Obama Tax Plan: Back To Welfare?

[Garcia Bronco]

Good read.

Obama Tax Plan: Back To Welfare?

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Obamanomics: To those of us who can still tell the difference between a tax cut and a government handout, the Democratic plan for "relief" looks more like a blueprint for dependency.

In the first presidential debate, Barack Obama repeated a claim he has made many a time — that his economic plan would cut taxes for "95% of working families." But is this really so? Yes, more or less, but only if you accept Obama's definition of a tax cut. And doing that may force you to leave your common-sense zone.

First of all, "working families" does not include all households. Throw in singles, retirees, students and the unemployed, and the share getting some tax-related benefit is a good deal less. The Tax Policy Center, a group affiliated with the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, says only about 80% of households would get a cut.

Then there's the difference, not acknowledged by the Obama camp, between a real tax cut and the type of "tax relief" that looks suspiciously like welfare. A true tax "cut" is a reduction in the taxes you're paying. In contrast, much of the "relief" in Obama's plan consists of "refundable credit" — payments you get even if you owe no taxes at all.

The plan does have some real tax cuts, such as the extension of President Bush's cuts for families making under $250,000. This relief is significant — though John McCain would go further and provide it for everyone. However, so are Obama's new or expanded refundable credits. These include, with five-year costs estimated by the Tax Policy Center:

• The "making work pay" credit of 6.2% up to $8,100 of earnings. Cost: $323.7 billion.

• A "universal mortgage" credit equal to 10% of mortgage interest for income-tax filers who don't itemize. Cost: $54 billion.

• An expansion of the child and dependent care credit, which would rise from 35% to 50% of expenses and would be refundable for the first time. Cost: $10.6 billion.

• The "American opportunity tax credit" to replace the (non-refundable) hope credit with a refundable credit of $4,000 for college costs. Cost: $58.2 billion.

• Expansion of the earned income tax credit to lower-income workers. Cost: $19.3 billion.

That's $465.8 billion in all over five years, all transferred from the $250K-plus set and going mostly to lower- and lower-middle-income Americans.

Millions of those in line for these benefits pay no income tax, and Obama's plan — both through these credits and a pure-pander policy of eliminating taxes for 7 million seniors — would increase the nontaxpaying class by millions more.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that the share of households not owing income tax would rise from 38% under current law to 48% under the Obama plan.

Another think tank, the Tax Foundation, says the number of nonpayers would rise from a third of tax filers to 44%.

So how many will get "tax relief" that is really just welfare? The number is impossible to pin down exactly, but it's likely to be huge.

Start with the nonpaying class of 48% or 44%, depending on whose calculation you use. That's well over 60 million tax filers. Many, if not most, of these would probably qualify for at least one of the Obama credits, because it doesn't take much, other than low income, to qualify.

For one of those credits, dependent and child care, you don't even have to have a job. You can simply be looking for one. Taking college courses (and agreeing to 100 hours of community service) qualifies you for the "American opportunity credit."

The most expensive credit, "making work pay," is aimed at low-wage workers but will have to be phased out at higher income levels. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the resulting jump in marginal tax rates in the phaseout zone "might actually give workers an incentive to work less."

What happens to our society and politics when so many Americans no longer expect to share the income-tax burden and instead think "tax relief" means getting checks extracted from "the rich"?

The country is on dangerous ground at such a point, because there may be no stopping the zeal of politicians to pad their majorities even more by squeezing the wealth producers and buying the votes of a new welfare class that once was proud of paying its own way.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307840876217528

[Rohirrim]

What a steaming pile of dung. The rich have been on the socialism gravy train since Reagan. The argument in this piece is that when you shift the burden to working people you are destroying the moral fiber of society, but when you continue to funnel all the wealth into the pockets of the rich you are upholding the natural balance? :bs:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Hilarious!

It's hard to believe that this clown is trying to peddle the same snake oil that led to our current economic crisis.

News flash: Trickle-down is a fraud!

[ak1971]

thats why Im going to quit my job and play cards full time..

[Garcia Bronco]

What a steaming pile of dung. The rich have been on the socialism gravy train since Reagan. The argument in this piece is that when you shift the burden to working people you are destroying the moral fiber of society, but when you continue to funnel all the wealth into the pockets of the rich you are upholding the natural balance? :bs:

I didn't get that when reading it. You clearly didn't read all of it.

[Garcia Bronco]

Hilarious!

It's hard to believe that this clown is trying to peddle the same snake oil that led to our current economic crisis.

News flash: Trickle-down is a fraud!

Trickle down is how it's always worked. What would you rather do? HAve business give everything to the government and not pay you so the Government can then "decide" on your allowance?

[Garcia Bronco]

thats why Im going to quit my job and play cards full time..

Agreed. With free health care, why do I even need to work anymore?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Trickle down is how it's always worked.

Good God - you can't be this ignorant of your own nation's history - you just can't! :oyvey:

[ak1971]

Agreed. With free health care, why do I even need to work anymore?

its an awesome plan..live in the casino.get free booze and food..free health care...when I run out of money, sue the casino because I wasnt aware I could lose money

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<center> http://www.bartcop.com/hooveritis.jpg
</center>

[Mr.Meanie]

Trickle down is how it's always worked. What would you rather do? HAve business give everything to the government and not pay you so the Government can then "decide" on your allowance?

How many times has that been debunked on just this forum? Giving major tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy does not "trickle down" the way you guys are saying.

Pop-quiz:
When Bush wanted to stimulate the economy both times, who did he give the stimulus money to? Rich or poor/middle class? take your time, you can use google if you want.

the fact is the Republicans don't even believe in this trickle-down nonsense. I don't understand how that's even an argument anymore.

Agreed. With free health care, why do I even need to work anymore?

So our entire consumption based capitalist economy is driven off of paying for healthcare?? Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Garcia = Sarah Palin wearing pants. ;)

[Garcia Bronco]

How many times has that been debunked on just this forum? Giving major tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy does not "trickle down" the way you guys are saying.

Pop-quiz:
When Bush wanted to stimulate the economy both times, who did he give the stimulus money to? Rich or poor/middle class? take your time, you can use google if you want.

the fact is the Republicans don't even believe in this trickle-down nonsense. I don't understand how that's even an argument anymore.



So our entire consumption based capitalist economy is driven off of paying for healthcare?? Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

There is no "debunking" of it. The other option is what? Communism? Socialism? Let's say you work for a business as an employee. The business makes money and inturn you get a pay check based off those earnings. Would you call the "trickle down"?

[Garcia Bronco]

Garcia = Sarah Palin wearing pants. ;)

LOL

[TailgateNut]

Good God - you can't be this ignorant of your own nation's history - you just can't! :oyvey:


Oh, yes he can!

[Rohirrim]

I didn't get that when reading it. You clearly didn't read all of it.

Of course I did. Here's the last paragraph:
The country is on dangerous ground at such a point, because there may be no stopping the zeal of politicians to pad their majorities even more by squeezing the wealth producers and buying the votes of a new welfare class that once was proud of paying its own way.

