Records: Prof profited by buying, selling homes

[RIJIMMY]

Did you guys see this?

I would have wanted to floor Patrick if I was there. Who the hell is say what the people of MA care about>. The governors arrogant response and warrens non-sensical banter are why I hate liberals. This type of crap may work when you are inverviewed for a professor job or a community organizer, but not in the real world. I wont be hear to vote in Nov but please Massachusetts show some balls and dont vote for a dem for the sake of voting for a dem

Gov. Patrick steps in as Elizabeth Warren stonewalls - Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I dont think this is a big deal.
I think the point swimmer and others are trying to make is - its equivalent to Warren preaching about the evils of alcohol and the greedy alcohol business and in her past she used to have a few drinks now and then.
Not a big deal, but undermines her credibility.

This is a bit worse, because she profitted by it. She profitted off of others' misfortune, which she claims she is opposed to.

A better analogy would be if she spoke about the evils of alcohol, and then silently opened up a bar across the street from alcoholics ananymous.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you're saying that a profit margin of 18% is not high enough to get upset about? OK...so why do liberals incessantly attack health insurance companies, whose industry profit margins average about 5%, which is on the low side for American businesses?

Gross margin not net. Nobody in their right mind would buy a house to flip if all they thought they'd make was 18% before expenses.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

This is a bit worse, because she profitted by it. She profitted off of others' misfortune, which she claims she is opposed to.

A better analogy would be if she spoke about the evils of alcohol, and then silently opened up a bar across the street from alcoholics ananymous.

I think you're confusing misfortune with exploitation.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Did you guys see this?

I would have wanted to floor Patrick if I was there. Who the hell is say what the people of MA care about>. The governors arrogant response and warrens non-sensical banter are why I hate liberals. This type of crap may work when you are inverviewed for a professor job or a community organizer, but not in the real world. I wont be hear to vote in Nov but please Massachusetts show some balls and dont vote for a dem for the sake of voting for a dem

Gov. Patrick steps in as Elizabeth Warren stonewalls - Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston

I think the left and the right both put forth their share of kooks.

That being said I wouldn't worry if I was Scott Brown. He's a moderate Republican and this stoopid issue will undermine her credibility (like Kerry's inability to counter the Swift Vets) in a way that will turn off independent voters.

If I were Brown I wouldn't even mention it, just let the media stir the pot.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think you're confusing misfortune with exploitation.

-spence

Zimmy, if profiteers like Liz Warren didn't pounce on foreclosed homes for a quick profit, banks would have more incentive to help struggling folks stay in their homes. Try making that wrong. Warren is profitting on the misfortune of others, while she chastises others for doing the same. Irrefutable fact.

"Nobody in their right mind would buy a house to flip if all they thought they'd make was 18% before expenses."

You are focusing on the 18% deal, because that makes her look the least reptilian. How about this deal, if you read the link...

"Purchasing a foreclosed home at 2725 West Wilshire Boulevard from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for $61,000 in June 1993, then selling it in December 1994 for $95,000 — a 56 percent mark-up in just 18 months."

Zimmy, please answer this simple question...Rather than profiting from the misfortune of others, why isn't she helping those struggling folks to stay in their homes?

If what she did is OK, it's OK for others (like Mitt Romney) to do the same...

Your hypocrisy has no limits, and you have no shame.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by spence

Gross margin not net. Nobody in their right mind would buy a house to flip if all they thought they'd make was 18% before expenses.

-spence

your assuming the guy put any money into it, maybe he just sat on it.

[PaulS]

You guys are all clowns.

No one knows if she rehabed. the houses or just flipped them. None of that matters as long as you guys think you can needle the other side.

Sad

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Purchasing a foreclosed home at 2725 West Wilshire Boulevard from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for $61,000 in June 1993, then selling it in December 1994 for $95,000 — a 56 percent mark-up in just 18 months."

.

Sad part is,as with most of these sweet deals, it's who you know.

Warren is a hypocrit at best and currupt to the core. She is a manipulative weasle who used any part of the system, created by her party, to get ahead. She is everything that is wrong with politics.

