How's President Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion?

[Da Raider]

How's Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion?

by Alan Reynolds

Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
Added to cato.org on October 24, 2008

This article appeared in the The Wall Street Journal (http://www.online.wsj.com/) on October 24, 2008.

The most troublesome tax increases in Barack Obama's plan are not those we can already see but those sure to be announced later, after the election is over and budget realities rear their ugly head.
The new president, whoever he is, will start out facing a budget deficit of at least $1 trillion, possibly much more. Sen. Obama has nonetheless promised to devote another $1.32 trillion over the next 10 years to several new or expanded refundable tax credits and a special exemption for seniors, according to the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center (TPC). He calls this a "middle-class tax cut," while suggesting the middle class includes 95% of those who work.
Mr. Obama's proposed income-based health-insurance subsidies, tax credits for tiny businesses, and expanded Medicaid eligibility would cost another $1.63 trillion, according to the TPC. Thus his tax rebates and health insurance subsidies alone would lift the undisclosed bill to future taxpayers by $2.95 trillion -- roughly $295 billion a year by 2012.

But that's not all. Mr. Obama has also promised to spend more on 176 other programs, according to an 85-page list of campaign promises (actual quotations) compiled by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. The NTUF was able to produce cost estimates for only 77 of the 176, so its estimate is low. Excluding the Obama health plan, the NTUF estimates that Mr. Obama would raise spending by $611.5 billion over the next five years; the 10-year total (aside from health) would surely exceed $1.4 trillion, because spending typically grows at least as quickly as nominal GDP.
A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least $4.3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 -- roughly an extra $430 billion a year by 2012-2013.
How is he going to pay for it?
Raising the tax rates on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $200,000-$250,000, and phasing out their exemptions and deductions, can raise only a small fraction of the amount. Even if we have a strong economy, Mr. Obama's proposed tax hikes on the dwindling ranks of high earners would be unlikely to raise much more than $30 billion-$35 billion a year by 2012.
Besides, Mr. Obama does not claim he can finance his ambitious plans for tax credits, health insurance, etc. by taxing the rich. On the contrary, he has an even less likely revenue source in mind.
In his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention on Aug. 28, Mr. Obama said, "I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens." That comment refers to $924.1 billion over 10 years from what the TPC wisely labels "unverifiable revenue raisers." To put that huge figure in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office optimistically expects a total of $3.7 trillion from corporate taxes over that period. In other words, Mr. Obama is counting on increasing corporate tax collections by more than 25% simply by closing "loopholes" and complaining about foreign "tax havens."
A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
Nobody, including the Tax Policy Center, believes that is remotely feasible. And Mr. Obama's dream of squeezing more revenue out of corporate profits, dividends and capital gains looks increasingly unbelievable now that profits are falling, banks have cut or eliminated dividends, and only a few short-sellers have any capital gains left to tax.
When it comes to direct spending -- as opposed to handing out "refund" checks through the tax code -- Mr. Obama claims he won't need more revenue because there will be no more spending. He even claims to be proposing to cut more spending ending up with a "net spending cut." That was Mr. Obama's most direct answer to Bob Schieffer, the moderator of the last debate, right after Mr. Schieffer said "The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CFARB) ran the numbers" and found otherwise.
When CFARB "ran the numbers," they relied almost entirely on unverifiable numbers eagerly provided to them by the Obama campaign. That explains why their list of Mr. Obama's new spending plans is so much shorter than the National Taxpayers Union fully documented list.
But nothing quite explains why even the vaguest promises to save money are recorded by CFARB as if they had substance. Mr. Obama is thus credited with saving $50 billion in a single year (2013) by reducing "wasteful spending" and unnamed "obsolete programs." He is said to save Medicare $43 billion a year by importing foreign drugs and negotiating bargains from drug companies. Yet even proponents of that approach such as the Lewin Group find that cannot save more than $6 billion a year. So the remaining $37 billion turns out to depend on what the Obama campaign refers to as undertaking "additional measures as necessary" (more taxes?).
The number of U.S. troops in Iraq will decline, regardless of who the next president is. Yet the CFARB credits John McCain's budget with only a $5 billion savings from troop reduction in Iraq, while Mr. Obama gets an extra $55 billion.
Straining to add credibility to Mr. Obama's fantasy about discovering $75 billion in 2013 from "closing corporate loopholes and tax havens," CFARB assures us that "the campaign has said that an Obama administration would look for other sources of revenue." Indeed they would.
In one respect, CFARB is more candid than the Obama campaign. Mr. Obama favors a relatively draconian cap-and-trade scheme in which the government would sell rights to emit carbon dioxide. The effect on U.S. families and firms would be like a steep tax on electricity, gasoline and energy-intensive products such as paper, plastic and aluminum. Whenever Mr. Obama claims he has not (yet) proposed any tax increase on couples earning less than $250,000, he forgets to mention his de facto $100 billion annual tax on energy. (The McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade plan is more gradual and much less costly.)
CFARB assumes Mr. Obama's cap-and-trade tax would raise $100 billion in 2013 alone, but the actual revenue raised would be much lower. Like every other steep surge in energy costs, the Obama cap-and-trade tax would crush the economy, reducing tax receipts from profits and personal income.
The Joint Tax Committee reports that the bottom 60% of taxpayers with incomes below $50,000 paid less than 1% of the federal income tax in 2006, while the 3.3% with incomes above $200,000 paid more than 58%. Most of Mr. Obama's tax rebates go to the bottom 60%. They can't possibly be financed by shifting an even larger share of the tax burden to the top 3.3%.
Mr. Obama has offered no clue as to how he intends to pay for his health-insurance plans, or doubling foreign aid, or any of the other 175 programs he's promised to expand. Although he may hope to collect an even larger share of loot from the top of the heap, the harsh reality is that this Democrat's quest for hundreds of billions more revenue each year would have to reach deep into the pockets of the people much lower on the economic ladder. Even then he'd come up short.

[Genius]

People are getting desperate when they are attacking unattainable promises (which every Presidential candidate in history, including John McCain, has made) and tax increases that the candidate not only hasn't even had the opportunity to make yet (because he's not President) but hasn't even discussed at all. Sounds like the wealthy are getting worried that their tax-free gravy train is coming to an end.

[Hanover Fist]

Hey Raider you better be careful posting shit like that or Obama will have a team dig through all you private information and smear you in the media. You'll be the new Joe the Plumber. Obviously by posting this you must also be a racist. THERE CAN BE NO DISSENT!!! How dare you question the chosen one.

[Genius]

We currently have nine anti-Obama threads.

[Claydon]

As I have said for a very long time on this and the old GMF. All the douchebags on here that believe obama is going to just tax the rich are complete fools. For Obama to cover his new version of the Great Society there is going have to be huge tax increases to cover the cost as well as dealing with the current debt/deficit. McCain was right to suggest that federal spending should be frozen.

[atoms]

I seem to recall the same stuff being said about Bill Clinton. He was going to tax everyone in sight, and it would be the end of the country (and our economy) as we know it.

The reality is Mr. Clinton was a pragmatist....he had lots he wanted to do....and he did a good chunk of it, but definitely not all. But he paid for what he did and was the only modern president to balance the budget.

I believe/hope that Mr. Obama is also pragmatic. He will achieve much of what he hopes to...but not all. I'm not sure why it is assumed that when push comes to shove, he will increase taxes (for those making under $250k) rather than shit can or down-size some of his programs. And many of the programs are investments....that are to yield returns. That is you invest in energy at home, to keep money from going abroad, making a return for the country on that investment in the future.

And one thing that puzzles me is that we are currently spending between $600 billion and $700 billion in Iraq a year (depending on whose figures you believe). How does the above article have us only saving $5 billion or 55 billion. I don't expect our expenditures in Iraq to instantly go to 0, and some of that will go to Afghanistan, but it looks like there is a substantial chunk of possible savings there.

[Claydon]

I seem to recall the same stuff being said about Bill Clinton. He was going to tax everyone in sight, and it would be the end of the country (and our economy) as we know it.

The reality is Mr. Clinton was a pragmatist....he had lots he wanted to do....and he did a good chunk of it, but definitely not all. But he paid for what he did and was the only modern president to balance the budget.

I believe/hope that Mr. Obama is also pragmatic. He will achieve much of what he hopes to...but not all. I'm not sure why it is assumed that when push comes to shove, he will increase taxes (for those making under $250k) rather than shit can or down-size some of his programs. And many of the programs are investments....that are to yield returns. That is you invest in energy at home, to keep money from going abroad, making a return for the country on that investment in the future.

And one thing that puzzles me is that we are currently spending between $600 billion and $700 billion in Iraq a year (depending on whose figures you believe). How does the above article have us only saving $5 billion or 55 billion. I don't expect our expenditures in Iraq to instantly go to 0, and some of that will go to Afghanistan, but it looks like there is a substantial chunk of possible savings there.

because we have continued combat operations in iraq and we are not leaving iraq contrary to popular 'democracy now' rhetoric. The US did not construct a several billion dollars in bases just to leave 5 years later. There will be a draw down in forces but deployments will remain in the many tens of thousands.

[atoms]

because we have continued combat operations in iraq and we are not leaving iraq contrary to popular 'democracy now' rhetoric. The US did not construct a several billion dollars in bases just to leave 5 years later. There will be a draw down in forces but deployments will remain in the many tens of thousands.

I understand that completely....but look at a graph of Iraq operation spending. It goes up exponentially....and was only 100 billion the first year during "active" combat. There is a lot of room to draw down support or shift paying for it to the people/government of Iraq. I understand that we are probably still talking hundreds of billions of dollars...but there is room to spend a couple hundred billion and save a couple hundred billion too, and I believe, like it or not, that is what Mr. Obama intends.

[Claydon]

I understand that completely....but look at a graph of Iraq operation spending. It goes up exponentially....and was only 100 billion the first year during "active" combat. There is a lot of room to draw down support or shift paying for it to the people/government of Iraq. I understand that we are probably still talking hundreds of billions of dollars...but there is room to spend a couple hundred billion and save a couple hundred billion too, and I believe, like it or not, that is what Mr. Obama intends.

does that include afghanistan? also, don't we put reconstruction funds in with iraq operation funds? There is no need to keep funding their corrupt reconstruction with their 80 billion plus surplus from oil sales.