What does that say? Squeezing the "wealth producers?" I've got news for you. The wealth producers are the American people; The most productive workers on Earth. Let the workers enjoy the fruits of their labor and let the paper pushing capitalists who have driven this economy into the ground pay the freight - for once. We know trickle down is a disaster. Let's try something else. I love when the Right argues that giving some working man's kid help to go to college is socialism but giving billions to Exxon Mobil is in our best interests. Look around. See where that's gotten us.

[Garcia Bronco]

I'll get to your other post in a minute, but to this subject. I have asked this before:

Why would a government give a business a tax subsidity? Nobody would answer this.

Even if there is a subsidity or not, the fact that money trickles down in capitalism won't change. So again, how has this been debunked? It hasn't unless the "debunker" is a communist or socialist.

[Mr.Meanie]

There is no "debunking" of it. The other option is what? Communism? Socialism? Let's say you work for a business as an employee. The business makes money and inturn you get a pay check based off those earnings. Would you call the "trickle down"?

of course you can call getting a paycheck a "trickle down" of money from an employer.

But what do you call the employer getting a paycheck from the consumer? Trickle-up?

Because THAT is what our economy is based on, and that is why Reagan's "trickle-down" theory of economics doesn't work. When you give the consumer more money, they buy more stuff, enabling the employer to expand operations and pay more people.

Again...Bush and the Republican (then) congress knew this, which is why they put $ in the hands of the consumer when they needed an economic boost.

I'm a capitalist to my core. I own a part of a distribution company, and I fully believe in capitalism. But when the economy is in tatters and government deficits are all-time highs - the ONLY way to get things righted is the put the money where it causes the most good. After things are righted I would fully support Bush-era level tax cuts...as long as spending can be kept to Clinton-era levels.

[Rohirrim]

Stop treating capitalism like a religion.

[Mr.Meanie]

Stop treating capitalism like a religion.

it's a belief set - much like religion...

[TailgateNut]

of course you can call getting a paycheck a "trickle down" of money from an employer.

But what do you call the employer getting a paycheck from the consumer? Trickle-up?

Because THAT is what our economy is based on, and that is why Reagan's "trickle-down" theory of economics doesn't work. When you give the consumer more money, they buy more stuff, enabling the employer to expand operations and pay more people.

Again...Bush and the Republican (then) congress knew this, which is why they put $ in the hands of the consumer when they needed an economic boost.

I'm a capitalist to my core. I own a part of a distribution company, and I fully believe in capitalism. But when the economy is in tatters and government deficits are all-time highs - the ONLY way to get things righted is the put the money where it causes the most good. After things are righted I would fully support Bush-era level tax cuts...as long as spending can be kept to Clinton-era levels.

Don't confuse Mr. I can read the constitution as well as the next guy.

Our company depends on municipal projects for its' bread and butter. Those projects rely on taxes and fees paid by the homebuyers and developers. If home construction and commercial development is at a "stand-still" our business opertunities vanish quickly.
So, if the little guy isn't spending/ buying we can't "trickle down" those salaries dingleberry is talking about. It has to "trickle up" first.:wiggle:

[Rohirrim]

it's a belief set - much like religion...

The problem is, when you treat its tenets as if they are inviolable principles passed down by a higher power you end up in the position of insanity; The definition of insanity being "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." Instead of following the principles of fundamentalist capitalism, we should take a look around us at the steaming, stinking pile of "results." Not good. Maybe we need to try some different variations.

Frankly, I'm amazed at how many Righties are still out there singing the glories of supply side. Of course, if I was in the top 5% of the economy, maybe I would be too.

[Kaylore]

My favorite Obama comment this year is his plan to eliminate capital gains tax on small businesses.Hilarious!

[NaptownChief]

working people



I am amazed at how society has turned the term "working people" or "working class" as a term to reference the poor. Last I checked the middle class and upper class actually "work" as well and often times a higher percentage of them actually "work" or at least did before they retired.



As for Obama, who can trust what he is saying. His orginial tax garbage back in June was going to give tax cuts or non-raises to anybody making less than $600k or less. Of which on this site I laughed at and told people I will eat my hat in public if that liberal POS doesn't raise taxes on somebody making over 1/2 million per year. Well it didn't take long for that lie to be reduced to people making $250k or less per year. By the time reality hits it will be a tax hike for anybody holding a job so he can increase handouts for anybody who doesn't.

Here is that website on his June tax plan for your reference:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm

[W*GS]

Stop treating capitalism like a religion.

Stop treating politicians and bureaucrats as Wise Men.

[NaptownChief]

Stop treating politicians and bureaucrats as Wise Men.



And he and his party should stop calling social handouts as tax breaks as well.

[Rohirrim]

I am amazed at how society has turned the term "working people" or "working class" as a term to reference the poor. Last I checked the middle class and upper class actually "work" as well and often times a higher percentage of them actually "work" or at least did before they retired.



As for Obama, who can trust what he is saying. His orginial tax garbage back in June was going to give tax cuts or non-raises to anybody making less than $600k or less. Of which on this site I laughed at and told people I will eat my hat in public if that liberal POS doesn't raise taxes on somebody making over 1/2 million per year. Well it didn't take long for that lie to be reduced to people making $250k or less per year. By the time reality hits it will be a tax hike for anybody holding a job so he can increase handouts for anybody who doesn't.

Here is that website on his June tax plan for your reference:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm

As much as your hero Bush has destroyed this country is how much tax we're going to have to pay to fix it, even if some of your beloved oil companies have to give up some of their socialist subsidies. Sorry.

[TailgateNut]

As much as your hero Bush has destroyed this country is how much tax we're going to have to pay to fix it, even if some of your beloved oil companies have to give up some of their socialist subsidies. Sorry.


Didn't ya know that's how they ride the "conservative label" . They never pay for anything, they just spend it and make the next administration figure out how to pay for their blunders.

[Rohirrim]

Didn't ya know that's how they ride the "conservative label" . They never pay for anything, they just spend it and make the next administration figure out how to pay for their blunders.

I remember when I was growing up conservative meant lower taxes, less spending. Now it just means spend, spend, spend until we're bankrupt.

[TailgateNut]

I remember when I was growing up conservative meant lower taxes, less spending. Now it just means spend, spend, spend until we're bankrupt.


I don't have any issues with spending, as long as the person requesting the funding can show me the balanced books. I don't live my life based on my available credit, and I damn sure don't want my goverment to act like a goddamn teenager with a credit card.

****ing idiotic concept.

[gunns]

Why is it welfare? Because you don't have to work to get it? Most of the families that get these breaks do work, both parents, if there are two parents. Why is the middle working class suddenly deemed the poor? Besides the tax plan we have now gives all the breaks to families and the rich. Obama is just removing the latter.

Go have a kid GB. You won't have to bitch anymore about people who already have them.

Obama: My definition – here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase.

That should be 95 percent of families, not 95 percent of "American people." An analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that Obama's plan would decrease taxes for 95.5 percent of families with children. Overall, 81.3 percent of households would get a tax cut under his proposal.


From Factcheck.org

[Breaker]

Of course I did. Here's the last paragraph:
The country is on dangerous ground at such a point, because there may be no stopping the zeal of politicians to pad their majorities even more by squeezing the wealth producers and buying the votes of a new welfare class that once was proud of paying its own way.