Scott Brown isn't.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You guys are all clowns.

No one knows if she rehabed. the houses or just flipped them. None of that matters as long as you guys think you can needle the other side.

Sad

Once again the facts are irrelevant before making a conclusion. For all we know she lossed money on every one of these. It is unbelievable.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by buckman

Sad part is,as with most of these sweet deals, it's who you know.

Warren is a hypocrit at best and currupt to the core. She is a manipulative weasle who used any part of the system, created by her party, to get ahead. She is everything that is wrong with politics.

Scott Brown isn't.

This is the most hilarious thing I've read on this forum in YEARS

[RIJIMMY]

I'll double your humor, I agree with him

[likwid]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I'll double your humor, I agree with him

You believing the whole thing doesn't surprise me, buckman it does.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

You believing the whole thing doesn't surprise me, buckman it does.

Likwid, Zimmy, PaulS, Spence -

This woman lies about being a Native American. I could personally care less, because unlike liberals, I din't see every single thing in terms of race. But let me say this, if a Republican candidate lied about being Native American, and one only does that to get ahead, you would all be going berserk.

She also has made some money buying distressed homes. It seems to me that the Occupy Wall Street kooks would be opposed to that. But since she's a liberal, it's OK.

Here in CT, we elected a senator (a democrat) who lied about fighting in Vietnam. That didn't bother liberals. Amazing.

First, your hypocrisy literally has no limits. Second, do you ever stop to think about the type of people your side attracts? It's one perverted, immoral, tax-cheating, race-baiting, rich creep after another.

I'm not saying conservatives are perfect, God knows. But Jeez! You have the Kennedys, the Clintons, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Robert Byrd, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Hollywood scumbags...blech. The Occupy Crowd compared to tea partiers? If you owned a restaurant, which group would you want setting up camp across the street from your business?

Every time I see a list of influential liberals, I feel like a need a tetnus shot. Can't you nominate someone for some office, somewhere, anywhere, who isn't a reptile?

[PaulS]

Jim, Your posts are so full of hate. I don't think I have ever seen someone with so much hate. We know you "detest" the pres. I can't think of a person I've ever destested. I really think it must be horible to have so much hate inside you that you can actually detest someone b/c of their politics. As I've said before, I'm thankfull that I was raised to never have the hate you seem to have.

Do your kids hear you talk politics with the anger you seem to always post with - I hope not.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim, Your posts are so full of hate. I don't think I have ever seen someone with so much hate. We know you "detest" the pres. I can't think of a person I've ever destested. I really think it must be horible to have so much hate inside you that you can actually detest someone b/c of their politics. As I've said before, I'm thankfull that I was raised to never have the hate you seem to have.

Do your kids hear you talk politics with the anger you seem to always post with - I hope not.

Don't confuse justifiable contempt, with hate. I'm not angry, I'm afraid. I'm afraid that when my kids graduate from college, they'll be looking at federal income tax rates of 60%.

PaulS, our debt, including shortfalls to SS and Medicare, is north of $60 trillion, that's trillion with a "t". One side, my side, puts out a budget (Ryan's budget) that proposes one way to try to address this.

What does your side do? Do they propose an alternative? Hell, no. All they do is accuse Ryan of hating old people and poor people. They film a commercial showing Ryan push a wheelchair-bound old lady off a cliff?

you tell me, Paul...what do you think of that? In my opinion, libs are doging the issue because they are too cowardly to tell their constituents (people on the public teet) that the well is dry and we need a major overhaul. So instead of doing what's hard and important (proposing a solution), they take the easy way out, and make their base more afraid of the boogeyman GOP.

You go ahead and tell me that's an inaccurate assessment...

[PaulS]

Jim, it comes across as hate. And when many people see that they feel that there is no point in discussing anything further.

Your last para. can easily be flipped and the same thing said about the cons. The hard choice is to have tax incr. AND spending cuts. The cons. have signed pledges that they will not raise taxes $.01 and if they do, Grover N. will be on every talking head's show that night. You might not realize it but there are lots of people on the "public teet" who are not libs. Look at the whole mid - west. They get far more in taxes back then they pay in taxes.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim, it comes across as hate. And when many people see that they feel that there is no point in discussing anything further.

