Obama and McCain Differ Sharply on Economic Policy at SmartMoney.com

Posted 12:57 PM EST September 30, 2008

vernhuffer

81 Comments

Once upon a time there were some Southern Democrat Senators who voted with the GOP. The names Bilbo, Eastland, Tallmadge and Klaghorn come to mind.

Posted 11:56 AM EST September 30, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

rlthur says 'So the problem is just the 50% who are Republicans?? While the Democrats are all good men (and women)?'

Rlthur, as I said earlier in the thread, The reason we are in the mess we are in as a country is not so much because of political ideology, but because there is such carelessness about the truth.'

Your post is an illustration of that kind of carelessness.

I have never said that all Democrats are good. (And, by the way, Republicans are more like 30% of the voting age population).

Republicans were in power in the Congress for 12 years, and in the presidency for 20 of the last 28. Their power extends further, through the courts (where they hold more than a 2:1 advantage and where many Republican appointees are truly activist judges), through the right-wing media empire of talk radio, Sinclair, and FOX, through a series of 'think tanks' established for the purpose not of discovering the truth but of presenting a point of view, through...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 10:17 AM EST September 30, 2008

Posted by: rlthur

Swad(esh) a pile of crap.To say that the Republican party is failed, corrupt, incompetent, despicable, and totally morally bankrupt is unbelievable. So the problem is just the 50% who are Republicans?? While the Democrats are all good men (and women)? You are a bigot. And simplistic. Oh, and you use the great debate technique of name calling.
BTW, FDR did not help reduce unemployment as you asserted. He was reducing the unemployment by 10% in 10 years. That's 1% a year - that stinks and so did he. WWII was what cut unemployment. You had the stat right, you just didn't know what it meant. You have proven that you are qualified to be a Democrat.

Posted 8:13 PM EST September 29, 2008

vernhuffer

81 Comments

So it was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 caused the recent crisis. That was 31 years ago could anything be more absurd! Now it is the 'sucessful' should not be taxed. It seems to me that these great people looted the corporations they ran managing them to their advantage. In a better world they would be jailed. During WW2 forgers, counterfitters and just plain thugs were let out of jail to help defeat the Axis. Maybe we need their talents right now, but for goodness sake keep an eye on them.

Posted 2:16 PM EST September 29, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

I wish I felt like celebrating, Michman. The sad fact is that the financial crisis can't be properly resolved until blame is fairly apportioned. And how it should be apportioned is blindingly obvious to anyone who understands the basic concepts of 'regulation,' 'banking,' 'Executive Branch,' and 'Congress.'

Anyway, here's what Republicans defending their mismanagement of Washington look like to me:
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/funny-pictures-cat-did-not-sample-your-lasagna-and-you-have-no-proof.jpg

Posted 1:52 PM EST September 29, 2008

Posted by: michman

JSwadesh

Wow...... You sure sunk CrystalRowboat.....you the Man!!

Posted 10:57 AM EST September 29, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

The only 'hellbent' party here, crystalship, is the one who is trying to save the failed Republican party by desperately blaming the poor, the Democrats--even the dead!-- for the Republican Party's corruption and incompetence. Attacking the CRA is particularly despicable and proof that the Republican Party is totally morally bankrupt.

Here's why what crystalship has posted is just more baloney:

1. Most of the mortgages that failed went through finance companies that are not subject to the CRA.

2. Many of the mortgages that failed were Alt-As, Jumbos, and commercial loans-- not subprime.

3. The Community Reinvestment Act simply requires that banks make some effort to reinvest deposits from the community from which they were received. If they don't, the Feds may block mergers, but that's about it as far as consequences go. It does not in any way require banks to make risky loans. http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/

4. The CRA wor...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 9:35 AM EST September 29, 2008

Posted by: crystalship4u

A lot of people (mostly journalists who know little about finance and politics) are calling this crisis the 'fall of capitalism'. While dramatic, I don't think that statement comes close to what's happening here. At the root of this mess is not the failure of capitalism but the result of political interference in the market. It was Democrats under Jimmy Carter (credit to a post here by vernhuffer) who pushed for and passed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 that forced banks to serve their 'whole communities' and required them to offer loans to people who were not credit worthy. In 1995, the Clinton administration's Department of Housing and Urban Development, headed by Andrew Cuomo, implemented new regulations requiring banks to meet numerical quotas in lending and demonstrate the diversity of their borrowers. In 1999, the NY Times ran an article stating that 'in moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may n...(Read more of this comment)ot pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's. ''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

While housing prices were rising, the bad loans were hidden. But as soon as prices began to fall and adjustable ARMs kicked in, the defaults began.

It was Democrats who closed ranks to insulate their pet projects — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — from proper oversight and regulation. A New York Times article from 2003 described the opposition to a Bush administration proposal to enhance oversight: 'Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.' Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) claimed of the thrifts, 'These two entities … are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.' Representative Mel Watt (D., N.C.) added, 'I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing.' I would imagine that the board of realtors would have opposed any regulation on lending standards as well.

As for the regulations that WERE adopted by Congress, some, like the 'mark to market' accounting rule, have taken a serious situation and transformed it into a disaster. An estimated 6 to 7 percent of home mortgages are in default (compared to 40 percent in the 1930s). Under the old cost accounting system, investment banks would have been able to manage the losses with patience and time. But the mark to market rule (imposed by many including the Securities and Exchange Commission in response to the S and L debacle and the Enron scandal) requires that banks value their assets based on what they can fetch at any given moment in the open market. Well, because the housing market was in a temporary dither, banks were forced to wildly write down their portfolios, spreading the contagion of panic even further.