What does that say? Squeezing the "wealth producers?" I've got news for you. The wealth producers are the American people; The most productive workers on Earth. Let the workers enjoy the fruits of their labor and let the paper pushing capitalists who have driven this economy into the ground pay the freight - for once. We know trickle down is a disaster. Let's try something else. I love when the Right argues that giving some working man's kid help to go to college is socialism but giving billions to Exxon Mobil is in our best interests. Look around. See where that's gotten us.

Socialist alert, Socialist alert!!!!!

[Rohirrim]

Socialist alert, Socialist alert!!!!!

Capitalist tool alert!!!! :welcome:

[TailgateNut]

Go have a kid GB. You won't have to b**** anymore about people who already have them.



From Factcheck.org

He can't. Gotta have a woman willing to have sex with ya to have a kid. OOOPS, I guess he could always adopt.

[Garcia Bronco]

Go have a kid GB. You won't have to b**** anymore about people who already have them.



From Factcheck.org

You know, I don't really comment on your posts because you are a proud mother of our servicemen. I don't feel it's appropriate to argue with you. But the idea that I or anyone else should support the poor decision making skills of other Americans will continue to be a flawed one and the reason we are swirling around the drain. Social Security, medicare, and medicaid take over 50 percent of what we take in as a country. the evidence is there. You decide not to realize it.

Our laws and tax guidelines should take no special consideration for any groups but only one group - Americans. Just because you decided to have so many kids shouldn't mean you get special tax considerations. I only ask that you carry your own weight. Something you've been unable to do it without stealing.

[gunns]

You know, I don't really comment on your posts because you are a proud mother of our servicemen. I don't feel it's appropriate to argue with you. But the idea that I or anyone else should support the poor decision making skills of other Americans will continue to be a flawed one and the reason we are swirling around the drain. Social Security, medicare, and medicaid take over 50 percent of what we take in as a country. the evidence is there. You decide not to realize it.

Our laws and tax guidelines should take no special consideration for any groups but only one group - Americans. Just because you decided to have so many kids shouldmean you get special tax considerations. I only ask that you carry your own weight. Something you've been unable to do it without stealing.

Don't think you can't argue with me. Go for it at anytime.

I get no special tax considerations. My children are all grown, some with families of their own. I used welfare for 1 year after separating from my children's father. Have worked ever since. And yes I admit I stole during that year, at the grocery store when I didn't quite make it to the next check. Other than that I have always carried my own weight and that of my children for 23 years as a single mother. Now, I'm one of those single people that probably won't get a tax break. Fine, give it to my kids and their families. Don't stereotype me.

Those making over 250,000 a year are responsible to pay 35% in federal taxes. Yet, with loopholes, they average paying only 31% of what they owe. People in making between 40k and 60K (mine and my children's tax bracket) are responsible to pay 25%. We average paying 90% of what we owe. Obama is looking to take the loopholes from those over 250,000 and giving it to families. I have no problem with that. It's called making it a little fairer.

BTW, Social Security and medicare are about 7% tax on your income. It's becoming a big thing because the shift of age of our country. Medicaid is partially paid by states and is not 50% of taxes. Please.

[Garcia Bronco]

Those making over 250,000 a year are responsible to pay 35% in federal taxes. Yet, with loopholes, they average paying only 31% of what they owe. People in making between 40k and 60K (mine and my children's tax bracket) are responsible to pay 25%. We average paying 90% of what we owe. Obama is looking to take the loopholes from those over 250,000 and giving it to families. I have no problem with that. It's called making it a little fairer.


Then we agree. But Obama isn't going to close those holes. The only answer is flat tax for every American regardless of income, regardless of martial status, regardless of how many kids they pop out, and any other bribe any other governemnt jackarse can come up with. Bribin Barry isn't going to be able to lower taxes. He'll have to raise them on every one. Mark it down.

[Garcia Bronco]

BTW, Social Security and medicare are about 7% tax on your income. It's becoming a big thing because the shift of age of our country. Medicaid is partially paid by states and is not 50% of taxes. Please.

All 3 cost US close to 1.4 trillion per year. Look it up. Our budget is 2.6 trillion. Look it up.

[gunns]

Then we agree. But Obama isn't going to close those holes. The only answer is flat tax for every American regardless of income, regardless of martial status, regardless of how many kids they pop out, and any other bribe any other governemnt jackarse can come up with. Bribin Barry isn't going to be able to lower taxes. He'll have to raise them on every one. Mark it down.

Yes we agree on the flat tax. And I'm fine with not giving people tax credits for their kids as long as others aren't getting loopholes not available to the majority. I believe he will lower it for some, not for others. If he does raise taxes it'll be because there is no alternative based on what the current administration has done to the economy and to pay for this damn 850 bil bailout.

[NaptownChief]

As much as your hero Bush has destroyed this country is how much tax we're going to have to pay to fix it, even if some of your beloved oil companies have to give up some of their socialist subsidies. Sorry.



Well you can go back and look at the timeline, his stick it to everyone above $250K program idea started to come about before this financial mess fully reared it's ugly head. So the lie was already in place, now he can just use this as his excuse as to why he stuck it to everyone so badly.

Then again he is getting advice from Franklin Raines who just ran Fanne Mae into the ground. That POS needs a jail cell right next to Jeff Skilling.

[Garcia Bronco]

Then again he is getting advice from Franklin Raines who just ran Fanne Mae into the ground. That POS needs a jail cell right next to Jeff Skilling.

Amen, and put Phil Graham in there while we're at it.

[DenverBrit]

If Obama is going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans and add a Trillion dollars in new programs...........where will the money come from?? ???
The deficit is already out of control.

[NaptownChief]

Why is it welfare? Because you don't have to work to get it? Most of the families that get these breaks do work, both parents, if there are two parents. Why is the middle working class suddenly deemed the poor? Besides the tax plan we have now gives all the breaks to families and the rich. Obama is just removing the latter.




In order to get a tax break, it means by definition that you actually pay them. If you didn't actually pay anything and are getting money back then it is a handout, welfare or whatever you want to call it.

If McDonald's is giving a price reduction on their Big Mac's then you actually have to buy a Big Mac to get the "price reduction". If you show up and they are standing out front and handing out dollar bills to people that didn't buy anything that is a "hand out", not a price reduction.

So if you want to argue that poor people need more handouts and social welfare then that is an arguement that many can make but it is silly to call a duck by any other name than a duck.

[Garcia Bronco]

If Obama is going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans and add a Trillion dollars in new programs...........where will the money come from?? ???
The deficit is already out of control.

That's what people don't seem to understand.

[NaptownChief]

If Obama is going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans and add a Trillion dollars in new programs...........where will the money come from?? ???
The deficit is already out of control.



He wants to stick it to "big business", you know those "evil corporations" that are made up primarily of middle class people earning a job and benefits. By sticking it to those evil empires we can make sure they have to cut pay and benefits before ultimately taking their wagon to some other country that doesn't think a bunch of middle class people working for a living is such a bad idea.