Your last para. can easily be flipped and the same thing said about the cons. The hard choice is to have tax incr. AND spending cuts. The cons. have signed pledges that they will not raise taxes $.01 and if they do, Grover N. will be on every talking head's show that night. You might not realize it but there are lots of people on the "public teet" who are not libs. Look at the whole mid - west. They get far more in taxes back then they pay in taxes.

"The hard choice is to have tax incr. AND spending cuts"

I agree 100 percent!

(1) WHERE is the proposed democratic budget that calls for significant tax hikes and significant spending cuts? Nowhere, that's where. THey absolutely have not proposed such a budget.

(2) if you do the math, there is NO WAY we can generate anywhere near $60 trillion of additional tax revenue in the next, say, 50 years. I agree we need more tax revenue, but the vast majority has to come from spending. Paul, in 2012, we're adding another trillion to the deficit. It would be almost impossible to generate enough additional tax revenue just to break even for this year alone, let alone start making a dent in the debt.

I have heard Obama say that if we eliminate the Bush tax cuts on the rich, that might generate another $90 billion in revenue. Let's examine that.

As I said, in the upcoming year, Obama is spending $1 trillion more then he takes in. So even IF we did get that additional $90 billion, that's less than one-tenth of what we need just to break even this year, nowhere near enough to pay down any of our existing debt.

But let's pretend there is no deficit this year (which as I said, there is). Let's pretend that every penny of that $90 billion would be allocated to pay down our debt (which it wouldn't, some would be spent on other pet projects), and let's pretend we don't have to pay any interest on that $60 trillion (which we do). Do the math...if we reduce that $60 trillion debt by $90 billion a year, it will take 667 years to pay down that debt. 667 years.

Conclusion: tax hikes are so insignificant, it's almost not worth talking about. The vast majority of the fix, therefore, has to be spending cuts.

(3) I agree we need additional tax revenue. When liberals want more revenue, they automatically think of increasing rates. But Clinton and Bush showed us that, in certain situations, lowering tax rates can increase tax revenue. If you lower tax rates, but the economy grows by more than the tax cut, you get more revenue. That's win-win. Obviously, there is such a thing as tax rates that are too low. But liberals seem to think that if you increase tax rates by x%, you will automatically increase tax revenue by the same x%. That's demonstrably false.

No hate in this post, right? Just verifiable numbers.

What do you think?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by likwid

This is the most hilarious thing I've read on this forum in YEARS

Glad I could cheer you up. You want a really laugh wait for the debates

[likwid]

Originally Posted by buckman

Glad I could cheer you up. You want a really laugh wait for the debates

Maybe Scott Brown will regail us with his time at band camp.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by likwid

Maybe Scott Brown will regail us with his time at band camp.

wow, I'm sure Zimmy and PaulS will jump all over you in a minute calling you classy.

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;942864No hate in this post, right? Just verifiable numbers.

What do you think?[/QUOTE]

I might not agree w/your #s but certainly think that was a good post.

From all indications Obama and Boehner where close on a budget agreement but due to apparent misteps by both of them it fell apart. I always thought the group of six was our best hope. I

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I might not agree w/your #s but certainly think that was a good post.

From all indications Obama and Boehner where close on a budget agreement but due to apparent misteps by both of them it fell apart. I always thought the group of six was our best hope. I

Paul, on what basis do you disagree with my numbers?! You're entitled to your own opinions, none of us are entitled to our own facts. You cannot dismiss my numbers just because you don't like the story they tell. In my opinion, that's exactly, precisely, what liberals do.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

wow, I'm sure Zimmy and PaulS will jump all over you in a minute calling you classy.

For being disgusted with someone when a DA asks for the name of a predator he refuses?

I'm sure!