Mr. Swadesh seems hellbent to point out that it would be a contradiction for me to be for the repeal of Glass-Steagall and yet support reform of Fannie and Freddie. What he fails to realize is that repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed Citi to buy Wachovia today, allowed Bank of America to buy Merrill, allowed JP Morgan to buy Bear Stearns, and allowed the Fed to require that Goldman and Morgan apply for bank charters. Without those deals, our markets would have seized and the taxpayer would be on the hook for trillions. Without repeal of Glass-Steagall, we very well might have seen the collapse of our entire global financial system. If, on the other hand, Carter and Clinton and their friends and contributors at Fannie and Freddie, friends of Obama, all, had not pushed to relax lending standards and had just run the GSEs by the book, as they had up until 1977, none of this would have happened. It's not greed on Wall Street that got us here, although that greed certainly exploited the relaxation of lending standards, it was political interference from Washinton, cloaked in the 'good' intentions of 'affirmative lending' to help people with low incomes and bad credit buy homes. The lion's share of the cost of this bailout should come from the Congressional pension fund. They caused the problem. Let THEM buy the bad debts and hold them until they improve.
(Show less of this comment)

Posted 9:57 AM EST September 27, 2008

Posted by: michman

rithur
The mosquitoes are still one of our major crops…... I did not say Palin was 'stupid' I said she was a 'fool.' Everything is relative.... and relative to easily hundreds of bright, charming, more qualified Republican women that could have been chosen….. she is a fool. This sheds more dark on McCain and his selection skills than it does on Palin. I personally love the pick since I am an Independent who will vote straight Democratic this turn.
Thus my opinion is obviously slanted... so I'll leave you with some choice bits from one of your own...
Kathleen Parker is a nationally syndicated CONSERVATIVE columnist. National Review Online 9/26/08:
'Palin Problem
Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League…. No one hates saying that more than I do….
If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself…. Only Palin can s...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 8:46 PM EST September 26, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

Rlthur says, 'It appears you didn't understand me. free money is not free to the people who GIVE it, only to those who GET it: Then it is free.'

Oh, I understood you very well, Rlthur.

I am saying that many people who pay taxes--even if they may get 'free money' in some instance-- are often overlooked in these discussions. Indeed, they may be paying out 'free money' in other instances. And these are people paying taxes out of their meager means, so they understand very well what sacrifice went into paying it, while to someone of great means, the pain of the sacrifice is much less.

Rlthur says, 'The SS money has been stolen to fund other gov stuff for which it was not intended.'

This is not exactly true. A small amount of Social Security money was actually stolen under the Reagan Administration, which forced Social Security to buy T-bills paying below market rate. But for the most part, the accounting is solid. Money borrowed from Social Securit...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 8:35 PM EST September 26, 2008

vernhuffer

81 Comments

Sixty five comments so far and nobody has blamed Jimmy Carter for the recent crisis. Not even rithur. I guess that the dittoheads are not literate enough to be here.

Posted 2:27 AM EST September 26, 2008

Posted by: rlthur

Michman
I'm a Mich native, too, from a long time ago. Is the mosquito still the state bird? Re Palin Couric interview, I think Couric was in attack mode. 'So Ms Palin, how would you solve the $700,000,000,000 financial crisis.' No one knows how to fix that mess, or even if we can. I mean, what would you have her (or anyone) say??
Understand, I don't think she was a good choice: She doesn't have much experience (Truly, neither does Obama); she isn't pro-abortion, etc. . But, She is not stupid. I watched the Charlie Gibson interview and she was fairly adroit at changing the terms of his questions to better suit her answers. That is not the mark of a fool. Remember too that with Palin the question is, 'Does she have the experience to assume the presidency if the man who would be president, and does have the experience to be president dies?' With Obama, the question is, 'Does HE have the experience to assume the presidency?' That really is the crux of the election. He has been a se...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 1:59 AM EST September 26, 2008

Posted by: rlthur

Jswad
1: It appears you didn't understand me. free money is not free to the people who GIVE it, only to those who GET it: Then it is free. 2. The American people have not concluded that these programs (medicare, SS etc.) are run effectively. They HAVE concluded that they are the only choice. Re SS we do and don't agree. The SS money has been stolen to fund other gov stuff for which it was not intended. That's wrong and we agree fair is fair. It will be interesting to see if it is repaid or we are new taxed...To say that SS is well run, I'm not that sure. They could get a much higher rate of return, WITH COMPLETE SAFETY, than they do. That is not efficient. Medicare does not use their enormous clout to negotiate better rates as other countries do. 3. re the projects, I believe that you are just wrong. They failed because they were open to anyone, and no one could be kicked out (essentially). That is when drugs and gangs showed up and they degenerated into human cesspools. The peopl...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 11:28 PM EST September 25, 2008

Posted by: michman

A Moose in the Headlights... did you see the CBS Palin interview? WOW.... This woman is simply a fool. One can easily see why they have kept her in 'wraps', and not allowed her to speak to the press.
Now I understand you republicans must make excuses for her... but to all Independent voters.... to all thinking people... You cannot in good conscience allow this person be one heartbeat from the Presidency.

Posted 10:02 PM EST September 24, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

Rthur says, 'Of course 'free' money is popular, the question is whether it [presumably Medicare, Social Security, NASA, and the Forest Service] has been run effectively.'

1. None of this is 'free money.' We pay taxes and we vote on how to spend it. Even those who pay no income tax pay sales tax and other taxes-- usually a greater proportion of their income goes to taxes than for the wealthy.
2. The American people have concluded that these programs have been run effectively. That's why they still exist, despite jaw-dropping amounts of rhetoric. Turns out the Republicans weren't even really against NEA or PBS...they just wanted them to operate for the benefit of the Republican Party.
3. Most of the information being put out on Medicare and Social Security is misleading. Medicare has problems because the cost of medical care is going up across the board, not because Medicare is being run inefficiently. Social Security is the most efficiently run retirement program th...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 7:01 PM EST September 24, 2008

Posted by: rlthur

JS
I think you misunderstand the difference between popular and good. Of course 'free' money is popular, the question is whether it has been run effectively. I didn' hear any Republican attack either program - I responded to your statement that the Dems had launched all these great programs. They weren't that good. I wasn' commenting on the value of national parks. (wasn't the first park, Yellowstone, created b4 TR?) I pointed out that they were not well planned or implemented. You don't address the projects, so I assume you agree with me that they neither helped minorities(sp?) nor helped integrate. Kinda like school busing. You don't play with someone who is 10 miles away. I know it happened to my kids. I didn't say NASA was a failure, I said it is poorly run and inefficient. Finally, re your comment that our gov is about average, I disagree. I think ours is better than many. Where you and I most strongly disagree is about funding. What ever money you give to a gov it will spend....(Read more of this comment)

Posted 6:24 PM EST September 24, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

Rlthur:
1. Social Security and Medicare remain some of the most popular programs in America. I love it when Republicans attack them, because it costs them seats in the Congress. Let's make this election about Social Security and Medicare!
2. The national parks were created by Teddy Roosevelt to protect them for future generations. You may disagree with their fire management program-- fine. But would you like to pave over Yellowstone or turn the Grand Canyon into a lake for boating?
3. NASA a failure? I doubt you can get even a majority of Republicans to agree on that one.

