as the 'Bush tax cuts' and that's because at that time when Bush was president the taxes went from x to x- which was a decrease or cut. Like most liberals your thinking is completely backwards. It's unfortunate that you have this problem but there are places that deal with people with mental disorders such as yours. I truly hope you seek the help you so desperately need and I wish you well.

Never gets laid wrote:

If you pay x now in taxes and tomorrow you pay x+ in taxes then it's an increase! If you pay x now and tomorrow you still pay x then there's no change. Nowhere in this argument is there a cut. Many people refer to this as the 'Bush tax cuts' and that's because at that time when Bush was president the taxes went from x to x- which was a decrease or cut. Like most liberals your thinking is completely backwards. It's unfortunate that you have this problem but there are places that deal with people with mental disorders such as yours. I truly hope you seek the help you so desperately need and I wish you well.

Currently the tax rate for 1/1/11 is x. If this proposed change is made, it will lower to x-. That's a tax decrease (a.k.a. tax cut) for 2011. There are no changes being proposed for today's, or tomorrow's, tax rate.

I am a moderately conservative registered Republican. I suppose you will want me to refer to these changes as the "Obama tax cuts". Good one!

ha! A liberal bemoaning the loss of logic and intelligence is like a vegan bemoaning the loss of a roast beef sandwich!

oh no you dint wrote:

Your reading comprehension and/or logical thinking is not up to snuff.

Secondly, it cannot be considered an "increase" if it based on a tax rate that does not exist except in your mind. On the other hand, existing federal law stipulates what the tax rates are to be effective January 1. This is very real, not a figment of your imagination.

Let met see if I have this straight: Something which could have happened in the future now is NOT happening in the future is "very real"? Um... ok.

The new bill lowers these existing rates which means that the taxes will be CUT. It's pure and simple.

What "existing" rates. THEY DONT EXIST. They haven't existed for years.

The only cut that happened happened YEARS AGO when the tax rates were lowered there originally. The new bill keeps the existing rates at the same place. It does not cut anything except in your mind.

This is logic 101. Go back to class.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

The latest estimate is that TARP will lose $25 billion before all is said and done. In other words, when the government says it will make money on TARP it IS lying.

$25 billion? We're doing all this pissing and moaning about $25 billion? Yeah, that's a lot of money, but in the context of the federal budget it's noise.

oh yes i did wrote:

Let met see if I have this straight: Something which could have happened in the future now is NOT happening in the future is "very real"? Um... ok.

Correct. It IS federal law. That's about as real as it gets.

oh yes i did wrote:

What "existing" rates. THEY DONT EXIST. They haven't existed for years.

The only cut that happened happened YEARS AGO when the tax rates were lowered there originally. The new bill keeps the existing rates at the same place. It does not cut anything except in your mind.

This is logic 101. Go back to class.

If the new bill does not cut anything, then why do we need it? I'll tell you why. It's because when Bush cut the taxes, he also set a date to return them to their pre-existing levels (look it up). The new agreement cuts these pre-existing levels.

As you recommend, I'm going back to logic class now. Hopefully my students will understand why I am a few minutes late. Education never stops, even on letsrun.