[Hanover Fist]

does that include afghanistan? also, don't we put reconstruction funds in with iraq operation funds? There is no need to keep funding their corrupt reconstruction with their 80 billion plus surplus from oil sales.

That 80 billion was a projected surplus not an actual surplus, and it was based on oil being almost double what it currently is. I would be surprised if Iraq realizes any profits with the current price of oil.

[Claydon]

That 80 billion was a projected surplus not an actual surplus, and it was based on oil being almost double what it currently is. I would be surprised if Iraq realizes any profits with the current price of oil.

they need to invest in their production infrastructure to ramp up production if they want to be yet another country that the ONLY source of revenue is petroleum.

[StrangeBrew]

I don't have a problem paying higher taxes if I know it's going to the right things.

[Debo]

People are getting desperate when they are attacking unattainable promises (which every Presidential candidate in history, including John McCain, has made) and tax increases that the candidate not only hasn't even had the opportunity to make yet (because he's not President) but hasn't even discussed at all. Sounds like the wealthy are getting worried that their tax-free gravy train is coming to an end.

How are people wrong for asking him how he plans to pay for all of his promises? If he doesn't plan to pay for them, then either is either lying to us about the programs that he wants to fund or he is lying about who is going to have their taxes raised.

Did you really just say that the wealthy are riding a tax-free gravy train? Do you have any proof that they are riding such a train or is this another one of unsubstantiated statements that we should all accept as being true?

I can prove to you that the "wealthy", however you want to define wealthy, pay almost all of the Federal income tax bill. Can you show me where the lowest wage earners pay the majority of taxes? I doubt it.

CBS is also calling bullshit on his revenue proposals.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/29/eveningnews/realitycheck/main4557520.shtml?tag=topHome;topStories
Are they part of the VRWC now too?

[Debo]

I don't have a problem paying higher taxes if I know it's going to the right things.

Do you voluntarily pay more in taxes each year? I promise you that the government is not going to send it back to you if you pay more.

[Rover]

I think you could have just linked to the "Obama is a Socialist thread" to find out how he's going to rasie $4.3 Trillion.

I seem to recall the same stuff being said about Bill Clinton. He was going to tax everyone in sight, and it would be the end of the country (and our economy) as we know it.

The reality is Mr. Clinton was a pragmatist....he had lots he wanted to do....and he did a good chunk of it, but definitely not all. But he paid for what he did and was the only modern president to balance the budget.Since you're doing the comparision. Let's compare.

I will offer middle class tax cuts.
I had hoped to invest in your future by creating jobs, expanding education, reforming health care, and reducing the debt and deficit, without asking more of you. And I've worked harder than I've ever worked in my life to meet that goal. But I can't because the deficit has increased so much beyond my earlier estimates and beyond even the worst official Government estimates from last year. We just have to face the fact that to make the changes our country needs, more Americans must contribute today so that all Americans can do better tomorrow.

But I can assure you of this: You're not going alone anymore. You're not going first. And you're no longer going to pay more and get less. Seventy percent of the new taxes I'll propose, 70 percent, will be paid by those who make more than $100,000 a year. And for the first time in more than a decade we're all in this together
...Middle Class tax cut...We'll see what Obama's going to do, but the good thing is that Clinton already wrote the speech for him to give. He'll change a few words and be good to go.

Hopefully, he works just as hard as Bubba did, but my money goes on huge tax increases on everyone. As far as Clinton, paying for everything he did, that's a lie. It's good political spin, but Clinton didn't pass the budgets that he's so proud of. Congress did.

And one thing that puzzles me is that we are currently spending between $600 billion and $700 billion in Iraq a year (depending on whose figures you believe). How does the above article have us only saving $5 billion or 55 billion. I don't expect our expenditures in Iraq to instantly go to 0, and some of that will go to Afghanistan, but it looks like there is a substantial chunk of possible savings there.What? No, you're wrong about the cost of the war. The total cost of the war has been about $600 billion. Ending the war in Iraq will save about $50 billion a year, which is nothing in the grand scheme of the budget.

Wikipedia on the Cost of the war. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War)

I don't have a problem paying higher taxes if I know it's going to the right things.There's no better feeling in the world than the government taking theirs every paycheck and knowing that it's being wasted. Sometimes I like to think I've contributed to something worthwhile like an aircraft carrier, usually I just accept the fact that I've paid 300 times MSRP for a lightbulb and a desk chair.

[Stax]

Hey Raider you better be careful posting shit like that or Obama will have a team dig through all you private information and smear you in the media. You'll be the new Joe the Plumber. Obviously by posting this you must also be a racist. THERE CAN BE NO DISSENT!!! How dare you question the chosen one.

Really? Really? It's the Obama campaign that's running the smear campaign? Really?

Joe the Plumber:
-Isn't named Joe
-Isn't a plumber
-Doesn't make over the limit for Obama's plan
-Owes back taxes

You don't think that's funny? Especially when he was used so heavily as a symbol? And when the other side, even after learning these things, CONTINUES TO USE HIM and elevates him past (The Daily Show had a funny bit on this last night) being just a symbol to somehow being a policy wonk?

[Debo]

Really? Really? It's the Obama campaign that's running the smear campaign? Really?

Joe the Plumber:
-Isn't named Joe
-Isn't a plumber
-Doesn't make over the limit for Obama's plan
-Owes back taxes

You don't think that's funny? Especially when he was used so heavily as a symbol? And when the other side, even after learning these things, CONTINUES TO USE HIM and elevates him past (The Daily Show had a funny bit on this last night) being just a symbol to somehow being a policy wonk?

Yawn:
- He is middle name is Joseph;
- he isn't a licensed plumber because he doesn't need to be one, his boss is one;
- he said that he wants to buy his boss's business and that would put him over the 250K mark. He never said that he makes it right now,
- How is this relevant?

Of course he is a symbol. He is an ordinary guy that wants to get ahead, but he is worried about Obama's hands getting into his pockets. I really hope that bashing JTP comes back to cost Obama the election.

Edit for grammar. I was eating breakfast and typing when I wrote this.

[Yelram]

Really? Really? It's the Obama campaign that's running the smear campaign? Really?

Joe the Plumber:
-Isn't named Joe
-Isn't a plumber
-Doesn't make over the limit for Obama's plan
-Owes back taxes

You don't think that's funny? Especially when he was used so heavily as a symbol? And when the other side, even after learning these things, CONTINUES TO USE HIM and elevates him past (The Daily Show had a funny bit on this last night) being just a symbol to somehow being a policy wonk?

So in order to ask a question about taxes, you must not owe any taxes? And you must also make a certain amount of money before you can question a tax proposal? You guys are fucking nazis. Obama showed up in this guys front yard, and he asked him a question, and Obama answered it. Its his answer you should be dissecting, but instead, because you are so head over heels for Obama, you attack the one asking the question. Typical liberal thuggery.

[Archangel]

It's funny that Bush pissed away trillions of dollars, and now the same people who elected that fucktard in the first place bash Obama because his plan on how to repair the damage that THEIR FORMER DARLING has done might not work.

This is like letting your retarded brother shit on your carpet, and then criticising the cleaning lady because she brought the wrong type of detergent - while acting as if there had never even been a retarded brother.

As I keep saying, US conservatives don't even grasp the concept of hypocrisy anymore.

[kid_vidrio]

So in order to ask a question about taxes, you must not owe any taxes? And you must also make a certain amount of money before you can question a tax proposal? You guys are fucking nazis. Obama showed up in this guys front yard, and he asked him a question, and Obama answered it. Its his answer you should be dissecting, but instead, because you are so head over heels for Obama, you attack the one asking the question. Typical liberal thuggery.
No, before you criticize a tax plan you must not owe back taxes.
Please, keep posting though. I need teh humor.

[Willam]

No, before you criticize a tax plan you must not owe back taxes.
Please, keep posting though. I need teh humor.


So based on that thinking, you shouldn't be able to criticize the US Government unless you're an American, right?

[freegood]

It's funny that Bush pissed away trillions of dollars, and now the same people who elected that fucktard in the first place bash Obama because his plan on how to repair the damage that THEIR FORMER DARLING has done might not work.

This is like letting your retarded brother shit on your carpet, and then criticising the cleaning lady because she brought the wrong type of detergent - while acting as if there had never even been a retarded brother.

As I keep saying, US conservatives don't even grasp the concept of hypocrisy anymore.

Morally and intellectually bankrupt.

[atoms]

A few points.....One of which is refuting my own number. I found several sources that stated the 600-700 Billion and spun it to make it sound annual. After further research I agree the figure is more around 120 Billion currently annually, and the increase between initial spending and current (while higher now then during "active" combat) is probably more in the realm of 20-30%. So the 55 Billion as a withdrawal "dividend seems fairly reasonable.

These numbers were definitely on Iraq as they were comparing with Afghanistan, and definitely some amount of the 55 billion will not come home, but will go to Afghanistan, whose budget has remained consistent in the upper 20 billions for the entire campaign.

Agreeing with Claydon on a few things.....the Iraqi's should have the resources to start rebuilding themselves. Much of the money we have given them for infrastructure improvement has not been allocated to anything. And while their oil production and revenues has not equalled what it could, they are now in the best position to be repairing the more advanced elements of their infrastructure to make that 80 billion a reality.

As to the Clinton comparison's by Rover....frankly some of the better Republican arguments on this board lately. But one major dispute....how can the President be saddled with the spending but not take credit for balancing the budget. Yes, in the end the congress passes the budget. But if the President weren't a major player in the creation of the budget, in the leadership of it's direction and in the overall tone of use of this countries fiscal resources during his administration, then we wouldn't need to be talking about what McCain and Obama are proposing, because it would all be up to congress anyways. Is it just accidental that during Reagan's administration, he said we were going to push more towards supply side economics (trickle down, voodoo, tax cuts for the rich). And we did. Reagan set the economic policies, both with supply side economics and military build-up that increased our deficits during his years (and I'm not bashing....it was a good investment, though I still think supply side economics is a double sided sword). But I am saying that Reagan and his policies are as responsible for those increased deficits as Clinton is for the decrease. Which is to say that the President is an important factor and so is congress.

Ok, I think that is all for now.