The point is, all kinds of human enterprises are failures. Should we judge the Christian church by Ted Haggard, or corporate America by Ken Lay? A fair evaluation will say that American government has done some things well, some things badly, and some... about average.

A fair evaluation will say that government works better when it's properly funded and when it's competen...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 5:01 PM EST September 24, 2008

Posted by: rlthur

Last thing (probably) JSWADESH says, 'The upper marginal rates and capital gains rates Obama has proposed are the same as they were under Clinton, when, as reality-based people may remember, things were actually pretty good.

three things. 1. Clinton walked in following Reagan's two terms and reaped the benefits of Reagan's presidency when the actual seeds of fiscal prosperity were planted. 2. Shortly after Clinton left office in 2000, when the fruit of his labor emerged, the NASDAC dropped in value by 50%. The current financial catastrophe has produced a much lower decline.

Posted 4:51 PM EST September 24, 2008

Posted by: rlthur

Crystalship4you writes that the mortgage brokers were a primary source of the sub prime debacle. I see it the same way. I have done spec homes on a small scale for 20 years and over the last 5 or so years, the lackadaisical efforts of the mortgage brokers to verify income was increasingly obvious. If they didn't make the loan, they didn't get any money. This produced tremendous pressure on them to make every loan work. And every loan did work!

Posted 4:45 PM EST September 24, 2008

Posted by: rlthur

This is from Sept 5 to Swadesh re democrat programs that have not done well for the people. The Forest Service, which suppressed fires for a century, over the advice of the commercial foresters, who told them that forests need fires. The looney tunes who gave us the housing projects of the 50's, places that were unfit for human dwelling, at least after the people who had no financial involvement with the apartments got thru with them. NASA? I am a space fan, but NASA did not do a very good job of running the space program, a fact which is widely accepted. Social security? It was never intended for use the way it is now being used, and it is rapidly running out of money. Medicare? Darn near the only country on earth which does not negotiate pricing for the citizens (which is why people buy drugs from Canada).

Posted 1:49 PM EST September 23, 2008

Posted by: L_S_U

'You've posted wildly partisan, wildly inaccurate material on these boards. I've tried to meet you with facts and with balance. Why you don't you just say that you worship the Republican Party and that anything they say is holy writ? That, at least, would be a logically-consistent argument.'

Thanks Joel, I needed a good laugh.

Posted 1:25 PM EST September 23, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

Crystalship, one of these guys is a Republican official and the other is employed by a Republican-funded think-tank.

Unfortunately for the truth, what these guys are claiming is a whitewash of McCain, who has been one of the prime figures in reckless deregulation. Here are just some of the gaping holes in their argument:

1. Jim Johnson left Fannie Mae in 1999. Bringing him up as connected to whatever happened five years later is simply ridiculous.
2. The authors claim that deregulation is NOT at the heart of the crisis. They also claim that the failure to pass the Dole, Hagel, Sununu bill (for the record, this is S.190, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005)-- a bill which would have increased regulation of FNM/FRE-- is the cause of the crisis. In other words, they're arguing two mutually incompatible things. But there are other problems with their claim. Most of the industries they cite not only remain regulated but have also suffered ...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 12:56 PM EST September 23, 2008

Posted by: L_S_U

if anybody is interested, particulars on S.190 can be found at
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190&tab=summary

Posted 12:21 PM EST September 23, 2008

Posted by: crystalship4u

Regarding taxation, Swadesh...just so you don't think I'm ducking you on that issue...Ask yourself a question:

In these sensitive economic times, with our financial system on the brink and the economy still growing, but barely...what effect do you think a tax increase of any kind would have on our economy?

Your reliance on links from the Brookings Institution belies your agenda and bias...Brookings is a known liberal think tank, not a fair and balanced approach by any means...and even your own Brookings Institution admits that Obama has been unclear as to how much he will increase taxes in certain areas. The 'study' your link connects to is at best an extrapolation based on broad, general guesswork.

Bottom line? ANY tax increases would be disastrous for our economy right now.

Want to talk about lies? The info that Raines advised Obama on housing and policy issues came from the Washington Post.

The McCain campaign cited a July Washingt...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 11:48 AM EST September 23, 2008

Posted by: crystalship4u

The following article explains why Swadesh is wrong to blame the collapse on deregulation, how deregulation in fact helped to prevent further bailouts by allowing banks to buy some of the ailing financial firms, and how Obama and his campaign are lying when they claim to be reformers...Obama failed to vote for McCain's reform bill, S190, when it was presented for vote in the Senate. Probably kept his mouth shut because his cronies had run Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground and Fannie was giving Obama and Chris Dodd huge contributions all along. Senate Democrats ultimately threatened a fillibuster if the Republicans insisted on pushing the Fannie Mae Reform bill further. As a result, the Fannie/Freddie reform bill died on the floor of the Senate. Meanwhile, Fannie Mae's CEO, embarrassed by all the scrutiny, agreed to buy more subprime and low-documentation loans from their buddies at Countrywide to 'help poor people own homes'. Seems to me that was a recipe for disaster. I ...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 12:13 AM EST September 20, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

Regarding the tax plans of Obama and McCain...

Anyone who would prefer to know the truth rather than believe lies plucked out of someone's rear end can find an analysis of Obama's tax plan (and McCain's tax plan) at www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411749_updated_candidates.pdf

The upper marginal rates and capital gains rates Obama has proposed are the same as they were under Clinton, when, as reality-based people may remember, things were actually pretty good.

Really, the Republicans deserve to lose just for telling such awful, transparent lies.

