Originally posted by capcom_suicide
View Post
The majority of Democrats voted *with* the president, the majority of republicans voted against their own man.
-
Twas the republicans who voted against it!
The majority of Democrats voted *with* the president, the majority of republicans voted against their own man. -
Yeah I read that as well. I don't have a good enough grasp of US politics to explain / understand this...Originally posted by djjimbob View PostComment
-
Some thought it was against the point of capitalism/survival of the fittest. It also could set a president.Comment
-
The profits are already socialised. Lots of people either own shares, have savings in funds, pensions which rely on the shares or have invested into the bank by other means.Originally posted by vanpeebles View PostComment
-
I blame everyone's viewpoint on property as investment rather than as "home".
On the one hand interest rates are being kept low to slow inflation, but on the other, this drives up property prices due to cheap mortgages. But if the cost of purchasing a house mortgage were included in the measurements for inflation, you'd see this new inflation value skyrocketing for years, with fewer and fewer people able to afford their own place because greedy people insist on buying up extra housing to rent and sell. Whilst you need a proportion of rental available, with this proportion increasing, even less housing available to buy, house prices continued further quickly and it wasn't going to be long before it reached a point where supply outstripped demand and completely screwed all the greedy people who had invested but not yet paid off their mortgages.
Whenever I do something to house e.g. doubleglazing, or decorating, everyone says "that will increase the value nicely", whereas surely the first thing should be "that will make life nice for you" (i.e. nice home stuff). Sad really.
You can blame the big companies all you like, but the general populace is just as much to blame.Comment
-
I know, but there was enough Democrats to stop the bill, so I assumed they would rally their own "No's" to be "Yes" in order to get it passed.Originally posted by djjimbob View PostComment
-
I think we all know who is really to blame Charles...
Comment
-
My understanding is that many in the House are up for re-election very soon, so in order to secure votes they're doing whatever their constituents want. Many Americans see it all as a rescue of the city at the expense of tax payers, so they're against it - especially middle America which is Republican.Originally posted by ItsThere View Post
I think the reality is that nobody knows whether the $700bn would save the industry, and nobody really knows how much it would cost (and who would pay for it). For those reasons I'm unsure whether its failure is a good or bad thing - except as some kind of victory for free democracy (i.e. it hasn't been forced through).
That's my limited understanding...Comment
-
It's a sign of incredibly poor party discipline on both sides.
Bush and McCain both supported the bill which went against the "no government intereference in business" approach of the republicans. Lots of republicans put principle over party and voted against.
Obama didn't support the bill (saying it taxpayers shouldn't pay for business). This was against the Democrat principles of government helping the people. Hence Democrats voting for.
Obama stands to lose out the most politically because now a lot of the blame for the bill failing falls on his shoulders (he campaigned against it) and is indicative of his financial policy. If this is a disaster, his popularity will plummet.Comment
-
Thats another good point, people owning lots of houses to make money should be mega taxed.Originally posted by charlesr View PostComment
-
What should've happened was a tax on the increase in value of a home to make them rubbish as an investment. 40% on any increase (after inflation is taken into account) would've been good.
There should've also been restrictions on 'right to buy' purchases of council houses. Buying a house off the council for £60,000 then selling for £180,000 after you've lived in it the minimum time was always going to contribute to house price inflation. The people that took advantage of this also seem to be the people complaining about high house prices and lack of houses for their children...Comment
-
This was in the independant a while back:
A minimum of 3 months wages as a buffer.
Is that a normal amount for folk in the UK? I'm think that if you had 3 months of a husband & wifes salary, (Say ?15,000 for two young professionals on about 30k a year) then why would you have credit card debt?
It's been many years since I was in the UK, but is this 3 months salary common?Comment
-
3months is a pretty big buffer but it's easy to do if you have a disciplined saving scheme. Need to be careful your saving aren't too much or else it'll disqualify you from jobseekers.
But yeah, if you've credit card debt, you should pay that off before saving. 5% interest vs paying 20% just doesn't compare. Also, never pay a credit card into credit. Ever.Comment
-
At the end of the day, it's everyone trying to grab as much cash as quickly as poss.
For example, I live in an area where there are many plots designated as growing only and no development unless it's growing related (as in farming). Many of the (large) plots have no homes on them.
Some people using gypsy credentials* bought the plot next to me and moved in 4 mobile homes and then applied for planning (which they then got because of a human rights law). One of the homes has now been extended with a permanent wooden structure and the council have been told but not objected. This means in 4 years, they can get instant planning approved to build a house on the plot and then sell it for 10 times the value they paid for it. Clever.
*They sold a perfectly good UK home to fund the plot purchase and the mobile homes are all new and they've been living in Thailand for the last 5 years.
So a great way of making a quick buck, but yet another bit of land that should be used to provide us with food will now turn into yet another horrifically bad tast bungalow palace. Come the revolution and oil runs out and armmegeddon etc.
they'll wish they'd kept it for growing food, which at the end of the day is the only really valuable commodity alongside water and possibly heat.
Turns out they were using 2 of the homes to grow and treat cannabis (I suppose at least they were growing something!). I did wonder how come they never worked and yet had a constant stream of new motorbikes, quadbikes, sports cars and other toys arriving.... They've been cautioned though so that's sorted. I can be happy that my children are growing up next to ex-drug suppliers for sure
Similar thing is happening to a plot on the other side. Someone who's only income is a £400/month lay preacher at the crematorium, but drives a new jaguar has bought the plot for £250k saying he will grow. Bit weird considering other neighbour that actually grows (and was renting glasshouses on the plot) offered 40k above that... cash transactions ftw though!! Strangely enough once he'd bought it, he put the glass rental prices up so much that the grower had to pull out. Looking into his background a couple of years ago he bought another plot nearby with a massive successful going concern growing business in place. Since he bought it, the business has spookily failed completely and he's been forced to split the land up and sell it for profit.
The planning laws are completely screwy though and your performance in any previous application has no bearing on any new planning application.
Now... How can I become a "gypsy"?Comment
-
Now now, Gypsies are a perfectly valid race (Roma). Of course they're 8th generation Brits and are about as genetically Roma as I am but any badmouthing is racist (at least that's what they say).
There are plenty of laws you can take advantage of yourself. The classic squatters law (although that now takes 10 years) is a great one. Don't forget the power of anonymous police tip offs too. Police aren expecially fond of 'travellers' so if you can give them probable cause, they'll jump at the chance to have a nose around.Comment
Comment