Actually one last point....whoever the president is they are going to need to make a leaner more efficient government. It can be done....Look at what NASA has done lately on a shoe string budget, through innovation and efficiency (particularly in the non-shuttle programs). I think there is a Republican belief that a Democrat is incapable of fiscal restraint. I honestly think both of these candidates understand that the people want fiscal restraint and accountability. I am very hopeful that we will see that (or to put another way I think Mr. Obama is not stupid enough to continue to increase our now record deficits). In our recent history we have Republicans that have run up large deficits and Democrats who have seemed to practice more restraint. I think this has less to do with the party in control, then the man at the top setting the tone for an administration.

[redsox39]

I don't have a problem paying higher taxes if I know it's going to the right things.


Good argument, way to think through all your points. You usually have great, thought provoking information to add like:

John McCain is dumb.

A regular Stephen Hawking here.

[redsox39]

Really? Really? It's the Obama campaign that's running the smear campaign? Really?

Joe the Plumber:
-Isn't named Joe
-Isn't a plumber
-Doesn't make over the limit for Obama's plan
-Owes back taxes

You don't think that's funny? Especially when he was used so heavily as a symbol? And when the other side, even after learning these things, CONTINUES TO USE HIM and elevates him past (The Daily Show had a funny bit on this last night) being just a symbol to somehow being a policy wonk?
So did Obama just make up an answer for this guy? We shouldn't look at his answer, we should investigate the Wanna be plumber? Let's throw a guy who has a goal of being a plumber under the bus and pretend Obama didn't say anything.

[Debo]

It's funny that Bush pissed away trillions of dollars, and now the same people who elected that fucktard in the first place bash Obama because his plan on how to repair the damage that THEIR FORMER DARLING has done might not work.

This is like letting your retarded brother shit on your carpet, and then criticising the cleaning lady because she brought the wrong type of detergent - while acting as if there had never even been a retarded brother.

As I keep saying, US conservatives don't even grasp the concept of hypocrisy anymore.

I disagree. The fiscal conservatives, or Libertarian wing of the GOP, have been very vocal about their displeasure with spending during Bush's time in office. They have also been very vocal about their opposition to his steel tariffs, his ethanol subsidies, his expansion of government entitlements and his failure to reform SS.

The WSJ wrote about it back in 2006.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113806257817454165-cubsrAX6p0u0hpkntcSoj0HtlnY_20070130.html?mod=rss_ free

I can find a ton of more articles if you want me to.

And you are assuming that either Kerry or Gore would have spent less. This might be true if we had a divided government, but none of us really know the answer.

[taters]

They (conservatives and his political opposition) asked FDR a similar question, and doubted his ability to do so (Clinton as well). We all see now how well that turned out.


When Obama repairs the economy, I cant wait to hear republicans claim that any future prosperity is due to Bush's policies, only they took a while to set in (ala Clinton economy claims about Reagan).

[Debo]

They (conservatives and his political opposition) asked FDR a similar question, and doubted his ability to do so (Clinton as well). We all see now how well that turned out.


When Obama repairs the economy, I cant wait to hear republicans claim that any future prosperity is due to Bush's policies, only they took a while to set in (ala Clinton economy claims about Reagan).

The President's role is only part of what effects the economy (i.e., Free trade agreements, keeping taxes low, I like lower gov. spending).

The main driver of economic growth is monetary policy which is run by the head of the Federal Reserve. The Fed's job to maintain price stability and promote economic growth.

The current mess that we are in was caused by the Fed and the GSEs, not President Bush.

[Yelram]

The President's role is only part of what effects the economy (i.e., Free trade agreements, keeping taxes low, I like lower gov. spending).

The main driver of economic growth is monetary policy which is run by the head of the Federal Reserve. The Fed's job to maintain price stability and promote economic growth.

The current mess that we are in was caused by the Fed and the GSEs, not President Bush.

Shhhh, he's in his daydream crazy world, where if Obama fucks up, he's not going to blame Bush.

[Archangel]

I disagree. The fiscal conservatives, or Libertarian wing of the GOP, have been very vocal about their displeasure with spending during Bush's time in office. They have also been very vocal about their opposition to his steel tariffs, his ethanol subsidies, his expansion of government entitlements and his failure to reform SS.

The WSJ wrote about it back in 2006.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113806257817454165-cubsrAX6p0u0hpkntcSoj0HtlnY_20070130.html?mod=rss_ free

I can find a ton of more articles if you want me to.

And you are assuming that either Kerry or Gore would have spent less. This might be true if we had a divided government, but none of us really know the answer.

Gore probably would not have run nilly-willy into Iraq. There's a pretty big sum saved right there.

Also, some Repubs might have been displeased with his spending; didn't stop them from voting for him, though.

[moe_blunts]

dur.....he'll sell illegal substances like every other black person in america.

[Yelram]

dur.....he'll sell illegal substances like every other black person in america.

Or he'll find a way to tax illegal drugs.

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

As I keep saying, US conservatives don't even grasp the concept of hypocrisy anymore.

Correct you are, sir. That's because Dems invented and perfected the concept.

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

When Obama repairs the economy....

My question to you is: Are you even capable at this point, to tell the difference between Obama's kool-aid, and his salt malts?

[Claydon]

It's funny that Bush pissed away trillions of dollars, and now the same people who elected that fucktard in the first place bash Obama because his plan on how to repair the damage that THEIR FORMER DARLING has done might not work.

This is like letting your retarded brother shit on your carpet, and then criticising the cleaning lady because she brought the wrong type of detergent - while acting as if there had never even been a retarded brother.

As I keep saying, US conservatives don't even grasp the concept of hypocrisy anymore.

And you sir are a dipshit. Conservatives on this forum have always ripped bush and the republican congress for their OBSCENE spending. So you may now exit the stage and go back to your high renaissance literature. I have yet to see anyone here call bush a true conservative. Bush may be a social conservative, maybe.....fiscal NOT AT ALL.

[taters]

The President's role is only part of what effects the economy (i.e., Free trade agreements, keeping taxes low, I like lower gov. spending).

The main driver of economic growth is monetary policy which is run by the head of the Federal Reserve. The Fed's job to maintain price stability and promote economic growth.

The current mess that we are in was caused by the Fed and the GSEs, not President Bush.

No, it was caused by Bush's tax cuts and the deregulation of the economy. We had a surplus when he got in, he 'tax rebated' it away to the richest 2%.

Combine that with the fact that he supported banks/lenders predatory practices by not regulating them, and you have our current economy.

[Claydon]

Gore probably would not have run nilly-willy into Iraq. There's a pretty big sum saved right there.

Also, some Repubs might have been displeased with his spending; didn't stop them from voting for him, though.

actually it did, i never voted for bush, and iraq has cost us 600 billion which is less than the bank bailouts. Furthermore, the total debt has gone up several trillion, so that 600 billion is a drop in the bucket. Now, 300 billion for fucking corn subsidies and ethanol, another 500 billion for medicare rx programs....AHHHH now we are getting into some really fucked up spending.

[taters]

I love how many republicans and conservatives claim never to have supported bush now. All of a sudden, he didnt rally their support in 2000 and 2004, and no one knows HOW he was elected. The guy was the hero of the party, now they wont even invite him to the RNC, and many candidates are running as 'GOP' to hide their Republican Party connections.

Such a steaming crock of shit.

[Kerjack]

I voted for him in 2000. Third party in 04.

[Debo]

No, it was caused by Bush's tax cuts and the deregulation of the economy. We had a surplus when he got in, he 'tax rebated' it away to the richest 2%.

Combine that with the fact that he supported banks/lenders predatory practices by not regulating them, and you have our current economy.

Bullshit. What part of the economy did Bush deregulate?

And where did the predatory lending occur?

[Debo]

Gore probably would not have run nilly-willy into Iraq. There's a pretty big sum saved right there.

Also, some Repubs might have been displeased with his spending; didn't stop them from voting for him, though.

I agree and disagree. Nobody knows for sure what would have happened under Gore or Kerry.

[Hanover Fist]

I love how many republicans and conservatives claim never to have supported bush now. All of a sudden, he didnt rally their support in 2000 and 2004, and no one knows HOW he was elected. The guy was the hero of the party, now they wont even invite him to the RNC, and many candidates are running as 'GOP' to hide their Republican Party connections.

Such a steaming crock of shit.

I voted for him in 2000 and 2004 and given the 2 current choices presently running for president I would vote for him again over these 2. There are many places that I disagree with the current president, but the war in Iraq and the overall war on terror isn't one of them.

[Claydon]

I voted for him in 2000 and 2004 and given the 2 current choices presently running for president I would vote for him again over these 2. There are many places that I disagree with the current president, but the war in Iraq and the overall war on terror isn't one of them.

I wrote in mccain in 2000 and abstained from voting for any president in 2004. However, I always supported Bush's foreign affairs with regards to iraq.

[Yelram]

No, it was caused by Bush's tax cuts and the deregulation of the economy. We had a surplus when he got in, he 'tax rebated' it away to the richest 2%.

Combine that with the fact that he supported banks/lenders predatory practices by not regulating them, and you have our current economy.

Wow, are you full of shit. Can you give anything to back up that statement? Do you want me to post the list of times the Bush administration called for the regulation of Fanny mae and Freddie Mac? Are you in fucking La La Land?

_MGT_cSi7Rs

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html



2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."
2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)
September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.
September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)
2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.
January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.
February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.


"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

# #

[taters]

Wow, are you full of shit. Can you give anything to back up that statement? Do you want me to post the list of times the Bush administration called for the regulation of Fanny mae and Freddie Mac? Are you in fucking La La Land?



Why yes. First of all, nice try attempting to pin THE ENTIRE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE on the backs of Fanny and Freddy. I see your back to watching Fox News.

Wow, are you full of shit. Can you give anything to back up that statement? Do you want me to post the list of times the Bush administration called for the regulation of Fanny mae and Freddie Mac? Are you in fucking La La Land?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-drobny/bush-tax-cuts-made-subpr_b_82060.html
Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created using incentives for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as adjusting income tax and capital gains tax rates. This can be contrasted with the classic Keynesian economics (or "demand side economics"), which argues that growth can be most effectively managed by controlling total demand for goods and services, typically by adjusting the level of Government spending. Supply-side economics is often conflated with trickle-down economics, a derogatory term given to right leaning economist's views by political opponents (source: Wikipedia). The key phrase is: using incentives for people to produce (supply) goods and services. The people who produce goods and services are businesses most of which are corporations. Labor produces goods and services with the oversight of corporate executives.

If Bush were to be true to supply side theory, the tax incentives would have been given to the corporations and unincorporated businesses. Tax cuts could have been easily targeted to businesses. The big lie in all of this is that there was only a giveaway to rich individuals and not businesses.