Posted 10:50 PM EST September 19, 2008

Posted by: crystalship4u

Obama has unveiled his economic plan of raising taxes on the successful. His plan would boost the top marginal rate to well over 55 percent—before the inclusion of state and local taxes—resulting in many individuals seeing their marginal tax rate double. The consequences of this policy would be a return to the bad old days of tax avoidance, with taxpayers disguising personal income as business income or capital gains and the migration of capital from the United States to other places abroad.

Among the more prominent elements of his tax proposal, Senator Obama would end the Bush tax cuts and allow the top two tax rates to return to 36 and 39.6 percent. He also would allow personal exemptions and deductions to be phased out for those with income over $250,000. The real kicker, though, is that Senator Obama would end the Social Security payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in earnings. (The cap is currently set at $102,000.) These individuals will then face a tax rate of 15.65...(Read more of this comment) percent from payroll taxes and at the top level, an income tax rate of 39.6 percent, for a combined top rate of over 56 percent on each additional dollar earned.

High-income individuals will be forced to pay even more if they live in cities or states with high taxes such as New York City, California, or Maryland. These unlucky people would pay over two-thirds of each new dollar in earnings to the federal government.

How the Obama Tax Plan Compares to Other Countries

Senator Obama's new tax rate would give the United States one of the highest tax rates among developed countries. Currently only six of the top 30 industrial nations have a tax rate for all levels of government combined of over 55 percent. Under this tax plan, the United States would join this group and have a higher top rate than such high-tax nations as Sweden and Denmark. The top marginal rate would exceed 60 percent with the inclusion of state and local taxes, which means that only Hungary would exceed Senator Obama's new proposed top tax rate.

The costs in economic terms of such high taxes are real. For example, of the six countries with higher tax rates than 55 percent, the average unemployment rate is 7.35 percent. This figure includes Denmark, which appears to have a very low unemployment rate of 3.9 percent. However, Denmark spends over 5 percent of its GDP on unemployment work programs and benefits, thereby increasing its unemployment rate.

Historically, Senator Obama's tax rate would be the highest individual tax rate since the Jimmy Carter days. Tax shelters and tax avoidance strategies were common when the top marginal rate was 70 percent or higher. This new top tax rate will again encourage these gimmicks, reducing investment and economic growth as resources are squandered in an attempt to avoid punitive taxation.

Many individuals will attempt to transfer their compensation from wages to capital gains, since capital gains would only be taxed at 25 percent, or less than half of the top rate on wages. This would put a great deal of pressure on a company use any gimmick it could to make its stock quickly increase in value. Other individuals would try to incorporate so they could pay business taxes instead of having to pay taxes on their wages. Again, these resources would be diverted away from more productive uses and slow the economy.

When you tax something, you get LESS OF IT. Tax income more and you get LESS OF IT. Tax capital more and you get less capital for new ventures and investment in existing businesses and research and development, including research for new drugs to cure diseases and research for new technologies. This is economics 101, people...A tax increase is a tax increase, no matter what income sector it falls upon, and to tax people merely because they are successful prevents them from using their capital to create jobs, fund new companies, fund research on disease, and contribute to charities.

We are in a very difficult economic period, due to the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So ask yourself this question: does increasing taxes and increasing unemployment make sense at this time? If your answer is yes, you should vote for Obama. If not, your choice should be clear.

(Show less of this comment)

Posted 4:48 PM EST September 19, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

R. Hood, I have been very careful in what I have said.

Based on your use of ad hominem, I think you are here to defame rather than to inform, but that's an opinion. I have challenged you--if you really do want to debate issues-- to address the substantive--and well-sourced-- points that I have raised.

You have responded with silence. That is an answer in itself.

You approved of a post by crystalship blaming Obama and Franklin Raines (and others) for the mortgage crisis-- a post that contains (among other things) a lie in calling Raines a key political and economic adviser to Obama. The post also refuses to consider that Palin has been lying about earmarks based on the principle best described as 'Johnny hit me first.'

If you approve lies, have you not joined in spreading it?

I try to be fair. I have said that Democrats as well as Republicans need to answer for the mortgage crisis. But the more that McCain defenders spread lies and ref...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 3:33 PM EST September 19, 2008

Posted by: L_S_U

Joel, you are accsing me of saying things I have never said

Posted 3:02 PM EST September 19, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

R. Hood, you cannot find any example where I defend a lie, whereas, I have given a series of examples where the McCain campaign has openly, brazenly lied. For example:

It is not true that Sarah Palin opposed earmarks.
It is not true that Obama's tax plan would raise the taxes of anyone in the middle class (or lower upper class).
It is not true that Franklin Raines is an advisor to Obama.

Whatever you may say about Democrats, an honest man would admit that these are lies by the McCain campaign.

Suppose you are correct that I do have a beam in my eye. Even so, why do you refuse to remove the ...eh... mote... that is unmistakably in your own?

Posted 1:55 PM EST September 19, 2008

Posted by: L_S_U

to Joel

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Posted 1:27 PM EST September 19, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

R. Hood, I recall Psalm 37:

The wicked plot against the righteous
and gnash their teeth at them;
but the Lord laughs at the wicked,
for he knows their day is coming.

I have pointed out a number of examples of how the McCain campaign-- through dupes like those on this message board-- is using exaggeration and even lies to mislead people. You have been warned that any claim that Obama is raising taxes on the middle class-- or even anyone remotely near the middle class-- is a lie. If you choose to continue to spread a lie, then... consider Psalm 37.

Posted 1:20 PM EST September 19, 2008

Posted by: L_S_U

and I wouldn't rely on The Washington Post for objective information.

Posted 1:18 PM EST September 19, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

Crystalship, I agree that it's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. It is the government's job to protect us from white collar criminals who falsify appraisals, encourage misstatements of income, and produce doubtful securities. Federal regulators failed to do this.

It is not true that crises of this magnitude happen with proper regulation. There were NO financial crises under the period of Democratic dominance, from 1932-1968. Zero! Whereas there were repeated panics before www.answers.com/topic/financial-panics

You raise the question of whether donations received by Obama from Fannie and Freddie influenced his votes. There are three reasons why this is a fallacy. First, Obama (and three others on the top 20 donations list) were presidential candidates. They were raising huge sums of money. The FRACTION of money they raised from Fannie and Freddie was small-- in Obama's case, less than 0.1% of the total. Second, there is something much more likel...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 1:17 PM EST September 19, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

dmcwhorter, I wouldn't rely on Hannity and Colmes--and especially Newt Gingrich for objective information.