[DenverBrit]

That's what people don't seem to understand.
I can't be the only one who's noticed that he hasn't offered one scenario to pay for the programs.
Sure, it's popular to talk about taxing the rich and corporations, but it makes no sense while increasing entitlements.
Increase the burden on business owners and unemployment will join the deficit...out of control.
These debates are a waste if they don't get down to business and discuss the realities we are facing.
By all means cut taxes, but there needs to be a corresponding cut in government programs and expenditures too.
This is the worst possible time to have Presidential candidates that lack solid economic skills talking about new or increased government spending.

[cutthemdown]

If Obama is going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans and add a Trillion dollars in new programs...........where will the money come from?? ???
The deficit is already out of control.

What Obama will do is after he gets elected he will say because of the bailout and number crunching he won't be able to implement all of his tax breaks.

He will then raise them on the middle class and everyone will still blame Bush for it.

[DenverBrit]

What Obama will do is after he gets elected he will say because of the bailout and number crunching he won't be able to implement all of his tax breaks.

He will then raise them on the middle class and everyone will still blame Bush for it.

Well, he is a lawyer. ;D

[DenverBrit]

Will bailout crimp Democrats' spending plans?
Pelosi pledges bailout will not 'dampen our ability to make investments'

.....
As Friday's employment data indicated, the economy is not performing well right now. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that nearly 160,000 jobs were lost last month, the ninth straight month of net job losses.

Yet federal spending and borrowing are robust, with federal outlays growing nearly three times as fast as the economy itself......

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27010330

Are they all living in a fantasy??

[Garcia Bronco]

So again I ask:

Why would a government give a business a subsidity?

[cutthemdown]

So again I ask:

Why would a government give a business a subsidity?

In cases like Chrysler back in the day it was because they felt they were intrinsic to our economy. Govt made money on that one.

In the case of Amtrak same thing although they have never been able to get them profitable from what I have read. That could have changed though I'm not sure on that. Trains is an area where this country is woefully behind Europe.

In the case of this bailout same thing they feel these big banks and insurance companies are vital to the economy being able to grow and create jobs.

A small company will just never matter as much as cruel and heartless as that is. Sure a mom and pop going under while big boys get saved seems unfair but it's just how it has to be.

[Garcia Bronco]

In cases like Chrysler back in the day it was because they felt they were intrinsic to our economy. Govt made money on that one.

In the case of Amtrak same thing although they have never been able to get them profitable from what I have read. That could have changed though I'm not sure on that. Trains is an area where this country is woefully behind Europe.

In the case of this bailout same thing they feel these big banks and insurance companies are vital to the economy being able to grow and create jobs.

A small company will just never matter as much as cruel and heartless as that is. Sure a mom and pop going under while big boys get saved seems unfair but it's just how it has to be.


I think what people don't realize is subsides are about job creation and collecting taxes by said job creation.

[NodJello]

[QUOTE=L.A. BRONCOS FAN;2112455]Hilarious!

It's hard to believe that this clown is trying to peddle the same snake oil that led to our current economic crisis.

News flash: Trickle-down is a fraud![/QUOTE

When is the start date for when an economic crisis starts? When does presidential accountability begin? Did it start during the Clinton Administraition when it was decided to start giving more risky loans? or did it start with the Bush administraition when the greed ran rampant?

The point is the President has very little to do with the economy as almost any college level economics class will tell you. The fact that this crisis has become a factor in the election is insane. It is a total blame game and will never stop just like accountability will never begin.

How much foresight does it take to look down the road 4 years after an Obama victory? Does this sound plausible - "I know I haven't delivered on (m)any of the promises I made back in 2008 but I am going to! These first four years were spent cleaning up the Bush mess, just give me one more chance and you will see some real change!" One of the few reasons why I feel somewhat better with McCain is because there will be more expectations. The man will have to do something or he will be tied in with Bush for all time. I foresee 8 years of Obama where every success is his and every failure is due to the fouled up administraition that was left behind.

[DenverBrit]

How Government Stoked the Mania
Housing prices would never have risen so high without multiple Washington mistakes.
By RUSSELL ROBERTS

Many believe that wild greed and market failure led us into this sorry mess. According to that narrative, investors in search of higher yields bought novel securities that bundled loans made to high-risk borrowers. Banks issued these loans because they could sell them to hungry investors. It was a giant Ponzi scheme that only worked as long as housing prices were on the rise. But housing prices were the result of a speculative mania. Once the bubble burst, too many borrowers had negative equity, and the system collapsed.
[How the Government Stoked the Mania] David Klein

Part of this story is true. The fall in housing prices did lead to a sudden increase in defaults that reduced the value of mortgage-backed securities. What's missing is the role politicians and policy makers played in creating artificially high housing prices, and artificially reducing the danger of extremely risky assets.

Beginning in 1992, Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of mortgages going to low and moderate income borrowers. For 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target -- 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area. The target increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.

For 1996, HUD required that 12% of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be "special affordable" loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area's median income. That number was increased to 20% in 2000 and 22% in 2005. The 2008 goal was to be 28%. Between 2000 and 2005, Fannie and Freddie met those goals every year, funding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans, many of them subprime and adjustable-rate loans, and made to borrowers who bought houses with less than 10% down.
Hear No Evil

What some Congresspeople said about Fannie and Freddie.

Fannie and Freddie also purchased hundreds of billions of subprime securities for their own portfolios to make money and to help satisfy HUD affordable housing goals. Fannie and Freddie were important contributors to the demand for subprime securities.

Congress designed Fannie and Freddie to serve both their investors and the political class. Demanding that Fannie and Freddie do more to increase home ownership among poor people allowed Congress and the White House to subsidize low-income housing outside of the budget, at least in the short run. It was a political free lunch.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) did the same thing with traditional banks. It encouraged banks to serve two masters -- their bottom line and the so-called common good. First passed in 1977, the CRA was "strengthened" in 1995, causing an increase of 80% in the number of bank loans going to low- and moderate-income families.

Fannie and Freddie were part of the CRA story, too. In 1997, Bear Stearns did the first securitization of CRA loans, a $384 million offering guaranteed by Freddie Mac. Over the next 10 months, Bear Stearns issued $1.9 billion of CRA mortgages backed by Fannie or Freddie. Between 2000 and 2002 Fannie Mae securitized $394 billion in CRA loans with $20 billion going to securitized mortgages.

By pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country, politicians could push for increases in home ownership and urban development without having to commit budgetary dollars. Another political free lunch.

Fannie and Freddie and the banks opposed these policy changes at first through both lobbying and intransigence. But when they found out that following these policies could be profitable -- which they were as long as rising housing prices kept default rates unusually low -- their complaints disappeared. Maybe they could serve two masters. They turned out to be wrong. And when Fannie and Freddie went into conservatorship, politicians found out that budgetary dollars were on the line after all.

While Fannie and Freddie and the CRA were pushing up the demand for relatively low-priced property, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 increased the demand for higher valued property by expanding the availability and size of the capital-gains exclusion to $500,000 from $125,000. It also made it easier to exclude capital gains from rental property, further pushing up the demand for housing.