There was no intent to provide economic substance to the giveaways to the rich authorized by Bush. As demonstrated above, there is no supply side benefit to these tax cuts. Bush falsely gives the argument that the wealthy families will somehow reinvest their tax savings into business ventures. The fact is that the increase in family wealth afforded by these tax cuts were put primarily into securitzed funds. In the 90's, excess wealth was put mostly into venture capital funds. These VC funds do provide some possible supply side benefit in that VC funds incubate new businesses. However, the NASDAQ collapse of 2000 put an end to all of that. The real problem of the 90's was that too much wealth was searching for too few deals. Accordingly, the false values attributed to the dot.com companies was the precursor to the 2000 collapse which did not have any major affect on the assets of the working class.

The corporate scandals of 2001-2003 did impact the working class and their retirement plans. However, the Bush tax cuts put a lot more money into the coffers of wealthy families who did not reinvest these amounts into VC funds or businesses. These wealthy institutional investors needed to park their money into something that would earn more than the secure fixed income securities. But, they were not going to take any more risk in the tech heavy VC funds. This time, the investment banking community had an opportunity to come up with an idea that they perceived to be less risky. And that idea was to create funds that focused on the growing mortgage industry. Just as was the case in the 90's, these funds had too much money searching for too few deals.

In order to increase demand for refinancing mortgages, these groups came up with the sub-prime concept. These below market loans induced people to refinance their homes with the false premise that this interest savings would be permanent. In fact, the savings on the front end of the new mortgages was transferred to the back end of the short term mortgage. When the renewals began to take affect, people were suddenly faced with monthly payments they could not afford. Furthermore, the people who refinanced their homes at these favorable rates generally spent their reduced payments without understanding the consequences. They did not have any savings to offset those increases.

As was the case with the dot.com collapse, the inflated demand for low interest loans created a false valuation in the real estate market. Prices of homes were inflated because of the easy access to money


A good example of this, seen through the past-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/08/AR2007080802468.html

Bush May Try to Cut Corporate Tax Rates
President Cites Need To Compete Globally
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 9, 2007; Page A01

President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, an initiative that could further inflame a battle with the Democratic Congress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of his tenure.

Advisers presented Bush with a series of ideas to restructure corporate taxes, possibly eliminating narrowly targeted breaks to pay for a broader, across-the-board rate cut. In an interview with a small group of journalists afterward, Bush said he was "inclined" to send a corporate tax package to Congress, although he expressed uncertainty about its political viability.

Hmm, sound familiar?

Ok, well lets delve further

http://hnn.us/articles/41985.html

The origins of this credit crunch—maybe even a crisis—reside, by all accounts, in the housing market. Big banks bought up a lot of sub-prime mortgages, then bundled them into portfolios that could be sold downstream as reliably income-producing assets. Thus mortgage debt was “securitized,” made into something hedge funds and private equity firms, and even stodgy mutual funds, could buy into as an investment, not as a side bet. When the housing market flattened out, that is, when prices and construction began to fall and when foreclosure rates began to rise over the last two years—even with interest rates relatively steady—this mortgage debt suddenly looked dubious.

The bubble burst, in short, when everybody realized that the long-term inflation of residential real estate prices, which started about a decade ago, was over, maybe even in Manhattan.

Our questions should then be, why did this huge investment in subprime mortgages take place, and why should dismal forecasts on the housing/mortgage market affect all others? The short answer to the first question is George W. Bush’s tax cuts—and this answer should give the Democratic candidates another reason to repeal them.

The rationale for these cuts came from the supply-side arguments of the 1980s (personified by Dick Cheney). It goes like this. Investment, productivity, and employment will increase if you augment the incomes of those who do the saving and investing. These already wealthy folks will acquire a new monetary incentive to invest in goods production if you raise their disposable incomes by cutting their taxes. That investment will in turn produce larger payrolls and more taxable incomes, thus canceling the revenue-reducing effect of the original tax cuts.

Then as now, these supply-side arguments have two defects. First, the history of the 20th century is the record of increasing productivity and output as functions of declining net investment. Economic growth doesn’t require greater investment after 1919, in other words, so it certainly doesn’t need higher profits or executive incomes. In fact, any shift of income shares away from labor and toward capital—any shift away from consumption and toward saving or investment—will be a cause of crisis, not of growth.

For if higher profits aren’t needed for investment in goods production (the “real economy”), they will force their way, as unruly surpluses, into the available speculative sites, for example into the stock market of 1926-29. Or into “high-end consumption.” Or into subprime mortgage lending.

The Tax cuts were the incentive to push for the sub prime lending (among other things).

They also were draining the surplus of funds that could have been used to REPAIR the market in the event of something like this happened.

So either way you see it, Bush Tax cuts got us here.

In other news, Im noticing the anger, hostility and desperation from conservatives seems to be increasing as they notice that their candidate is going to get stomped out.

[Claydon]

wait tater, yelram posts facts from the white house and you post a fucking blog?

gtfo!

[taters]

wait tater, yelram posts facts from the white house and you post a fucking blog?

gtfo!


There were three posts there bud, maybe you should go recheck them before commenting on them. A blog by an economist, a news report from more than a year ago when Bush was still pushing his tax polices, and an article by a George Mason Professor, supporting the economists blog (bot directly, but by saying the same thing).

Second, Yelrams post entirely dodged the point. I made the argument that Bush Tax cuts were the cause of the collapse, Yelram posted info on fanny and freddy refences by the white house. Not exactly a reply to the point being made.

As I said (if you would have read the post), its foolish to pin this whole thing on Fanny and Freddy, because they were only PART of the problem, and were not the founders of the problem but rather 2 additional contributors.

The incentive behind it all started with de-regulation and tax cuts. Read the article.

Also, your gay.

[Yelram]

There were three posts there bud, maybe you should go recheck them before commenting on them. A blog by an economist, a news report from more than a year ago when Bush was still pushing his tax polices, and an article by a George Mason Professor, supporting the economists blog (bot directly, but by saying the same thing).

Second, Yelrams post entirely dodged the point. I made the argument that Bush Tax cuts were the cause of the collapse, Yelram posted info on fanny and freddy refences by the white house. Not exactly a reply to the point being made.

As I said (if you would have read the post), its foolish to pin this whole thing on Fanny and Freddy, because they were only PART of the problem, and were not the founders of the problem but rather 2 additional contributors.

The incentive behind it all started with de-regulation and tax cuts. Read the article.

Also, your gay.

Well lets see, the problem was caused by securitized mortgages. Who securitized them tater? Oh Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac? Oh and who gave them the power to do that? Oh the Clinton administration?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

You might want to read that, I have yet to hear some moonbat claim the "Bush tax cuts caused the subprime mortgage crisis", I would think you would have to be a total moron to even conceive of such a silly thought. Wouldnt a subprime mortgage crisis involve SUBPRIME MORTGAGES?? And who was the major accumulator of subprime mortgages? They encouraged the writing of these loans, they insured and securitized these loans, and then repackaged them as investments. All the while protected by their "family" of the democrat party. Its their baby, and now they are blaming the results of their social engineering on the opposite side of the isle, and the "rich".Or would you rather read it from the horses mouth?

http://www.fanniemae.com/mbs/mbsbasics/market/structure.jhtml?p=Mortgage-Backed+Securities&s=Basics+of+Fannie+Mae+MBS&t=Basics+of+MBS+Market+%26+Pools&q=MBS+Structure

Rush to the Huffington post to find some more comforting bullshit to back up your blind partisan ideology. TOOLBAG.

[taters]

Well lets see, the problem was caused by securitized mortgages. Who securitized them tater? Oh Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac? Oh and who gave them the power to do that? Oh the Clinton administration?


Jeebus. For the last time YOU CANNOT PIN THE PROBLEM ON THESE TWO SCAPEGOATS.

Yes, they played their parts, but they did not provide the incentive for the behavior (Tax policy of Bush) nor were they alone.

The are merely the ones Republicans have chosen as talking points because they can be loosely tied to Democrats.

You can close your eyes and covers your ears and yell your heart out, but it DOES NOT change the fact that the Bush Doctrine on Taxes and his tax cuts are the cause for this. They drained the money that could have been used to remedy this, AND they created the incentives for companies (including but not limited to Fanny and Freddy) to act in this way. Did you read my post?

As the Rabbi from Spaceballs would say, heres the Short Short version-
The corporate scandals of 2001-2003 did impact the working class and their retirement plans. However, the Bush tax cuts put a lot more money into the coffers of wealthy families who did not reinvest these amounts into VC funds or businesses. These wealthy institutional investors needed to park their money into something that would earn more than the secure fixed income securities. But, they were not going to take any more risk in the tech heavy VC funds. This time, the investment banking community had an opportunity to come up with an idea that they perceived to be less risky. And that idea was to create funds that focused on the growing mortgage industry. Just as was the case in the 90's, these funds had too much money searching for too few deals.


The rationale for these cuts came from the supply-side arguments of the 1980s (personified by Dick Cheney). It goes like this. Investment, productivity, and employment will increase if you augment the incomes of those who do the saving and investing. These already wealthy folks will acquire a new monetary incentive to invest in goods production if you raise their disposable incomes by cutting their taxes. That investment will in turn produce larger payrolls and more taxable incomes, thus canceling the revenue-reducing effect of the original tax cuts.

...
In fact, any shift of income shares away from labor and toward capital—any shift away from consumption and toward saving or investment—will be a cause of crisis, not of growth.

For if higher profits aren’t needed for investment in goods production (the “real economy”), they will force their way, as unruly surpluses, into the available speculative sites, for example into the stock market of 1926-29. Or into “high-end consumption.” Or into subprime mortgage lending.

[Yelram]

Jeebus. For the last time YOU CANNOT PIN THE PROBLEM ON THESE TWO SCAPEGOATS.

Yes, they played their parts, but they did not provide the incentive for the behavior (Tax policy of Bush) nor were they alone.

The are merely the ones Republicans have chosen as talking points because they can be loosely tied to Democrats.

You can close your eyes and covers your ears and yell your heart out, but it DOES NOT change the fact that the Bush Doctrine on Taxes and his tax cuts are the cause for this. They drained the money that could have been used to remedy this, AND they created the incentives for companies (including but not limited to Fanny and Freddy) to act in this way. Did you read my post?