[sokinwet]

There are still tons of properties owned by banks due to foreclosure (REO's). I'm certainly not for foreclosures on folks with economic problems , but I don't quite get what's wrong with someone turning these houses around after foreclosure and putting them back on the market? Costs to local communities in terms of police & fire protection of vacant property as well as lowering of neighborhood property values is a serious problem that can only be addressed when these properties are back in the hands of new owners.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

There are still tons of properties owned by banks due to foreclosure (REO's). I'm certainly not for foreclosures on folks with economic problems , but I don't quite get what's wrong with someone turning these houses around after foreclosure and putting them back on the market? Costs to local communities in terms of police & fire protection of vacant property as well as lowering of neighborhood property values is a serious problem that can only be addressed when these properties are back in the hands of new owners.

there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
But at the same time you cant be calling all banks evil for foreclosures and then doing business with them on foreclosures. Its a credibility thing.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
But at the same time you cant be calling all banks evil for foreclosures and then doing business with them on foreclosures. Its a credibility thing.

EXACTLY. Liz Warren did nothing wrong. However, since she profits from the misfortune of others, she cannot be taken seriously for attacking anyone else for doing the same. Liz Warren has joined liberals on the warpath against rich folks (being a Native American, she's comfortable on the warpath, you see) for taking advantage of the poor.

You cannot be more hypocritical than that. She attacks banks for predatory lending, yet when those "predator" banks foreclose on their "victims", she swoops in to profit by it?

[PaulS]

Jim, when I said I might not agree w/your #s it was b/c I didn't review them that closely, nor could I tell you the amount of rev./expend/deficit, etc. The current level of spending is unsustainable but when the economy starts to pick up steam and unempl. goes down, expenditures could down and taxes will incr.

What if Warren, bought crack dens, fixed them up and sold them to families which helped stabilize the neighborhood?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim, when I said I might not agree w/your #s it was b/c I didn't review them that closely, nor could I tell you the amount of rev./expend/deficit, etc. The current level of spending is unsustainable but when the economy starts to pick up steam and unempl. goes down, expenditures could down and taxes will incr.

What if Warren, bought crack dens, fixed them up and sold them to families which helped stabilize the neighborhood?

"when the economy starts to pick up steam and unempl. goes down, expenditures could down and taxes will incr. "

Paul, we are $60 trillion underwater (at least). There are 300 million Americans. That works out to $200,000 apiece. Do some math. We could re-live the roaring twenties, and tax revenues will increase, but NOWHERE NEAR $60 trillion. We can never, ever tax our way out of this. Not even close.

What have the Dems proposed? Tax hikes that, even if they produce the expected revenue (a very big "if"), are utterly meaningless. The Dems refuse to have an honest conversation about this, because it's easier to paint Paul Ryan as the boogeyman. That's why I detest them.

Dems act like all we need to do is tweak tax rates on the zillionaires, and we'd be all set. If it were that easy, no one would be opposed to it. Paul Ryan's proposed budget calls for spending cuts (admittedly painful cuts) of trillions of dollars. What is the democrat proposal? Paul, I'm asking you, what is their proposal? Where is it, what is in it?

It's nowhere. They (including Obama) choose to put their hands over their ears, and call conservatives "mean" who are honest enough to admit the painful truth.

Liberals know what needs to be done, they know it, but they don't have the political will to do it. This will inevitably harm future generations. That's why I detest them.

"What if Warren, bought crack dens, fixed them up and sold them to families which helped stabilize the neighborhood?"

That would obviously be commendable. But when she (and like-minded liberals) attack rich people, i don't hear them allowing for the possibility that some of those rich folks do an awful lot of good.

Paul, liberals can't have it both ways. Liz Warren cannot tell me that rich liberals are noble, but I should be afraid of rich conservatives.

[sokinwet]

I never heard her or anyone else in the "public" sphere attack anyone for being rich. That's a bunch of BS "Class Warfare" rhetoric. Low capital gains tax rate, putting folks out of work to make a buck, subsidies for successful industry ...yes. I wish I was rich...I frankly wish everyone was rich, but the reality is that someone has to clean the pool and take out the trash and it's simply a case of fairness that you don't balance the budget on the backs of those at the bottom rung of the income ladder.