The Fed did its part, too. In 2003, the federal-funds rate hit 40-year lows of 1.25%. That pushed the rates on adjustable loans to historic lows as well, helping to fuel the housing boom.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and low interest rates -- along with the regulatory push for more low-income homeowners -- dramatically increased the demand for housing. Between 1997 and 2005, the average price of a house in the U.S. more than doubled. It wasn't simply a speculative bubble. Much of the rise in housing prices was the result of public policies that increased the demand for housing. Without the surge in housing prices, the subprime market would have never taken off.

Fannie and Freddie played a significant role in the explosion of subprime mortgages and subprime mortgage-backed securities. Without Fannie and Freddie's implicit guarantee of government support (which turned out to be all too real), would the mortgage-backed securities market and the subprime part of it have expanded the way they did?

Perhaps. But before we conclude that markets failed, we need a careful analysis of public policy's role in creating this mess. Greedy investors obviously played a part, but investors have always been greedy, and some inevitably overreach and destroy themselves. Why did they take so many down with them this time?

Part of the answer is a political class greedy to push home-ownership rates to historic highs -- from 64% in 1994 to 69% in 2004. This was mostly the result of loans to low-income, higher-risk borrowers. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, abetted by Congress, trumpeted that rise as it occurred. The consequence? On top of putting the entire financial system at risk, the hidden cost has been hundreds of billions of dollars funneled into the housing market instead of more productive assets.

Beware of trying to do good with other people's money. Unfortunately, that strategy remains at the heart of the political process, and of proposed solutions to this crisis.

Mr. Roberts is a professor of economics at George Mason University and a scholar at the Mercatus Center. His latest book is a novel on how markets work, "The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity" (Princeton University Press, 2008).

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122298982558700341-lMyQjAxMDI4MjAyMzkwODM5Wj.html

[gunns]

All 3 cost US close to 1.4 trillion per year. Look it up. Our budget is 2.6 trillion. Look it up.

Yes, and that's because of the age thing with Social Security. I thought you were referring to what we pay out in our taxes. Hey if our Presidents hadn't messed with it it wouldn't be quite the problem. And maybe if those in the upper echelon of the pay brackets paid their fair share of the social security tax and medicare tax, it definitely wouldn't be a problem. Medicaid was on the lower spectrum but will only rise because of the economy. Also because of the people who have no health care, we have to pick up that slack also. No one can afford medical care these days without insurance, unless your in that upper tax bracket.

You should see who's tops in applying for medicaid these days. Two parent working families.

[Spider]

If Obama is going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans and add a Trillion dollars in new programs...........where will the money come from?? ???
The deficit is already out of control.

wow ..... I didnt think it was that complicated , lets try this..... in your neighborhood , you have a nice little park thats is funded by people in the neighborhood , prices are getting high , some of the people are not able to chip in .So do you let the park go ? or do you add to the park and the Neighborhood to attract more people to move there and help pay , and ease the burden of cost to those already paying ?
I Dont expect people on the right to pick up on this .....

[Spider]

So again I ask:

Why would a government give a business a subsidity?

if you dont know why , your ass better call someone ..... you have been fishing this entire thread , no one is this stupid , so now you want to get all philosophical, you should never ask a question you cant answer ......
as to why the Gov gives handouts ( lets call it what it is ) to companies is the exact same reason they give handouts , to single mothers, poor people etc ....... Investments to keep the economy going , doesnt matter if it is tech , machinery , or Kids it is all an investment in our countries future ..............

[Rohirrim]

I think what people don't realize is subsides are about job creation and collecting taxes by said job creation.

Given that we've been doing this supply-side crap for thirty years, paying out billions in subsidies while hemorrhaging jobs, I'm beginning to get the feeling that it doesn't work. What about you? In fact, I'm getting the sneaky suspicion that these taxpayer subsidies just end up in the pockets of CEOs and board members of these companies. Have you ever heard the term, "Gravy Train?"

[Rohirrim]

[QUOTE=L.A. BRONCOS FAN;2112455]Hilarious!

It's hard to believe that this clown is trying to peddle the same snake oil that led to our current economic crisis.

News flash: Trickle-down is a fraud![/QUOTE

When is the start date for when an economic crisis starts? When does presidential accountability begin? Did it start during the Clinton Administraition when it was decided to start giving more risky loans? or did it start with the Bush administraition when the greed ran rampant?

The point is the President has very little to do with the economy as almost any college level economics class will tell you. The fact that this crisis has become a factor in the election is insane. It is a total blame game and will never stop just like accountability will never begin.

How much foresight does it take to look down the road 4 years after an Obama victory? Does this sound plausible - "I know I haven't delivered on (m)any of the promises I made back in 2008 but I am going to! These first four years were spent cleaning up the Bush mess, just give me one more chance and you will see some real change!" One of the few reasons why I feel somewhat better with McCain is because there will be more expectations. The man will have to do something or he will be tied in with Bush for all time. I foresee 8 years of Obama where every success is his and every failure is due to the fouled up administraition that was left behind.

But that argument implies that Bush has not ****ed everything up royally. He has. On a monumental scale. What we need in America now is basically a new Marshall Plan. It's that ****ed up.

[Spider]

In cases like Chrysler back in the day it was because they felt they were intrinsic to our economy. Govt made money on that one.

In the case of Amtrak same thing although they have never been able to get them profitable from what I have read. That could have changed though I'm not sure on that. Trains is an area where this country is woefully behind Europe.

In the case of this bailout same thing they feel these big banks and insurance companies are vital to the economy being able to grow and create jobs.

A small company will just never matter as much as cruel and heartless as that is. Sure a mom and pop going under while big boys get saved seems unfair but it's just how it has to be.

I forget where the stats are , and I am not inclined ot look it up , but I read somewhere a while back that for every UAW job loss , 5 more people get unemployed ..... something about auto parts , mechanics etc ....

[Rohirrim]

I forget where the stats are , and I am not inclined ot look it up , but I read somewhere a while back that for every UAW job loss , 5 more people get unemployed ..... something about auto parts , mechanics etc ....

Open the hood of any "American" car these days and all you see are the words, "Hecho en Mexico."

[Spider]

Open the hood of any "American" car these days and all you see are the words, "Hecho en Mexico."

not just cars , but big rigs also

[defenseman]

There is no "debunking" of it. The other option is what? Communism? Socialism? Let's say you work for a business as an employee. The business makes money and inturn you get a pay check based off those earnings. Would you call the "trickle down"?

A form of that is EXACTLY where Obama is headed....and...oops...pardon me you caught me right in the middle of cleaning and reloading my weapons...in any case....it's not a case of may, it's a case of WILL go down the tubes if obama gets in......his tax plan, quite honestly absolutley positively will drive the economy into the ground, UNLESS, he recognizes he can't take any action given the bailout.....if he does recognize that,....we'll slowly pull out over his 4 year term...dman

[Rohirrim]

A form of that is EXACTLY where Obama is headed....and...oops...pardon me you caught me right in the middle of cleaning and reloading my weapons...in any case....it's not a case of may, it's a case of WILL go down the tubes if obama gets in......his tax plan, quite honestly absolutley positively will drive the economy into the ground, UNLESS, he recognizes he can't take any action given the bailout.....if he does recognize that,....we'll slowly pull out over his 4 year term...dman

Try not to get hysterical, Dman. The U.S. has had a "mixed economy" for decades. You make it sound as if Obama can just run up to the bridge and throw it hard over and we are suddenly Cuba. The truth is that Bush has already run us up on the rocks. The next president will spend his first term trying to get us off. Anyway, think of America as that largest ship ever put afloat. You turn the wheel and leagues later it starts to turn. It took thirty years for Reaganomics to sink us. It might take us that long to refloat the ship.