As the Rabbi from Spaceballs would say, heres the Short Short version-

http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/tp/Subprime_Mortgages_FNMA.htm

How can you be a lawyer when you cant even make a fucking coherent argument? Your argument is that, by giving businesses back more of THEIR OWN MONEY, it prevented government from having money to BAIL OUT FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC. You are a fucking blind tool, who cant think for himself.

[taters]

How can you be a lawyer when you cant even make a fucking coherent argument? Your argument is that, by giving businesses back more of THEIR OWN MONEY, it prevented government from having money to BAIL OUT FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC. You are a fucking blind tool, who cant think for himself.

Trust me, I apparently can, very good, without giving away too much more about myself (folks already know too much about me). How can you be a fucking heating installer or whatever it was you do if you dont understand that WHEN YOU HORDE MONEY AT THE TOP AND TAKE IT AWAY FROM THE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND DONT MONITOR PREDATORY LENDING PRACTICES, you drain the safety net to protect the market (which our consumer economy is based on the people at the bottom, not the top) from falling out under the people.

Dude, read the fucking posts. You are trying to tie this big fucking deal to two important but NOT dominant contributors.

[Yelram]

Trust me, I apparently can, very good, without giving away too much more about myself (folks already know too much about me). How can you be a fucking heating installer or whatever it was you do if you dont understand that WHEN YOU HORDE MONEY AT THE TOP AND TAKE IT AWAY FROM THE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND DONT MONITOR PREDATORY LENDING PRACTICES, you drain the safety net to protect the market (which our consumer economy is based on the people at the bottom, not the top) from falling out under the people.

Dude, read the fucking posts. You are trying to tie this big fucking deal to two important but NOT dominant contributors.

You are just a fucking idiot. Look, Bush cut taxes EVENLY the same percentage across the board, and he dropped the lowest income bracket, he increased the child income credit, and removed the death tax, and the marriage penalty. THAT IS NOT HORDING WEALTH YOU FUCKING DUMBASS. That is lowering the governments obstruction to anyone within the freemarket. THATS ME ASSHOLE. I wrote off a new work truck thanks to the Bush Tax cuts. That allows me to hire more people. To do more work, and to make more money, and as a result, to pay more taxes into the infrastructure. You just dont know how simple economic principles work. If you think that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac werent 80% of the problem, you are completely and totally wrong, and i'd like you to prove that they arent. So far you have proven nothing, you have showed some anecdotal evidence that doesnt even come close to describing the situation. I am showing the root cause, why its the root cause, and the president going out of his way to address it EVERY YEAR SINCE 2001. I have shown video of congressional democrats saying that the republicans manufactured the idea of FM/FM needing reform. Even going as far as calling it a "political lynching". You are wrong tater.

[Debo]

The Tax cuts were the incentive to push for the sub prime lending (among other things).

They also were draining the surplus of funds that could have been used to REPAIR the market in the event of something like this happened.

So either way you see it, Bush Tax cuts got us here.

In other news, Im noticing the anger, hostility and desperation from conservatives seems to be increasing as they notice that their candidate is going to get stomped out.

My anger towards you is due to the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Your evidence that the tax cuts are what caused the problem are dubious at best. The real source of the problem is a combination of loose monetary policy, the GSEs, government mandates and lax lending standards.

And you still have not told me what part of the economy Bush deregulated.


But historically there was also a class, made up mostly of American blacks, for whom home ownership was out of reach. Although simple racial prejudice had long been a factor here, it was, ironically, the New Deal that institutionalized discrimination against blacks seeking mortgages. In 1935 the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), established in 1934 to insure home mortgages, asked the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation—another New Deal agency, this one created to help prevent foreclosures—to draw up maps of residential areas according to the risk of lending in them. Affluent suburbs were outlined in blue, less desirable areas in yellow, and the least desirable in red.


The FHA used the maps to decide whether or not to insure a mortgage, which in turn caused banks to avoid the redlined neighborhoods. These tended to be in the inner city and to comprise largely black populations. As most blacks at this time were unable to buy in white neighborhoods, the effect of redlining was largely to exclude even affluent blacks from the mortgage market.


Even after the end of Jim Crow in the 1960’s, the effect of redlining lingered, perhaps more out of habit than of racial prejudice. In 1977, responding to political pressure to abolish the practice, Congress finally passed the Community Reinvestment Act, requiring banks to offer credit throughout their marketing areas and rating them on their compliance. This effectively outlawed redlining.


Then, in 1995, regulations adopted by the Clinton administration took the Community Reinvestment Act to a new level. Instead of forbidding banks to discriminate against blacks and black neighborhoods, the new regulations positively forced banks to seek out such customers and areas. Without saying so, the revised law established quotas for loans to specific neighborhoods, specific income classes, and specific races. It also encouraged community groups to monitor compliance and allowed them to receive fees for marketing loans to target groups.


But the aggressive pursuit of an end to redlining also required the active participation of Fannie Mae, and thereby hangs a tale. Back in 1968, the Johnson administration had decided to “adjust” the federal books by taking Fannie Mae off the budget and establishing it as a “Government Sponsored Enterprise” (GSE). But while it was theoretically now an independent corporation, Fannie Mae did not have to adhere to the same rules regarding capitalization and oversight that bound most financial institutions. And in 1970 still another GSE was created, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or Freddie Mac, to expand further the secondary market in mortgage-backed securities.

This represented a huge moral hazard. The two institutions were supposedly independent of the government and owned by their stockholders. But it was widely assumed that there was an implicit government guarantee of both Fannie and Freddie’s solvency and of the vast amounts of mortgage-based securities they issued. This assumption was by no means unreasonable. Fannie and Freddie were known to enjoy lower capitalization requirements than other financial institutions and to be held to a much less demanding regulatory regime. If the United States government had no worries about potential failure, why should the market?
Forward again to the Clinton changes in 1995. As part of them, Fannie and Freddie were now permitted to invest up to 40 times their capital in mortgages; banks, by contrast, were limited to only ten times their capital. Put briefly, in order to increase the number of mortgages Fannie and Freddie could underwrite, the federal government allowed them to become grossly undercapitalized—that is, grossly to reduce their one source of insurance against failure. The risk of a mammoth failure was then greatly augmented by the sheer number of mortgages given out in the country.


That was bad enough; then came politics to make it much worse. Fannie and Freddie quickly evolved into two of the largest financial institutions on the planet, with assets and liabilities in the trillions. But unlike other large, profit-seeking financial institutions, they were headquartered in Washington, D.C., and were political to their fingertips. Their management and boards tended to come from the political world, not the business world. And some were corrupt: the management of Fannie Mae manipulated the books in order to trigger executive bonuses worth tens of millions of dollars, and Freddie Mac was found in 2003 to have understated earnings by almost $5 billion.


Both companies, moreover, made generous political contributions, especially to those members of Congress who sat on oversight committees. Their charitable foundations could be counted on to kick in to causes that Congressmen and Senators deemed worthy. Many of the political contributions were illegal: in 2006, Freddie was fined $3.8 million—a record amount—for improper election activity.
_____________

By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned about half of the $12 trillion in outstanding mortgages, an unprecedented concentration of debt—and of risk. Much of the debt was concentrated in the class of sub-prime mortgages that had proliferated after the 1995 regulations. These were mortgages given to people of questionable credit standing, in one of the attempts by the federal government to increase home ownership among the less well-to-do.


Since banks knew they could offload these sub-prime mortgages to Fannie and Freddie, they had no reason to be careful about issuing them. As for the firms that bought the mortgage-based securities issued by Fannie and Freddie, they thought they could rely on the government’s implicit guarantee. AIG, the world’s largest insurance firm, was happy to insure vast quantities of these securities against default; it must have seemed like insuring against the sun rising in the West.


Wall Street, politicians, and the press all acted as though one of the iron laws of economics, as unrepealable as Newton’s law of universal gravity, had been set aside. That law, simply put, is that potential reward always equals potential risk. In the real world, unfortunately, a high-yield, no-risk investment cannot exist.


In 2006, after an astonishing and unsustainable climb in home values, the inevitable correction set in. By mid-2007, many sub-prime mortgages were backed by real estate that was now of lesser value than the amount of debt. As the market started to doubt the soundness of these mortgages, their value and even their salability began to deteriorate. So did the securities backed by them. Companies that had heavily invested in sub-prime mortgages saw their stock prices and their net worth erode sharply. This caused other companies to avoid lending them money. Credit markets began to tighten sharply as greed in the marketplace was replaced by fear.


A vicious downward spiral ensued. Bear Stearns, the smallest investment bank on Wall Street, was forced into a merger in March with JPMorgan Chase, with guarantees from the Federal Reserve. Fannie and Freddie were taken over by the government in early September; Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America; AIG had to be bailed out by the government to the tune of $85 billion; Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy; Washington Mutual became the biggest bank failure in American history and was taken over by JPMorgan Chase; to avoid failure, Wachovia, the sixth largest bank in the country, was taken over by Wells Fargo. The most creditworthy institutions saw interest rates climb to unprecedented levels—even for overnight loans of bank reserves, which are the foundation of the high-functioning capitalist system of the West. Finally it became clear that only a systemic intervention by the government would stem the growing panic and allow credit markets to begin to function normally again.
_____________

Many people, especially liberal politicians, have blamed the disaster on the deregulation of the last 30 years. But they do so in order to avoid the blame’s falling where it should—squarely on their own shoulders. For the same politicians now loudly proclaiming that deregulation caused the problem are the ones who fought tooth and nail to prevent increased regulation of Fannie and Freddie—the source of so much political money, their mother’s milk.

To be sure, there is more than enough blame to go around. Forgetting the lessons of the past, Wall Street acted as though the only direction that markets and prices could move was up. Credit agencies like Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch gave high ratings to securities that, in retrospect, they clearly did not understand. The news media did not even try to investigate the often complex economics behind the housing market.
But remaining at the heart of the financial beast now abroad in the world are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the mortgages they bought and turned into securities. Protected by their political patrons, they were allowed to pile up colossal debt on an inadequate capital base and to escape much of the regulatory oversight and rules to which other financial institutions are subject. Had they been treated as the potential risks to financial stability they were from the beginning, the housing bubble could not have grown so large and the pain that is now accompanying its end would not have hurt so much.