The Washington Post did an analysis of McCain vs. Obama's tax plans. A graphic from it is at alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/details.html. You can calculate your tax cut at www.obamataxcut.com.

It's just plain wrong to say that anyone middle class or even lower upper class will get a tax hike.

Posted 12:41 PM EST September 19, 2008

Posted by: L_S_U

crystalship4u

RIGHT ON

Posted 10:53 AM EST September 19, 2008

Posted by: crystalship4u

What happened on Wall Street this week was fundamentally and directly linked to foolish and overly optimistic decisions made on Main Street to borrow like crazy and hope for the best, combined with insane greed and foolish executive decisions by the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's not the government's job, in my opinion, to protect us from ourselves, but it is their job to protect the public trust and public coffers from greedy pinheads like the guys who ran Fannie and Freddie. The reality is, lots of responsible people did not accept the invitation to get in over their heads during the boom, and not every lender acted like the Fannie and Freddie oligarchs, but enough individuals did so to start the dominos falling. Tipping points like this can happen with or without regulation, so we can't blame deregulation or too much money in the system (which was mostly a result of the fed supplying liquidity so we didn't seize up completely after 9/11 and the internet bubble coll...(Read more of this comment)apse). As is the case with many such crises, it was a perfect storm, creating a wave that was some 4 or 5 standard deviation points away from the mean. Probability was close to nil, possibility is always there. This is not a right wing thing, although you seem to be hellbent to pin it on the right for some reason. However, since you insist on dragging politics into this, what do you say to the fact that Obama is the second largest recipient of Fannie Mae lobbyist funds in history and that his closest advisors are former Fannie Execs who helped mismanage us into this mess in the first place. These guys parachuted out of the Fannie and Freddie with roughly $40mm apiece and are leaving US to pick up the tab. You can blame Congress for deregulation, or giving them the gun, but I blame these guys for shooting it.
You look at Obama's economic advisers, the guys he has counted on from day one and who have raised him a ton — and I mean a ton — of money: Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, both of them are balls deep in the mortgage debacle.

Both Raines and Johnson have served as CEO of Fannie Mae, with Raines taking over from Johnson. Both are key political and economic advisers to Obama.

'How can Obama go out with a straight face and saw it was Republicans who made this mess, when it is his key advisers who ran the agencies that made the big mess what it is?' said a Democrat House member who supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. 'It's his people who are responsible for what may well be the single largest government bailout in history. And every single one of them made millions off the collapse that are lining Obama's campaign coffers. If the McCain campaign lets this one go, they deserve to lose.'

It isn't just Fannie Mae where Obama has a problem. Another close political adviser, in fact the one man responsible for rallying support for Obama early on among Congressional Democrats, is Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who served on the Board of Directors for Freddie Mac after leaving the Clinton White House. According to Freddie Mac insiders, Emanuel during his time on the board opposed every reform proposed by the Bush Administration that would have impacted Freddie and Fannie Mae and may have averted the meltdown, and the Democrats in Congress who were cozy with Emanuel and Raines and their lobbyists also stepped in and blocked Bush Administration and Republican efforts for reform of the GSEs.

Emanuel also claimed to be neutral in the primary race between the wife of his old boss and his longtime Chicago acquaintance, Obama. But the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, who would be first in line for the vacated Senate seat of Obama should he win the presidency, quickly dumped Clinton when it was clear Obama had a head of steam for the nomination.

We ought to be able to — rightly — hang the Fannie and Freddie scandal around the neck of Obama and these crooks. 'Middle-class folks' mortgages are probably safe, but enough excrement hit the ventilator that the American taxpayer will also be paying for this scandal for years to come. Let's just hope we make a big enough profit from the AIG bailout (like we did with Chrysler) to mitigate some of the foolish Fannie losses.

Earmarks? You are whining about Alaska earmarks when these Dems have nearly melted down our entire financial system for their own profit???? Please...you are grasping at straws....EVERY Governor lobbies for earmarks for his or her state...that's their job...the amounts that Palin tried to get for her state have made her a very popular governor there and the amounts pale in comparison to the amounts effectively stolen from the public by the thieves at Fannie and Freddie who now advise Obama on his economic policy.

If you are truly as outraged as you claim, and as I am, about the collapse of Fannie and Freddie, which set the stage for this great credit debacle that brought down Lehman and AIG and forced Merrill Lynch into a bear hug with Bank of America, then our only choice in this election is to stand up and protest Obama's cozy relationship with these robber barons by voting for McCain/Palin.

(Show less of this comment)

Posted 1:55 AM EST September 18, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

There are always people willing to cheat, crystalship.

We form governments and make and enforce laws to help them choose to earn their money honestly. To refuse this simple principle is to have a child's view of the world: to believe that people *ought* to do this and *ought* to do that, and when they don't, blame and punish them.

Fannie went 60 years without any problems. Freddie went 30. What changed in 1998 was eliminating bank regulation that had existed since the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, we the taxpayer will be paying for years and decades for this failure to regulate.

I do agree that there's a real problem in this country, in which a failure of government has convinced many people that they can get away with cheating. The brazen manner in which Sarah Palin has lied in our very faces about the earmarks that she herself requested is just an example of how extreme this sense of lawlessness has become.

I'll also agree that s...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 12:10 AM EST September 18, 2008

Posted by: crystalship4u

Sorry you didn't like my analogy, but yours makes absolutely no sense at all. The only ones who cheated were the mortgage brokers, who were mostly used car salesmen in a former life. Removing regulation and supplying liquidity to the system cannot be blamed for their eggregious behavior. I hope you are not suggesting that it was Greenspan's job to monitor the hundreds of thousands of mortgage applications that were coming in at the height of the bubble. Laws were violated and fraud was committed by the mortgage brokers and not nearly enough caution and diligence was exercised by the lenders. In most if not all cases, these violations and lack of enforcement fall under state, not federal regulators, who were asleep at the wheel. Few if any states ever attempted to license and control mortgage brokers the way they do insurance agents, for example, which would have been a great idea. If they had, the application process would have been a lot harder to twist in order to rack up big com...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 11:31 PM EST September 17, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

You have the wrong analogy, crystalship.