[defenseman]

Try not to get hysterical, Dman. The U.S. has had a "mixed economy" for decades. You make it sound as if Obama can just run up to the bridge and throw it hard over and we are suddenly Cuba. The truth is that Bush has already run us up on the rocks. The next president will spend his first term trying to get us off. Anyway, think of America as that largest ship ever put afloat. You turn the wheel and leagues later it starts to turn. It took thirty years for Reaganomics to sink us. It might take us that long to refloat the ship.

Socialism, in it's true form, will be the downfall of this country, we are headed there right now and obama takes us even closer. I roger what you are saying, however, the only saving grace I see is the next 4 years will be exactly what you discussed, ungrounding the ship. That aside, my concern lies with what happens in the meantime during that 4 yrs elsewhere in the country. He is WAY to liberal and his "public" record promoted by the MSM and his constituents does not show his true colors. Rights will be taken away, in the name of fairness?????????? I cannot stand with this and will not stand with this.......dman

[Rohirrim]

Socialism, in it's true form, will be the downfall of this country, we are headed there right now and obama takes us even closer. I roger what you are saying, however, the only saving grace I see is the next 4 years will be exactly what you discussed, ungrounding the ship. That aside, my concern lies with what happens in the meantime during that 4 yrs elsewhere in the country. He is WAY to liberal and his "public" record promoted by the MSM and his constituents does not show his true colors. Rights will be taken away, in the name of fairness?????????? I cannot stand with this and will not stand with this.......dman

I believe just the opposite. Bush and Cheney have perpetrated the worst assault on American rights I've seen in my lifetime. I'm guessing that Obama, a constitutional lawyer, moves to set thing right again. At least, that's my hope. As far as socialism goes, it hasn't destroyed Sweden or many other countries that use it. I doubt America ever goes that hard over for socialism. It's against the individualistic nature of the American spirit. My guess is we go on as a mixed economy, swinging back and forth with the needs of the times. I actually prefer that kind of flexibility. IMO, rigidity is what causes breakage.

[defenseman]

I believe just the opposite. Bush and Cheney have perpetrated the worst assault on American rights I've seen in my lifetime. I'm guessing that Obama, a constitutional lawyer, moves to set thing right again. At least, that's my hope. As far as socialism goes, it hasn't destroyed Sweden or many other countries that use it. I doubt America ever goes that hard over for socialism. It's against the individualistic nature of the American spirit. My guess is we go on as a mixed economy, swinging back and forth with the needs of the times. I actually prefer that kind of flexibility. IMO, rigidity is what causes breakage.

To be honest with you, I have a difficult time getting past the fact that he is a lawyer, and his wife has obviously held the country in contempt for most of her adult life. She is very scary to be honest. I'm thinking she wears the pants in the family. But, I do my best to get past those facts. Second, his thoughts on taxes will not work by my calculations. And I've looked at this hard especially with the predicament we are in right now. McCain's won't either to be honest, we cannot afford a tax "cut" right now and I'd be telling the average american that right now. Second, growing "real" money, and immediately crushing nuts on big business with respect to unsound and devious business practices is an absolute necessity. Oh yeah, get the hell out of iraq asap, glean some oil profits from them and mop up in afghan. Afghan has to get closed out over the next 18 months. Anything past that we are on borrowed time. I also am convinced if Obama gets in, someone is going to try to hit us. They will attempt to test him right away. Not looking forward to that if he gets elected....dman

[DenverBrit]

wow ..... I didnt think it was that complicated , lets try this..... in your neighborhood , you have a nice little park thats is funded by people in the neighborhood , prices are getting high , some of the people are not able to chip in .So do you let the park go ? or do you add to the park and the Neighborhood to attract more people to move there and help pay , and ease the burden of cost to those already paying ?
I Dont expect people on the right to pick up on this .....

That's a Sarah Palin response.......folksie and not remotely addressing the issue. ;D

[Spider]

That's a Sarah Palin response.......folksie and not remotely addressing the issue. ;D

It still applies ...........

[gunns]

To be honest with you, I have a difficult time getting past the fact that he is a lawyer, and his wife has obviously held the country in contempt for most of her adult life. She is very scary to be honest. I'm thinking she wears the pants in the family. But, I do my best to get past those facts. Second, his thoughts on taxes will not work by my calculations. And I've looked at this hard especially with the predicament we are in right now. McCain's won't either to be honest, we cannot afford a tax "cut" right now and I'd be telling the average american that right now. Second, growing "real" money, and immediately crushing nuts on big business with respect to unsound and devious business practices is an absolute necessity. Oh yeah, get the hell out of iraq asap, glean some oil profits from them and mop up in afghan. Afghan has to get closed out over the next 18 months. Anything past that we are on borrowed time. I also am convinced if Obama gets in, someone is going to try to hit us. They will attempt to test him right away. Not looking forward to that if he gets elected....dman

Personally, I'd like the hear what's wrong with Obama's tax plan, in your opinion, since you don't think McCains will work either. And I see them trying to hit us again more with McCain and his maverick attitude. Another Bush, that the rest of the world despised. The thing about Obama's wife is absolutely silly and only people who followed along with the last 8 years admin would fall for that crap. Not many of us have been very proud of the way our country has been represented these past 8 years and that's what she meant....that some were finally waking up.

[ScottXray]

To be honest with you, I have a difficult time getting past the fact that he is a lawyer, and his wife has obviously held the country in contempt for most of her adult life. She is very scary to be honest. I'm thinking she wears the pants in the family. But, I do my best to get past those facts. Second, his thoughts on taxes will not work by my calculations. And I've looked at this hard especially with the predicament we are in right now. McCain's won't either to be honest, we cannot afford a tax "cut" right now and I'd be telling the average american that right now. Second, growing "real" money, and immediately crushing nuts on big business with respect to unsound and devious business practices is an absolute necessity. Oh yeah, get the hell out of iraq asap, glean some oil profits from them and mop up in afghan. Afghan has to get closed out over the next 18 months. Anything past that we are on borrowed time. I also am convinced if Obama gets in, someone is going to try to hit us. They will attempt to test him right away. Not looking forward to that if he gets elected....dman

If anyone hits us in the next 18 months, they will hit us whether Obama or McCain is in charge. Our conventional military is exhausted and stretched to the limit, and Nuclear response is only possible if we are hit by a clear national enemy, and only if the hit is nuclear or biological. Frankly, Obama is much more likely to NOT use the nuclear option, which would lead to further erosion of our standing in the world, and might lead to a general nuclear war. The Iraq war has left us with few conventional military options, other than cruise and aircraft responses. We don't have any troops left to put on the ground in any substantial way. And "Nuke em til they glow!" is popular but would lead to the end of this country, as we would become hated by virtually all nations.