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/special-preview-br--speculators--politicians--and-financial-disasters-13180

[taters]

Your evidence that the tax cuts are what caused the problem are dubious at best. The real source of the problem is a combination of loose monetary policy, the GSEs, government mandates and lax lending standards.


Dude, I post an article from an economist, a previous news statement from Bush, and an article from a George Mason Professor, and you post an opinion article from a right wing web magazine. Most of that article regards shit thats barely tertiary to the current subject at hand.

Ive already posted direct explanations twice. I wont do it again. Believe what you want to believe. The public, Non-biased Economists, Historians, and myself think otherwise. Run with that.

[Yelram]

Dude, I post an article from an economist, a previous news statement from Bush, and an article from a George Mason Professor, and you post an opinion article from a right wing web magazine. Most of that article regards shit thats barely tertiary to the current subject at hand.

Ive already posted direct explanations twice. I wont do it again. Believe what you want to believe. The public, Non-biased Economists, Historians, and myself think otherwise. Run with that.

I didnt post that, and I didnt use a right wing website. The information is there for everyone with a brain to read. You didnt cite any sources either.

[Debo]

Dude, I post an article from an economist, a previous news statement from Bush, and an article from a George Mason Professor, and you post an opinion article from a right wing web magazine. Most of that article regards shit thats barely tertiary to the current subject at hand.

Ive already posted direct explanations twice. I wont do it again. Believe what you want to believe. The public, Non-biased Economists, Historians, and myself think otherwise. Run with that.

The author of the article is John Steele Gordon, he is an economic historian. I don't give a shit about the url of the article. I simply care about the facts that he provides to back up his claims. Do you dispute any of the facts that I but in bold?

[Yelram]

The author of the article is John Steele Gordon, he is an economic historian. I don't give a shit about the url of the article. I simply care about the facts that he provides to back up his claims. Do you dispute any of the facts that I but in bold?

Facts smacts, everyone knows facts are the product of the evil republican attack machine. And history tells us, Republicans have always been bad, racist, ignorant, greedy, white guys, like the guy on the monopoly box.

[Archangel]

You guys are really acting like petulant children who aren't going to get their ice cream.

[Da Raider]

You guys are really acting like petulant children who aren't going to get their ice cream.

that's the charm of gmf.

[Yelram]

You guys are really acting like petulant children who aren't going to get their ice cream.

Did you even read what we're talking about? We're angry for a reason. The fucking Democrats have tricked all of those "intellectuals" in their ranks to completely ignore every bit of evidence that points to them as the cause of the Sub prime mortgage mess, and even have the chutzpa to blame it on Bush's tax cuts. Its enough to make your head explode.

[Da Raider]

Did you even read what we're talking about? We're angry for a reason. The fucking Democrats have tricked all of those "intellectuals" in their ranks to completely ignore every bit of evidence that points to them as the cause of the Sub prime mortgage mess, and even have the chutzpa to blame it on Bush's tax cuts. Its enough to make your head explode.

that's what happens when you get your news from the NY Times, La Times or MTV.

[satandole666]

T I made the argument that Bush Tax cuts were the cause of the collapse, Yelram posted info on fanny and freddy refences by the white house. Not exactly a reply to the point being made.

As I said (if you would have read the post), its foolish to pin this whole thing on Fanny and Freddy, because they were only PART of the problem, and were not the founders of the problem but rather 2 additional contributors.

The incentive behind it all started with de-regulation and tax cuts. Read the article.


Jeebus. For the last time YOU CANNOT PIN THE PROBLEM ON THESE TWO SCAPEGOATS.

So you would rather trade his two scapegoats for yours? This entire mess is much larger than two corporations, indeed....but trying to blame the housing bubble and sub-prime lending on Bush tax cuts reeks of bias.

Do people actually believe this bullshit?

EDIT: And to answer the original question...Obama won't raise $4.3 trillion...unless you are talking about the National Debt. Yay!

[freegood]

Fanny and Freddie don't give out loans to mortgages.

[Feng]

After reading this thread, whoever becomes our next President should join this forum, because GMF has experts on foreign policy, the economy, who's to blame for all our problems and what the solutions are for all our problems... Who would have thought that GMF was really a super-power-think-tank! :D

[mongo]

After reading this thread, whoever becomes our next President should join this forum, because GMF has experts on foreign policy, the economy, who's to blame for all our problems and what the solutions are for all our problems... Who would have though that GMF was really a super-power-think-tank! :D

too bad we don't have spelling experts.

[Feng]

too bad we don't have spelling experts.

Sorry, I was masturbating while posting - the GMF way!

[Menace2Sobriety]

People are getting desperate when they are attacking unattainable promises (which every Presidential candidate in history, including John McCain, has made) and tax increases that the candidate not only hasn't even had the opportunity to make yet (because he's not President) but hasn't even discussed at all. Sounds like the wealthy are getting worried that their tax-free gravy train is coming to an end.
Please tell me you are not suggesting the integrity of politicians is irrelevant.

[Menace2Sobriety]

The President's role is only part of what effects the economy (i.e., Free trade agreements, keeping taxes low, I like lower gov. spending).

The main driver of economic growth is monetary policy which is run by the head of the Federal Reserve. The Fed's job to maintain price stability and promote economic growth.

The current mess that we are in was caused by the Fed and the GSEs, not President Bush.
True, yet Bush's impact on the (US) economy has been pretty negative overall IMO. How many times has he raised the debt ceiling?

[Menace2Sobriety]

I made the argument that Bush Tax cuts were the cause of the collapse.Form your own conclusions.

[Claydon]

True, yet Bush's impact on the (US) economy has been pretty negative overall IMO. How many times has he raised the debt ceiling?


Actually it is congress that raises the debt ceiling. You and so many others FAIL to remember that it is the congress that controls the federal check book. The president votes up or down on their budget proposals.

[Feng]

Just had to point out how stupid this thread is...

The title should be more like, "How will the next president raise 4.3 trillion"

It is amazing how people here argue about who Obama will or will not raise taxes on... What about McCain - he claims he'll raise nobody's taxes! He says he'll keep tax rates low, he'll cut taxes on business by up to 10%, allow for greater deductions, and establish permanent tax credits...

So you have Obama who actually proposes some increases, and McCain who promises lower taxes across the board... And yet the conservative Republicans here try and argue that Obama is the liar because the government's situation will require increased tax revenue!!!

Looks to me like McCain is the one with the tax proposal that will fall apart the most if the next president has to come up with 4.3 trillion.


John McCain will keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax... [and] cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent.


Those who want to believe that we will be taxed hard in the future because the government has such debt can not scapegoat Obama... McCain, if he were elected, would also have to throw out his tax plan and raise everybody's taxes too... you partisan pansies!

[taters]

The author of the article is John Steele Gordon, he is an economic historian. I don't give a shit about the url of the article. I simply care about the facts that he provides to back up his claims. Do you dispute any of the facts that I but in bold?

Yes, you care about the facts, but only the ones that support your side, which is in the minority, both in terms of what the populous believe and what most economist and academia see clearly.

I will apologize for that 3rd response to you, I put your name but it was (as you know) debo I was responding to.


What I disagree with can be summed up with one sentence;

If you think that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac werent 80% of the problem, you are completely and totally wrong, and i'd like you to prove that they arent.

You asked to prove they 'werent', I did, but you choose not to understand or read or hear what I am saying and the links and data I posted. Yelram, you gotta stop with Fox and Limbaugh. Your smarter than this, just take a step back and look at the obvious.

[heelsguy]

Just had to point out how stupid this thread is...

The title should be more like, "How will the next president raise 4.3 trillion"

It is amazing how people here argue about who Obama will or will not raise taxes on... What about McCain - he claims he'll raise nobody's taxes! He says he'll keep tax rates low, he'll cut taxes on business by up to 10%, allow for greater deductions, and establish permanent tax credits...

So you have Obama who actually proposes some increases, and McCain who promises lower taxes across the board... And yet the conservative Republicans here try and argue that Obama is the liar because the government's situation will require increased tax revenue!!!

Looks to me like McCain is the one with the tax proposal that will fall apart the most if the next president has to come up with 4.3 trillion.



Those who want to believe that we will be taxed hard in the future because the government has such debt can not scapegoat Obama... McCain, if he were elected, would also have to throw out his tax plan and raise everybody's taxes too... you partisan pansies!


we DO need to lower corporate tax rates. if we want to keep our companies here, that is. and when corporations keep more profits all of the stock holders and 401k's that invest in them win, so what's the problem?

mccain would cut spending. democrats do not know how to cut anything but defense budgets.

[Claydon]

Just had to point out how stupid this thread is...

The title should be more like, "How will the next president raise 4.3 trillion"

It is amazing how people here argue about who Obama will or will not raise taxes on... What about McCain - he claims he'll raise nobody's taxes! He says he'll keep tax rates low, he'll cut taxes on business by up to 10%, allow for greater deductions, and establish permanent tax credits...

So you have Obama who actually proposes some increases, and McCain who promises lower taxes across the board... And yet the conservative Republicans here try and argue that Obama is the liar because the government's situation will require increased tax revenue!!!

Looks to me like McCain is the one with the tax proposal that will fall apart the most if the next president has to come up with 4.3 trillion.



Those who want to believe that we will be taxed hard in the future because the government has such debt can not scapegoat Obama... McCain, if he were elected, would also have to throw out his tax plan and raise everybody's taxes too... you partisan pansies!

And you need to open a history book to 1976 when the government raised capital gains and corporate taxes doing a time of a serious. Why do you think Reagan faired so well in 1980?

[Debo]

Yes, you care about the facts, but only the ones that support your side, which is in the minority, both in terms of what the populous believe and what most economist and academia see clearly.

I will apologize for that 3rd response to you, I put your name but it was (as you know) debo I was responding to.

I care about all of the facts. It just so happens that I am right, but I am not blaming the man or greed so you don't agree with my conclusion.

You somehow time tax cuts to the credit mess (Which is laughable), but you ignore the role of the Federal Reseve's loose monetary policies, the governments role in bullying the banks to loosen their credit standards and the GSEs role in allowing the banks to underwrite loans, that they would never have kept on their books, and the GSEs buying these bad loans from the banks for par; removing the credit risk from the banks balance sheet and taking down a large percentage of fees in the process.

[taters]

I care about all of the facts. It just so happens that I am right, but I am not blaming the man or greed so you don't agree with my conclusion.


WTF are you talking about? Who is 'blaming the man'?