If your house was robbed and you discovered that the police department had taken the cops off the beat, you'd blame the PD. That is a much closer analogy to what happened, especially since Alan Greenspan had the duty to check lending quality, and refused to do so. Plus, he was pouring cheap money into the system, creating massive incentives to cheat.

Again, as long as Republicans try to pretend that they had nothing to do with this, that it's all the Democrats' fault, the guilt for it will remain entirely with the Republicans (cf Luke 18:10-14).

Posted 11:18 PM EST September 17, 2008

Posted by: michman

Mr. McCain, during the course of one day you seem to have completely flip-flopped in your position on providing assistance to A.I.G. Can you now explain to us the discrepancy between your two opposite views?

'I guess I really didn't mean what I said yesterday, I mean that was a long time ago, I mean what I say today, but that yesterday thing... well, uh, I don't really remember meaning that although I may have said it, but I surely didn't really mean it, at least not in the way you might think I meant it. That should clear things up.... next question...'

Posted 11:17 PM EST September 17, 2008

Posted by: crystalship4u

Swadesh,

If they repealed seatbelt laws and you went through the windshield because you weren't wearing one, would you blame the politicians who repealed the laws? The mortgage crisis exists because unscrupulous greedy people made bad loans to stupid greedy people. The idea that everyone has a 'right' to buy a house and should therefore be offered lower-interest mortgages with the most favorable terms (conforming loans, ie.: the same kinds of loans offered by Fannie and Freddie) is precisely the kind of thinking that created Fannie and Freddie and put them into the soup. You can't blame this on the Republicans. Republicans didn't make the bad loans. The loans were made by unscrupulous mortgage brokers who knew, but didn't care, that their clients didn't have the wherewithal to make the payments. There were huge commissions at stake, so they lied on the mortgage paperwork. The practice was widespread and it constituted bank fraud. The mortgage brokers who placed the risky ...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 3:27 PM EST September 17, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

If you're not engaged in character assassination, R., then answer the substantive points I have raised:
1. Banking deregulation, for which Phil Gramm was the point man, was a principal cause of the mortgage crisis.
2. Alan Greenspan did have the duty of regulating lending standards, and he failed to meet his obligations.
3. The roots of the mortgage crisis are wide and deep, extending to plenty of realtors, appraisers, banks, and borrowers who falsified mortgages. 'Corruption' at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a major factor in their demise.
4. It's ridiculous to blame Lyndon Johnson for the FNM/FRE crisis. The secondary mortgage market worked well until the massive deregulation of the late 1990s.
5. Credit default swaps, if one thinks they are part of this crisis, also became deregulated due to Phil Gramm.
6. Both Democrats and Republicans contributed to the mortgage crisis through deregulation and failure to provide oversight. The position that al...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 2:44 PM EST September 17, 2008

Posted by: L_S_U

slander? come on now
R.Hood, Spartanburg, SC

Posted 2:34 PM EST September 17, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

Ad hominem: when the facts are against you, slander your opponent.

Unfortunately, that seems to be all that today's Republicans are good at: trying to silence their opponents by defaming them and tearing the country apart.

They're very brave at doing it...anonymously.

Posted 1:18 PM EST September 17, 2008

Posted by: L_S_U

Folks, I wouldn't give much credence to what Joel Swadesh (and other John Edwards disciples) has to say on this subject. (Joel, we know Obama is your man now). By the way, I wouldn't believe anything 'Mother Jones' said either.

Posted 1:05 PM EST September 17, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

scluer, regarding unregulated swaps, according to this (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/) article, Gramm was responsible for that one, too.

Oh... and McCain?

He voted for Gramm-Leach-Bliley. I haven't looked up the roll call on unregulated swaps. Why don't you do that and tell us whether he voted for or against?

Posted 12:55 PM EST September 17, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

scluer:
1. OF COURSE Alan Greenspan wasn't regulating FNM/FRE. He was charged with regulating LENDING STANDARDS, which he did not do. And lending standards are at the heart of the crisis.

2. There's no evidence that the crisis at FNM/FRE was caused by 'corruption' of their management. The crisis was caused by (a) the magnitude of the mortgage crisis, (b) lending standards AT MORTGAGE ORIGINATORS, which meant that paperwork was falsified, and (c) inadequate capitalization.

3. I don't have any problem with calling the crisis at FNM/FRE bipartisan. You're the guy who has been trying to hang it on a long-dead Democrat. It's like blaming Gutenberg for inflation, because after all he made it possible to print money.

Again, the system worked well until Phil Gramm--with the collusion of President Clinton-- repealed the regulations. I would point out that 44 Democrats voted AGAINST Gramm-Leach-Bliley (S.900) in the Senate, and that the overwhelming majority o...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 3:14 AM EST September 17, 2008

Posted by: scluer

That NYT article you quoted is about subprime mortgage lenders...it does not mention Fannie/Freddie or the Fed's ability to regulate them. That does not change the fact that Democrat President Lyndon Johnson gave them the structure (credit with the Treasury, no oversight, no taxes, implied gov't backing, no reporting to the public of problems) that led to their crises.

This article clearly demonstrates the corruption at Fannie/Freddie as bipartisan, you can and should blame members of both parties for not stopping the *modern* greed.
http://www.slate.com/id/2200160/

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

Here's what your own link says about that deregulation:

Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This law effectively deleted the prohibition on commercial banks owning investment banks and vice ...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 11:18 PM EST September 16, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

scluer, you are simply disinformed in thinking that Greenspan did not have the regulatory duty. See <a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/business/18subprime.html?_r=1&oref=slogin'>here</a>

Gramm's role in destroying essential regulation to permit the rise of the shadow banking system is described briefly <a href='http://www.slate.com/id/2200148'>here</a>. His personal participation in as a lobbyist in facilitating the mess is mentioned <a href='http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html'>here</a>. His broader role as a villain in creating the lawless environment of today is described <a href='http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html'>here</a>. And John McCain voted for it all.

As for blaming LBJ for events that happenened a generation after his death... well, it's that kind of behavior that guarantees I will not be voting Republican.