As far as him being a lawyer, it is both negative AND positive . He understands the LAW. He also knows that you can't just make **** up, or completely ignore it, which is what W has done repeatedly. Even the supreme court, which is mainly conservative now, has come down against W's positions on things like the Guantanamo detainees and the military tribunals. Because W has loaded the Justice department with his cronies he still hasn't bothered to follow those decisions. That is going to change under Obama. Actually COMPETENT people will start to fill many positions that W has loaded with boobs and cronies. I don't trust McCain to do anything similar.

As far as Taxes. I doubt if many of the cuts will get through, except at the lower part of the scale, and a lot of the programs he proposes won't either, at least as they are proposed. McCains upper income and business cuts have ZERO chance if he's elected. The populace has been woken up to the reality of the economy, and the necessity that we stop the deficit spending. Congress is going to hear about it, and even Obama will have to adjust to the new reality. The tax increases on the upper part of the scale might be even bigger, the worse the economy gets, and the loopholes are going to be closed for a lot of current dodges. If the economy continues to slide and unemployment goes way up, the programs Obama proposes on energy , and the infrastructure will be NEEDED to put people to work. Frankly he may end up having to reinstitute programs like FDR (Public works projects, CCC etc.)

Most of all Obama understands that the US economy is driven by the middle class, (read as consumers) and that trickle down doesn't work in the current world economy. If the jobs and factories created are moved to cheap labor markets to increase profits (what has happened) the triackle down is only in those countries. Job creation and putting people to work HERE is what is required. Fail to do that and there is no way our standard of living can do anything but go down.

Iraq HAS to end soon, no matter what the situation there is, as its bleeding us dry, aand they have asked us to leave anyway. I doubt we'll get any oil money out of them. Afghanistan also, but there will be a ramp up there first. We'll be there for at least 3 more years, I think.

Funny you should mention Michelle O as wearing the pants. I have exactly the same opinion about Cindy McCain. I think she has been driving JM for quite a while now, like her dad did before.

[DenverBrit]

It still applies ...........

So where is the money coming from?
One can't cut taxes for 95% of the country and add a Trillion in new programs when the economy is in recession and the deficit is the worst in history.

The truth is, neither candidate can sustain the pre-election promises once elected.
Reality will take over and tax cuts won't happen the way they are described now, universal health care will be too expensive to implement now,
the war will continue, the economy will stay flat or get worse for some time.
In the meantime, the candidates will stick to their tax and spend plans, knowing full well they won't happen as described.
Both are too sackless to update their agendas and be honest with the electorate.

[Rohirrim]

So where is the money coming from?
One can't cut taxes for 95% of the country and add a Trillion in new programs when the economy is in recession and the deficit is the worst in history.

The truth is, neither candidate can sustain the pre-election promises once elected.
Reality will take over and tax cuts won't happen the way they are described now, universal health care will be too expensive to implement now,
the war will continue, the economy will stay flat or get worse for some time.
In the meantime, the candidates will stick to their tax and spend plans, knowing full well they won't happen as described.
Both are too sackless to update their agendas and be honest with the electorate.

I guess you haven't been listening. Just yesterday Obama outlined that he has a reasonable explanation for what we can expect: Raise taxes to Reagan-era levels for those above $250,000, close loopholes that allow corporations to (in some instance completely) dodge taxes, end Iraq (which is sucking up $10 bil a month) and reduce subsidies to Big Oil and other businesses. He already said he'll have to "phase in" the health care plan and probably reduce foreign expenditures. I certainly haven't heard that kind of detail out of McCain.

[DenverBrit]

I guess you haven't been listening. Just yesterday Obama outlined that he has a reasonable explanation for what we can expect: Raise taxes to Reagan-era levels for those above $250,000, close loopholes that allow corporations to (in some instance completely) dodge taxes, end Iraq (which is sucking up $10 bil a month) and reduce subsidies to Big Oil and other businesses. He already said he'll have to "phase in" the health care plan and probably reduce foreign expenditures. I certainly haven't heard that kind of detail out of McCain.

Rhetoric is all well and good, but actual budget numbers are what's needed in light of what's happening with the economy.
How much will be raised by new taxes and how much will new programs cost?
As for ending the Iraq war. Great, how will that be done and when??
Just saying so, while trying to get elected, doesn't make it true.
Politicians are notorious liars, so how about some facts and numbers to measure them by??
And that goes for McCain too.

[Rohirrim]

Rhetoric is all well and good, but actual budget numbers are what's needed in light of what's happening with the economy.
How much will be raised by new taxes and how much will new programs cost?
As for ending the Iraq war. Great, how will that be done and when??
Just saying so, while trying to get elected, doesn't make it true.
Politicians are notorious liars, so how about some facts and numbers to measure them by??
And that goes for McCain too.

I don't think there is anybody who can tell us what the numbers will look like in January.

[Spider]

I don't think there is anybody who can tell us what the numbers will look like in January.

umm tea leaves are cloudy past oct 15 th ;D

[Spider]

So where is the money coming from?
One can't cut taxes for 95% of the country and add a Trillion in new programs when the economy is in recession and the deficit is the worst in history.

The truth is, neither candidate can sustain the pre-election promises once elected.
Reality will take over and tax cuts won't happen the way they are described now, universal health care will be too expensive to implement now,
the war will continue, the economy will stay flat or get worse for some time.
In the meantime, the candidates will stick to their tax and spend plans, knowing full well they won't happen as described.
Both are too sackless to update their agendas and be honest with the electorate.

Learn what GNP is and how it works

[DenverBrit]

Learn what GNP is and how it works

You can't be serious.
Are you suggesting that the candidates are unable to do basic math and explain how much their programs will cost and where the money is coming from??

[DenverBrit]

I don't think there is anybody who can tell us what the numbers will look like in January.

Apparently, they don't know what they look like this week.

[kappys]

You can't be serious.
Are you suggesting that the candidates are unable to do basic math and explain how much their programs will cost and where the money is coming from??

Jsut spend into a deficit. Its pretty much what every President does anyways. One might as well ask where the money for the bailout is coming? Easy - the Fed is printing more and ink and pulp prices have remained fairly low.

[Spider]

You can't be serious.
Are you suggesting that the candidates are unable to do basic math and explain how much their programs will cost and where the money is coming from??

None of them ever do , Now since you are all smart and **** , you tell me the last time a Candidate crunched #'s to pay for anything ..... meanwhile where in the **** do you think the Money came from to send man to the moon ? or the money came from to fight Viet Nam ? or the ****ing money came from to build a space station ? or Area 51 ? good grief time to enter adult hood

[Spider]

Jsut spend into a deficit. Its pretty much what every President does anyways. One might as well ask where the money for the bailout is coming? Easy - the Fed is printing more and ink and pulp prices have remained fairly low.
let me clue people in , deficit spending is just over spending on a budget , when we spend more then we have coming in , then there is a problem , right now our monies are based on oil , if that goes away , then we got problems ........