You somehow time tax cuts to the credit mess (Which is laughable), but you ignore the role of the Federal Reseve's loose monetary policies,

Ive quoted the links like 3 times, so I wont do it again. I will repost my response to Yelram, which applies to your claims.

Yes, you care about the facts, but only the ones that support your side, which is in the minority, both in terms of what the populous believe and what most economist and academia see clearly.

[Feng]

And you need to open a history book to 1976 when the government raised capital gains and corporate taxes doing a time of a serious. Why do you think Reagan faired so well in 1980?

Wow, totally off subject and avoiding the question...

The question... Why do you repubs think Obama will have to raise taxes, but McCain won't? Even though McCain is proposing the greatest amount of tax cuts of the two guys. Aren't you douchebags the one's saying there is 4.3 trillion to pay for??? But I guess if McCain wins and cuts taxes even more, that 4.3 trillion will pay for itself...

[Claydon]

Wow, totally off subject and avoiding the question...

The question... Why do you repubs think Obama will have to raise taxes, but McCain won't? Even though McCain is proposing the greatest amount of tax cuts of the two guys. Aren't you douchebags the one's saying there is 4.3 trillion to pay for??? But I guess if McCain wins and cuts taxes even more, that 4.3 trillion will pay for itself...

Because McCain proposes freezing the federal budget and furthermore has a 20+ year history of fighting government waste and spending. Best example is when he chopped Rumsfeld and the Airforce off at the nuts for signing off on a bullshit sweetheart 30 billion dollar lease deal for KC767 refuelers. Now if we take a look at the history of obama with regards to government spending..........oh wait! thats right, he was a community leader and an absent jr. senator originating from what is historically one of the more corrupt political realms of the US ie Chicago.

[Debo]

Wow, totally off subject and avoiding the question...

The question... Why do you repubs think Obama will have to raise taxes, but McCain won't? Even though McCain is proposing the greatest amount of tax cuts of the two guys. Aren't you douchebags the one's saying there is 4.3 trillion to pay for??? But I guess if McCain wins and cuts taxes even more, that 4.3 trillion will pay for itself...

McCain wants to keep the 2003 tax cuts on the books and he wants to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% (The second highest in the world) to 25%. Throw in his health care ideas, and you get the entire picture. In order to pay for these ideas, he wants to freeze the federal budget.

In contrast, Obama wants to raise taxes on some people (It was those making more thank 250K, but now Biden says that it is going to be on those making more than 150K), but not on others. He wants to increase federal spending for a number of programs (I think that it is around 175, I can't remember the exact number) to stimulate the economy (A classic Keynesian move).

Keynesian economics didn't work dueing the 1930s or the 1970s, but somehow Obama is going to make it work this time.

[Feng]

And somehow McCain is going to make Bush economics work...

great logic there

The fundamentals of the economy are strong...

For the record Obama has made it clear that his programs function on a pay as you go strategy and that because of the current economic situation, not all his proposed plans could happen right away...

I love it though, how you guys can't answer the question, just rip into Obama more...

As for freezing the budget:
"McCain’s plan to freeze government spending is dangerous for America."
http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3798565

[Rover]

McCain wants to keep the 2003 tax cuts on the books and he wants to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% (The second highest in the world) to 25%. Throw in his health care ideas, and you get the entire picture. In order to pay for these ideas, he wants to freeze the federal budget.

In contrast, Obama wants to raise taxes on some people (It was those making more thank 250K, but now Biden says that it is going to be on those making more than 150K), but not on others. He wants to increase federal spending for a number of programs (I think that it is around 175, I can't remember the exact number) to stimulate the economy (A classic Keynesian move).

Keynesian economics didn't work dueing the 1930s or the 1970s, but somehow Obama is going to make it work this time.Blah, blah, blah. You need to do more emoting and less thinking. Don't you understand? Obama's going to get all the money he needs from the rich people and the greedy corporations they use to exploit the American worker. These companies have all this money just laying around that they can give to the government. Companies don't provide jobs or wealth. All they are are vehicles that greedy, rich people use to horde money and fuck the working class.

Why don't you understand this? Fuck the rich and their greedy money hording ways. There are rich people in this country, richer than Scrooge McDuck and Rich Uncle Pennybags combined. Why can't I be rich? Why can't everyone?

It isn't fair that some have and others don't. Why do you hate the single mother who has made poor life decisions? Why do you hate the homeless man who has made even worse.

Why can't we take some from those who have a lot? It won't make people dependent on a federal handout to survive. Instead, it will give them a hand up. A hand up to an economic status they'll strive for. One where they, too, can provide for others who don't have.

And who cares if Obama's definition of rich continues to shift downward from $300,000, to $250,000, to $200,000, to $150,000, to $120,000? Those are just numbers to you. You probably don't make $120,000, so you'll get a tax credit, just the same as the person who only makes $20,000 and pays no federal income tax at all. Isn't this more fair?

You say Keynesian economy theory has failed whenever it's tried. Again, I say, so what? Isn't it more fair to have the government take from greedy, rich people who've never worked a day in their life, and give it to the poor, to the working class, to the working class that the rich have exploited for generations.

And who cares if today an audio tape was released with Obama saying he wants to bankrupt the coal industry. The coal industry is only a $100 billion industry that provides jobs and energy for thousands and millions. (http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry.html?q=blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry) Who cares that we provide 20% of the world's coal and developing nations depend on coal to fuel their economies?

The president should totally be in charge of bankrupting industry, especially now that the economy is in crisis. The evil coal industry is part of the worldwide epidemic of globalwarming. It makes me disgusted to live in a country that is destroying Mother Earth. I don't care if bankrupting the coal industry will cause energy prices for millions of people to rise beyond levels they're already having trouble affording. We need to find alternative energy sources. Alternative sources that can't be supported in the free market, but instead have to be propped up by subsidies and government regulations.

Obama will turn the economy around. Just you wait and see. He'll do it through a combination of increased income taxes, increased capital gains taxes, increased corporation taxes, increased payroll taxes, increased government spending, increased energy prices, and prayer. Just because you don't have faith in Obama's policies because they've never worked, never ever, not in the history of this country doesn't mean they won't now. Don't you understand? Obama is a different kind of politician. He'll create economic miracles.

YES HE CAN
--------------
I only hope that every person in PA and OH hears about Obama's plan to destroy the coal industry before Tuesday. I'm absolutely floored that Obama wants to destroy coal in this country. He clearly understands nothing about the economy and what is required to create wealth. Namely capital and energy. Obama wants to increase the cost of both. Explain to me how that is going to work.

[Archangel]

You know, that speech might have made sense before the insatiable greed of a couple of hundred already obscenely rich people fucked up the world's banking systems beyond recognition. I have far more respect for any homeless person, let alone a single mom, than for a Lehman Bros executive.

[Feng]

And who cares if Obama's definition of rich continues to shift downward from $300,000, to $250,000, to $200,000, to $150,000, to $120,000? Those are just numbers to you. You probably don't make $120,000, so you'll get a tax credit, just the same as the person who only makes $20,000 and pays no federal income tax at all. Isn't this more fair?

Don't worry... Obama's definition of rich has not shifted one iota. This is just the Republican campaign smear tactic, with the uninformed latching on to it as more ignorant fodder... Obama's tax plan still states, as it always has:


Under the Obama Plan:
Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.

Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.

Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.

source: http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

Just because Biden had a gaffe doesn't mean the Obama tax plan has changed... Although the Republicans are trying to make us believe so.

This election is too important to make up your own facts and figures to justify your reasons for choosing one candidate or the other. The facts are clear, but the rhetoric from both candidates (McCain in particular) has done too good job of hiding these facts in lies, rumors and smear tactics. Visit their sites, read their plans, don't believe the BS from the pundits or the GMF people spouting off their BS, as if they know anything about fixing a broken country.

[Debo]

And somehow McCain is going to make Bush economics work...

great logic there

The fundamentals of the economy are strong...

For the record Obama has made it clear that his programs function on a pay as you go strategy and that because of the current economic situation, not all his proposed plans could happen right away...

I love it though, how you guys can't answer the question, just rip into Obama more...

As for freezing the budget:
"McCain’s plan to freeze government spending is dangerous for America."
http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3798565

Supply-side economics works. But it needs to be complimented by sound monetary policy, which we haven't had since 1995-1996. Easy Al has always been know for his preference to juice the monetary supply during a rough patch in the economy. In fact, the portion of the blame for the real estate bubble falls directly on his shoulders.

But, hey none of that means anything to you. You have The One on your side and he is going to make everything okay because, well, he is The One.

What question would you like me to answer?

[Debo]

True, yet Bush's impact on the (US) economy has been pretty negative overall IMO. How many times has he raised the debt ceiling?

That has been going on for decades. I don't think that you can pin that squarely on Bush.

[Feng]

What question would you like me to answer?

How's McCain going to raise 4.3 trillion, without raising anybody's taxes, as he proposes?

[Claydon]

You know, that speech might have made sense before the insatiable greed of a couple of hundred already obscenely rich people fucked up the world's banking systems beyond recognition. I have far more respect for any homeless person, let alone a single mom, than for a Lehman Bros executive.

It would seem that the German banks dipped heavily into that sweet honey pot as well.

[Debo]

How's McCain going to raise 4.3 trillion, without raising anybody's taxes, as he proposes?

What is he proposing to raise $4.3 trillion for? Did he say that he wants to raise $4.3 trillion for something?

For the record, I am not a big McCain fan. I simply view him as the lesser of two evils.

[Feng]

What is he proposing to raise $4.3 trillion for? Did he say that he wants to raise $4.3 trillion for something?

For the record, I am not a big McCain fan. I simply view him as the lesser of two evils.

This thread proposes that Obama will need 4.3 trillion to handle all the current defecits he will inherit and add on top every single imaginable wish-list idea he has ever proposed in the process of running for office... (Something he has clearly said can not happen in the current economic climate.) So the same question has to be asked of McCain - he would inherit the same fiscal problems and he has plenty of costly plans on his own wish-list (like war for a 100 years, more $$ for veterans, taking out Iran, etc.).

My point was (aimed mostly at Claydon) that if you argue Obama will have to raise taxes on everybody becasue of all the $$ needed to bring all his plans to life (which is total fantasy in reality)... Well, sorry but while McCain says he won't raise taxes, he's gonna need trillions too if he were to win, so even he will have to raise taxes on everybody. Freezing the budget, that's costly for the nation in other detrimental ways, and it won't raise any money either. In true Republican form, it is another band-aid but not a solution.