Posted 10:55 PM EST September 16, 2008

Posted by: scluer

Freddie was simply created to avoid a monopoly, it was a mirror copy of what LBJ created with Fannie. The structure of these GSE, publicly-traded, private companies and their unbelievable credit and non-existent oversight functions is on LBJ.

Greenspan had no regulatory oversight over these companies, he testified his concerns to Congress many times.

Can you cite some examples of Phil Gramm's gutting of mortgage lending regulations? I would like to read about them.

Posted 7:53 PM EST September 16, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

That's a very good illustration being careless with the truth, scluer.

While it's true that Lyndon Johnson privatized Fannie, Freddie was created in 1970 under Richard Nixon, a Republican. Both were left in place under both Republicans and Democrats for thirty years and worked just fine. But something happened in the last decade.

What happened was that GOPers like Phil Gramm gutted bank/financial regulations, and Alan Greenspan who refused to exercise his regulatory responsibility. It was on a watch where the Republicans controlled the presidency and the congress that bad mortgages started to be written.

I would rather say that Fannie and Freddie is a bipartisan crisis, but the refusal of Republicans to accept responsibility for what they did makes it all their fault.

Posted 7:23 PM EST September 16, 2008

Posted by: scluer

The reason we are in this mess as a country is because President Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Democrat from Texas, privatized Fannie Mae in 1968 creating a private company with a credit line at the Treasury without oversight of any variety. So far the Iraq war has cost a little over $500 billion, which most of us will agree is on Bush. However, the Fannie/Freddie bailout could amount to a whopping $5 trillion; doubling the public held debt, not the budget, the actual debt. These organizations were not created or privatized by Bush, and neither Congress nor the SEC had oversight...

Carelessness about the truth?

The truth is LBJ privatized Fannie to remove it from the national budget because of growing concerns over the cost of the Vietnam War. In order to reduce spending but continue increasing funding of the war they started, the Democrats passed an ill-conceived newly-privatized time bomb called Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mac) on to future generations. That time bomb, which...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 12:10 PM EST September 15, 2008

Posted by: L_S_U

you wrote...'Democrats have played defense: Try to balance the budget'
Roger Lowenstein, what planet are you from?

Posted 3:46 PM EST September 10, 2008

Posted by: michman

'Wide-Ranging Ethics Scandal Emerges at Interior Dept' New York times 9/10/2008
They never sleep...

Posted 11:15 AM EST September 10, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

The deficits are so large that no one has a plan to pay them off. It took seven years for Clinton to get the budget in balance and we are in a fundamentally worse situation now than we were in 1992.

However, basically McCain wants to stay the course, let the national debt rise without limit. His energy plan (drill!drill!drill! plus nukes) will have no effect on the trade deficit for at least decade, and even then will not substantially change the game.

Obama has said he will raise taxes on people earning over $250,000. That will stop the hemorrhaging of the government deficit. In addition, he has realistic plans for energy independence (all alternatives plus conservation) which could substantially lower the trade deficit-- over the course of a decade.

The economy is a big ocean liner and will take a very long time to turn around. It will be an ugly and painful time. Given the choices and the problems, Obama's is the responsible approach. IMHO, of course....(Read more of this comment)

Posted 10:41 AM EST September 10, 2008

Posted by: labrador2

I would like to know how Obama and McCain plan to payoff the external and internal debt.

Posted 7:26 PM EST September 09, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

Michman, the truth matters. The reason we are in the mess we are in as a country is not so much because of political ideology, but because there is such carelessness about the truth.

Democrats are not immune to corruption. But great power and too much money have certainly rotted what was once the Grand Old Party.

It is bad enough to see this moral bankruptcy in national leaders. But leaders are a symptom of a deeper disease.

This disease, this corruption of the national spirit, is only cured when individuals stand up and speak against falsehood and against division. Not with anger or self-righteousness, but firmly and without wavering.

Posted 6:14 PM EST September 09, 2008

Posted by: michman

Why bother racking your brain coming up with stuff to counter these blathering necons... just quote almost any headline of the day.... 'Manpower: Hiring Slide Worst in 20 Years'.... Smart Money 9/9/08

Posted 7:48 AM EST September 09, 2008

Posted by: ckelley18

Not one comment on the the number of American lives lost during the Bush reign and less not forget the millions of innocent people killed in the name of FREEDOM. Forget the $ amount, think of all the millions of lives we have destroyed in the name of FREEDOM.

Posted 10:41 PM EST September 08, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

First, Crystal, your statement that debt/GDP has been ignored is false: debt/GDP rose under Reagan and both Bushes, and fell otherwise.

Your claim that deficits are irrelevant is self-evidently false. Interest payments on deficits have to be serviced-- with tax money. By your own reasoning, deficits lower growth. Also, when government borrows, cet. par., consumers and corporations pay more.

2: making wild accusations against the patriotism of opponents is one of the reasons that the GOP is becoming less and less popular. Please keep it up.

3: no one mentioned defense expenditures. That's a red herring.

4: median family income, peak/peak or trough/trough, is the appropriate measure. Otherwise one is measuring the business cycle. It was $50,557 in 1999 and $50,253 in 2007. (www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf, Table A-1).

The price of our 'prosperity' is that the debt is through the roof, the debt/GDP having risen ca. 15% under t...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 9:47 PM EST September 08, 2008

Posted by: crystalship4u

I suppose you think that US military expenditures do nothing for our economy and that Boeing, Lockheed Martin, GE, GM, and hundreds of other companies don't employ thousands of people and create many great jobs and opportunities for our nation's workers. If you are against fighting terrorists and creating a second democracy in the Middle East (which makes you pro-terrorist and anti-democracy) that's one thing, but please don't try to suggest that the war against terrorism is destroying our economy. Most of the money spent goes into the pockets of contractors so they can continue to employ thousands of Americans. Anoother huge chunk goes to military pay. All of those people pay taxes. Would you say that the regime changes in Nazi Germany and Japan and the subsequent Marshall Plan to rebuild those countries was such a failure? They helped create two of biggest economies in the world which were in shambles before the war.