[DenverBrit]

None of them ever do, Now since you are all smart and **** , you tell me the last time a Candidate crunched #'s to pay for anything ..... meanwhile where in the **** do you think the Money came from to send man to the moon ? or the money came from to fight Viet Nam ? or the ****ing money came from to build a space station ? or Area 51 ? good grief time to enter adult hood

And how has that worked out for us all??

[kappys]

And how has that worked out for us all??

We're seeing it all unfold in front of us right now. But I doubt they'll learn their lesson from it. What do you think?

[Spider]

And how has that worked out for us all??

It worked great from 1940 up to 80 and regannomics ..........worked pretty good through the Clinton years I might add ........ how did it work in your world ?

[DenverBrit]

It worked great from 1940 up to 80 and regannomics ..........worked pretty good through the Clinton years I might add ........ how did it work in your world ?

In my world?
The economy is on its knees, unemployment is through the roof, banks are failing, business can't meet payroll, families are becoming homeless in record numbers, the deficit is the largest in US history, stocks are losing Trillions in value, the government is bailing out bad investments, we have an unnecessary war costing billions each month and thousands of lives have been lost, Bin Laden is still at large...........the list is endless.

What's going on in your world? ;D

Oh, and I liked the Clinton years, but some of this mess began there.

[Spider]

In my world?
The economy is on its knees, unemployment is through the roof, banks are failing, business can't meet payroll, families are becoming homeless in record numbers, the deficit is the largest in US history, stocks are losing Trillions in value, the government is bailing out bad investments, we have an unnecessary war costing billions each month and thousands of lives have been lost, Bin Laden is still at large...........the list is endless.

What's going on in your world? ;D

Oh, and I liked the Clinton years, but some of this mess began there.
just recently , think back , and come up with the 3 things that off kiltered the economy ,no this mess didnt begin there( clinton) , far from it , that just some stupid talking point to misplace the blame ..........

[DenverBrit]

just recently , think back , and come up with the 3 things that off kiltered the economy ,no this mess didnt begin there( clinton) , far from it , that just some stupid talking point to misplace the blame ..........

Well, the easing of borrowing requirements began with Clinton.
The failure of Fannie & Freddie....the sub prime mess, began there.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

[Spider]

Well, the easing of borrowing requirements began with Clinton.
The failure of Fannie & Freddie....the sub prime mess, began there.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1and that doesnt mean **** , go back reread my post .......... come up with the 3 things that ****ed up the economy ........ Dude you should know by know I dont fall for Bull**** .. now either you want to debate or not . people wonder why I dont debate , I just insult ........ Lets try this again , why didnt the crash happen back in the 90's ? or early 2001 when we hit a rescission ?

[Spider]

see I try and have a honest and open debate , and I get bull**** back

[Spider]

the crash could have happened in 2001 when we hit a rescission ..why did it happen now ? what 3 things lead to this ?
there are more then 3 , but 3 will work ..........

[DenverBrit]

see I try and have a honest and open debate , and I get bull**** back

Yeah, and I tried to debate that rhetoric is not a substitute for facts and suggested that the candidates put numbers ($s) to their schemes.

I didn't get anywhere either.

[DenverBrit]

the crash could have happened in 2001 when we hit a rescission ..why did it happen now ? what 3 things lead to this ?
there are more then 3 , but 3 will work ..........

I'm not trying to debate the cause.
I wanted to talk about accountability and solutions going forward.
ie, If we are to have universal health care and tax cuts for 95% of the country and we are in record deficit, how will it be paid for??
You can't cut revenue....or simply switch who pays and introduce a Trillion dollar scheme without being specific about how to pay for it.

If you want a second truck and want to finance it, don't you need to show how you're going to pay for it?? And that's with the lender getting title.
I want government to be as accountable with my money too. Don't you??

[Spider]

I'm not trying to debate the cause.
I wanted to talk about accountability and solutions going forward.
ie, If we are to have universal health care and tax cuts for 95% of the country and we are in record deficit, how will it be paid for??
You can't cut revenue....or simply switch who pays and introduce a Trillion dollar scheme without being specific about how to pay for it.

If you want a second truck and want to finance it, don't you need to show how you're going to pay for it?? And that's with the lender getting title.
I want government to be as accountable with my money too. Don't you??

I already tried to tell you , Same way we entered the space race , or built the Panama Canal etc .....

[Spider]

Yeah, and I tried to debate that rhetoric is not a substitute for facts and suggested that the candidates put numbers ($s) to their schemes.

I didn't get anywhere either. no what you want is fortune telling .....

[Spider]

but you made the claim this started in the Clinton era , that is flat out false ....
9-11
Katrina
Iraq war
Energy cost
Spinach ecoli
all of these have 1 thing in common

[DenverBrit]

but you made the claim this started in the Clinton era , that is flat out false ....
9-11
Katrina
Iraq war
Energy cost
Spinach ecoli
all of these have 1 thing in common


I said 'some' of the mess.
Oh, and I liked the Clinton years, but some of this mess began there.
And the sub prime mess, via Fannie Mae began in the Clinton era.
I'm painfully aware as to the source of the rest of this debacle we're dealing with.

Both parties are to blame. The last two years have been the worst.....and the Dems have had control of the house. ;D
Did they even attempt to stem the tide??
My rant is all about politicians, not ideology. I want more accountability.
Don't we all?? Well we should.

[Spider]

I said 'some' of the mess.

And the sub prime mess, via Fannie Mae began in the Clinton era.
I'm painfully aware as to the source of the rest of this debacle we're dealing with. it wasnt a mess until here recently

Both parties are to blame. The last two years have been the worst.....and the Dems have had control of the house. ;D
Did they even attempt to stem the tide??
My rant is all about politicians, not ideology. I want more accountability.
Don't we all?? Well we should.

again if both parties are to blame , then why didnt this happen in 2001 ?
the facts of both parties are to blame doesnt fit ........

[Bronco Bob]

Open the hood of any "American" car these days and all you see are the words, "Hecho en Mexico."

Mine said it was made in the Twin Cities factory. Would that be Nogales and Tijuana?

[DenverBrit]

it wasnt a mess until here recently


I agree. Ha!

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago :
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises,

vacations overseas, living large!...

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by

$12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~

$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM

THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS

INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

An old Conservative friend sent this out recently. It's a conservative view, but it does agree with your comment. Funny how that works. ;D

[Bronco Bob]

Jsut spend into a deficit. Its pretty much what every President does anyways.

Except Bill Clinton. When he left office he left the country with a surplus.

[Spider]

I agree. Ha!

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago :
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises,

vacations overseas, living large!...

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by

$12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~

$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM

THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS

INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

An old Conservative friend sent this out recently. It's a conservative view, but it does agree with your comment. Funny how that works. ;D

well no it doesnt , in 2000 there was rolling black outs in Cali , fuel prices jumped through the roof , 9-11 happened , Katrina was a complete disaster , so no that doesnt fit the facts at all .............:rofl: everything was just fine ...... your friend is a goofy bastard that probably needs supervision or medication