By the way, IMO, McCain has become the epitome of evil.

[Debo]

This thread proposes that Obama will need 4.3 trillion to handle all the current defecits he will inherit and add on top every single imaginable wish-list idea he has ever proposed in the process of running for office... (Something he has clearly said can not happen in the current economic climate.) So the same question has to be asked of McCain - he would inherit the same fiscal problems and he has plenty of costly plans on his own wish-list (like war for a 100 years, more $$ for veterans, taking out Iran, etc.).

My point was (aimed mostly at Claydon) that if you argue Obama will have to raise taxes on everybody becasue of all the $$ needed to bring all his plans to life (which is total fantasy in reality)... Well, sorry but while McCain says he won't raise taxes, he's gonna need trillions too if he were to win, so even he will have to raise taxes on everybody. Freezing the budget, that's costly for the nation in other detrimental ways, and it won't raise any money either. In true Republican form, it is another band-aid but not a solution.

By the way, IMO, McCain has become the epitome of evil.

Since they are running on different platforms, I would say that your question isn't relevant.

The truth is, without entitlement reform the budget is going to continue to grow out of control. And there isn't a damn thing Obama or McCain can do about it. Are you in favor of phasing out MCare, MCaid and SS? I am.

If you think that McCain is the epitome of evil then you are a dumb shit. What do you think of guys like Bin Laden or Al Sadr that actual want to kill Americans and have killed Americans in the past?

[Feng]

If you think that McCain is the epitome of evil then you are a dumb shit. What do you think of guys like Bin Laden or Al Sadr that actual want to kill Americans and have killed Americans in the past?

McCain wants to kill Arabs, and has personally killed Vietnamese... Does being American make him better than any of them? McCain also wants to kill Americans by sending our boys off to fight his stupid wars. McCain said point blank in a rally earlier in the campaign, "My young friends, I will expect you to serve."

McCain even refers to the job he is campaigning for as 'Commander in Chief' more often than 'President'... He just wants his fingers on the button and to know the codes so he can drop bombs again... But this time, bigger and better bombs.

[Claydon]

<==== one of the few true leaders.

[Feng]

<==== one of the few true leaders.

Who? Claydon???

[Claydon]

Who? Claydon???

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c145/idexx/2007-09-08-RonaldReagan1981.jpg

[IdiotBrain]

Holy fuck me. I think I just agreed with Claydon.

WTF is wrong with me?

[Debo]

McCain wants to kill Arabs, and has personally killed Vietnamese... Does being American make him better than any of them? McCain also wants to kill Americans by sending our boys off to fight his stupid wars. McCain said point blank in a rally earlier in the campaign, "My young friends, I will expect you to serve."

McCain even refers to the job he is campaigning for as 'Commander in Chief' more often than 'President'... He just wants his fingers on the button and to know the codes so he can drop bombs again... But this time, bigger and better bombs.

This might be one of the dumbest things that I have ever read on the internet.

Congrats, you have a gift.

[Archangel]

His post is not particularly well formulated, but I, too, want to know how killing Americans is worse than killing Asian or Middle Eastern cilvilians.

If I'm not mistaken, the US never legally declared war on North Vietnam, so bombing people there (especially civilians), and attacking their infra-structure, such as there was, in order to achieve certain political goals - namely the degradation of communist influence in the region and the weakening of the USSR on a global scale - could very well be construed as terrorism, albeit carried out by a nation-state...
As a matter of fact, isn't that exactly what the Muslims are doing? Killing Western civilians and damaging our infra-structures to end Western influence on the Middle East?

I sucked at international law, so someone explain the difference to me.

[Yelram]

His post is not particularly well formulated, but I, too, want to know how killing Americans is worse than killing Asian or Middle Eastern cilvilians.

If I'm not mistaken, the US never legally declared war on North Vietnam, so bombing people there (especially civilians), and attacking their infra-structure, such as there was, in order to achieve certain political goals - namely the degradation of communist influence in the region and the weakening of the USSR on a global scale - could very well be construed as terrorism, albeit carried out by a nation-state...
As a matter of fact, isn't that exactly what the Muslims are doing? Killing Western civilians and damaging our infra-structures to end Western influence on the Middle East?

I sucked at international law, so someone explain the difference to me.

Heres an easy "what does terrorism entail" test.

Are they wearing a uniform....
Are they tranparently sponsored by a government....

If yes to both, not terrorism.

[Archangel]

Heres an easy "what does terrorism entail" test.

Are they wearing a uniform....
Are they tranparently sponsored by a government....

If yes to both, not terrorism.

Go re-read the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

[Rover]

His post is not particularly well formulated, but I, too, want to know how killing Americans is worse than killing Asian or Middle Eastern cilvilians.

If I'm not mistaken, the US never legally declared war on North Vietnam, so bombing people there (especially civilians), and attacking their infra-structure, such as there was, in order to achieve certain political goals - namely the degradation of communist influence in the region and the weakening of the USSR on a global scale - could very well be construed as terrorism, albeit carried out by a nation-state...
As a matter of fact, isn't that exactly what the Muslims are doing? Killing Western civilians and damaging our infra-structures to end Western influence on the Middle East?

I sucked at international law, so someone explain the difference to me.With regards to Vietnam, the Congress authorized military force after LBJ concocted the Gulf of Tonkin incident. As far as I'm concerned this is a declaration of war without using the phrase, "I declare war." Before 1964, we were in Vietnam with the permission of the government of South Vietnam (which wasn't too hard considering Diem was the puppetiest puppet of them all). Even afterwards we always had the support of the S. Vietnam government. How could we not, we just transferred our support to whomever was in charge.

As far as nation states committing terrorism on other nation states, it is possible, however, terrorism typically acts on civillian populations. If one nation's army attacks another nation's army, it isn't so much terrorism, as it is warfare.

You could say the London Blitz was an example of terrorism, or the firebombing of Dresden, but I believe the lines between terrorism and warfare are completely blurred when 2 countries are at war.

And why is killing other people different than killing Americans? It just is. Americans, to other Americans, have a higher intrinsic value than other people. If you want to have a moral discussion about whether this is true, I'll probably lose. I would imagine that Germans have higher intrinsic value than other people to you. Maybe not, I don't know, that's a discussion for you and your non-literal, metaphorical God.

[Feng]

His post is not particularly well formulated, but I, too, want to know how killing Americans is worse than killing Asian or Middle Eastern cilvilians.

America looks down its nose at every other country, race, nationality, religion and society. The political embodiment of this snobbish superiority complex is nurtured within the Republican party - the home of the right wing.

Debo is just upset because what I said was true... McCain has killed people (in war). McCain does want to send our boys to war to "protect" us from countries on the other side of the world. McCain does endorse the annihilation of middle eastern countries - the defeating of evil as whatever he defines it to be. Killing non-Americans to protect Americans is always the right thing to do I suppose... hey, it's better than peace!

You would think after McCain's experience in Vietnam, he would have a visceral understanding of the horrors of war. You would think he would have the mental capacity to excercise ALL other options besides force and violence to achieve our political desires around the world - or he just may be a brutal war monger waiting to take charge of Bush's mess, and crush the evil-doers. He sure does talk often and fondly of military and veterans - too often for my comfort.

[Willam]

America looks down its nose at every other country, race, nationality, religion and society. The political embodiment of this snobbish superiority complex is nurtured within the Republican party - the home of the right wing.

Your depths of stupidity never cease to amaze me. Yes, we Americans, hold American lives as more valuable than others. This is true for Democrats and Republicans. It may not be right, but it's true. Don't believe it, then watch the news. They keep a tally of how many AMERICAN soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Rarely do they mention the total number of other combatants killed.

Having said that, don't forget that Americans, as a whole, donate more to charities and other nations than any other country on the planet. So, while we may regard our citizens more, it's just flat wrong to say we don't care about other peoples.

[Feng]

Your depths of stupidity never cease to amaze me. Yes, we Americans, hold American lives as more valuable than others. This is true for Democrats and Republicans. It may not be right, but it's true. Don't believe it, then watch the news. They keep a tally of how many AMERICAN soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Rarely do they mention the total number of other combatants killed.

Having said that, don't forget that Americans, as a whole, donate more to charities and other nations than any other country on the planet. So, while we may regard our citizens more, it's just flat wrong to say we don't care about other peoples.

Whos' talking "care" I said we look down on others... There is patriotism, and then there is blind patriotism...

What emotions come to mind when I say:
Socialism
Jew
Black
Arab
Muslim
Africans
The Euro
China
Communism

[Yelram]

Your depths of stupidity never cease to amaze me. Yes, we Americans, hold American lives as more valuable than others. This is true for Democrats and Republicans. It may not be right, but it's true. Don't believe it, then watch the news. They keep a tally of how many AMERICAN soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Rarely do they mention the total number of other combatants killed.

Having said that, don't forget that Americans, as a whole, donate more to charities and other nations than any other country on the planet. So, while we may regard our citizens more, it's just flat wrong to say we don't care about other peoples.

He's 19.

[Feng]

He's 19.

That was a type-o, I am 91.

[Willam]

What emotions come to mind when I say:
Socialism
Jew
Black
Arab
Muslim
Africans
The Euro
China
Communism


None. Are you trying to tell me I should feel a certain emotion based on a random list of differnt religions/ethnicities/beliefs? If so, then you have the problem.

[Willam]

That was a type-o, I am 91.


You mean "typo?" and I'd believe you're 9 before 19.

[Feng]

You mean "typo?" and I'd believe you're 9 before 19.

I guess I should have added minor to the list... Because you clearly feel superior to them as well!

[Willam]

I guess I should have added minor to the list... Because you clearly feel superior to them as well!


Superior to a minor, in many ways, yes. Not only have I had more education in school than minors, but I also have twice as many life experiences than you.

I defy any person on this forum that is over 30 to say that they knew as much when they were 19 as they do now about how the world works, or even about how the US government works.

[Yelram]

Superior to a minor, in many ways, yes. Not only have I had more education in school than minors, but I also have twice as many life experiences than you.

I defy any person on this forum that is over 30 to say that they knew as much when they were 19 as they do now about how the world works, or even about how the US government works.

Thats why he's not worth arguing with, he keeps coming back to sound bites, and typical media rhetoric.