Some posters on this board are still not addressing th...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 7:44 PM EST September 08, 2008

Posted by: michman

'The U.S. budget deficit, which totaled $163 billion for 2007, is forecast by the administration of President George W. Bush to widen to a record $482 billion for 2009.'
AND....'Bush inherited a budget SURPLUS of $128 billion when he took office in 2001.
The current projections may understate the deficit next year because the administration hasn't requested money to prosecute the wars for the full year, leaving that to the next president. Military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan now cost about $10 billion to $12 billion a month.'

NOW THAT'S GREAT ECONOMIC WORK BY ANY POLITICAL PARTY! AND IT TOOK THEM LESS THAN EIGHT YEARS TO MANAGE THIS HISTORICAL ACCOMPLISHMENT!!!
FOUR MORE YEARS.....FOUR MORE YEARS

Posted 7:29 PM EST September 08, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

Yes, indeed: look at what's happened to your portfolio over the last eight years--subtract another 20% for inflation and another 30% for the value of the dollar-- and be very, very afraid of what another four of the same could do to your net worth.

Posted 7:18 PM EST September 08, 2008

Posted by: steve97222

**Looks to me like we have the 'libs' scared. Maybe the country doesn't want to be like Europe. I think Obama should run for the head guy in Germany. They seem to like him over there.

If the terrorists are rooting for Obama, maybe that's a 'red flag', you think ??

Posted 7:18 PM EST September 08, 2008

Posted by: steve97222

**Looks to me like we have the 'libs' scared. Maybe the country doesn't want to be like Europe. I think Obama should run for the head guy in Germany. They seem to like him over there.

If the terrorists are rooting for Obama, maybe that's a 'red flag', you think ??

Posted 5:48 PM EST September 08, 2008

Posted by: michman

I especially admire the Republican economic bail-out strategy. Passing on billions in losses to the swashbucklingly rich taxpayer is a brilliant stroke of pure Republican financial conservatism, which our grandchildren will celebrate forever.
We can now only hope and fervently pray each day and night that John McCain (one of the only Republicans equal in intellect to GW) and his equally brilliant sidekick can win this election and keep us from returning to those terrible economic times and drastically sinking markets of the Evil-Clinton era.

Posted 8:17 AM EST September 08, 2008

Posted by: Raymond_Berrie

McCain wants to retake Washington, but his party has controled Washington for nearly 8 years. So what is he taking about? His plan is the same plan.

Obama's plan is to make our country great again by supporting investing and development in alternative energy technologies. McCain wants to suppport the oil companies who have made enormous profits and not spent a penny more for oil exploration. Our budget is so unbalanced because of all the money that we spent to procure fuel. Plus we end up paying huge sums of money to countries that support terrorists. If we became the world leader in alternative energy technologies then we would be selling those new products to the rest of the world, move towards balancing the budget and help reduce funding to terrorist groups.

Posted 7:37 PM EST September 06, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

Crystalship, here are some facts that I would like you to reflect on.

You can find a nice graph of Debt/GDP on the website of economist Mark Thoma(home.comcast.net/~markthoma/Graphics/federal-debt-GDP.jpg) and a graph of incomes at www.census.gov/hhes/www/img/incpov01/fig02.jpg. From WW II to 1980, the debt burden fell and American incomes rose. With Reagan and Bush I, it jumped from about 30% to about 70%. American incomes rose somewhat. Under Clinton, it fell to about 55% and American incomes rose. Under Bush II, it has risen back to 70%, and incomes have done poorly.

Now, how is it that Republicans have to borrow so much money in order to get incomes to rise?

And why do their supporters have to be so rude in showing their ignorance?

Posted 4:23 PM EST September 06, 2008

Posted by: crystalship4u

Seems like there is very little understanding of economics and taxation strategy on this board. When the dollar falls against foreign currencies, it greatly stimulates foreign demand for our products abroad which lifts our GDP. It also lowers our Trade Deficit with foreign nations, since their trade surpluses are mostly invested in US Treasury Bonds. So, we pay foreign producers for the goods we want, they send us the goods, then they send us back the money to buy US Treasury Bonds, and we send them a 30-year IOU, we get to pay them historically low interest on the bond and we pay the principal back in 30 years with much cheaper dollars--that's a pretty good deal! Our national debt, on the other hand (or Budget Deficit), different from the Trade Deficit, is ONLY relevant when it is viewed as a percentage of GDP, NOT when it is viewed as an absolute dollar amount, which is how the media likes to portray it. GDP is the equivalent of our country's income and ability to sustain debt. ...(Read more of this comment)

Posted 8:07 PM EST September 05, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

Yes, Steve. That's the ticket: when you're shown to be wrong, change the subject.

Spending--especially on cronies and boondoggles is one thing that Republicans have been so good at that taxes will indeed have to be raised.

Of course, we could always let the dollar fall another 50%, which is what the roughly $5 TRILLION in debt that George Bush has added did to the dollar already.

Posted 7:56 PM EST September 05, 2008

Posted by: steve97222

Yes, let's raise taxes. That should do it !

Posted 7:47 PM EST September 05, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

Steve, I can come up with a number of programs the Democrats have run well, ranging from NASA (which put a man on the moon) to FEMA (which did tremendous work until Katrina) to Social Security (which hasn't missed a payment in 70 years) and Medicare (which seniors love) to the NIH (the envy of the world on medical research)... on and on.

I am, though, having a little trouble coming up with any Republican programs that work well.

The routine is wearing pretty thin. If the government can, according to the Republicans, put together the world's finest military, then it's pretty obvious the government could put together the world's finest anything-- if only people weren't constantly bashing government and underfunding its efforts.

Posted 7:28 PM EST September 05, 2008

Posted by: steve97222

According to Obama, the government should run health care & everything else. Let's see, name the programs that the government ran well ???

Posted 2:23 PM EST August 27, 2008

Posted by: knaugle

Does anyone find the comment that started with 'Democrats have played defense: Try to balance the budget ...' odd in that Republicans used to rally to this in the 1980s and 1990s? How is it that the mantle of sound fiscal stewardship is in the hands of those crazy liberals?

Posted 11:59 AM EST August 27, 2008

Posted by: JSwadesh

Roger Lowenstein says, 'The gangly Illinoisan's guiding premise: Government should ... be a force for 'good.' Like it or not, this is a radical departure.'

Some punchlines just write themselves.

Comments

Story Comments