For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Obama's campaign finance flipflop:
Barack Obama is abandoning public financing for his presidential campaign, reversing his earlier stance in bold certainty he can raise millions more on his own as the first major-party candidate to bypass the tax-checkoff system that was hurried into place after the Watergate scandal...McCain told reporters in Minnesota on Thursday, "We will take public financing." As for his opponent, he said Obama "said he would stick to his word. He didn't."
What are your thoughts on this flipflop? Was it so predictable that it's unimportant? Will people care? How will the flipflop element impact voters if at all? From a financial perspective, does this give Obama an almost insurmountable monetary advantage?
Comments Policy
Scott McClellen Indictment
June 20, 2008 - 11:01 ET by HermanoTaking bets on how long it will take for a Grand Jury to indict McClellen.
Sen. McCain
June 20, 2008 - 11:12 ET by j. frank wilson"qualified" for the primary ballot in Ohio and Delaware simply because he had applied for public campaign financing (there may have been other states, as well). Then he decided to opt out of the public financing system for the general election.
Once he used the public financing system to avoid the expensive and time-consuming signature collection process, how can he then decide not to stay in it? Talk about a one-night stand. He used and abused the system and then tried to slink out the door before it woke up. That's not a "flip-flop" - that's breaking the law.
Additionally, loan documents readily available online describe his line of credit collateral - including agreeing to keep going in the primaries and apply for public funds if he didn't do well in the voting (how cynical - poor performance = continuing in order to raise enough money to pay off his loan, not to stay in it to win).
Once a candidate uses public funds as loan collateral they must stay in the system - yet Sen. McCain wants to break the law and get out?
Now that's a real story.
Huh? BHO wants out, not McLame
June 20, 2008 - 11:14 ET by SouthJersey1953McLame is in...it is BHO that backed out of it....
Lefty kool-aid drinkers can
June 20, 2008 - 11:31 ET by mattmLefty kool-aid drinkers can get themselves to believe anything - except the truth.
Yeah right...
June 20, 2008 - 11:51 ET by DooperAnybody that doesn't toe the line is considered lefty and liberal. Well I don't consider myself liberal having worked on Wall Street and in the financial services industry for the past 15 years and frankly, I am voting for anyone besides a Republican this year. 80% of Americans think this country is on the wrong path and in want of change and I guarantee you most of them would not consider themselves liberal.
So I guess you don't mind a
June 20, 2008 - 11:57 ET by HermanoSo I guess you don't mind a doubling of the capital gains tax, eh? That will lead to fewer people making trades and less money for you.
@Hermano:
June 20, 2008 - 12:03 ET by j. frank wilsonClearly this is the #1 problem equity investors face today: Capital gains. Boy, look at how the market has just gone up and up - investors awash in unrealized profits. Thanks to the Bush Administration the US economy is on quite a roll here.
PS: Sen. Obama has specifically stated he does not support an increase in the capital gains tax to its previous level. But it won't be long before someone here comments how lowering capital gains taxes increases revenues - what a crock!
I take it you don't work in
June 20, 2008 - 12:07 ET by contraryI take it you don't work in the investment managment industry?
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
Obama does support higher capital gains...
June 20, 2008 - 12:45 ET by HermanoObama said he would "look at increasing the capital gains tax" because appartently there were 50 fund managers who made about "$29B" between them and they paid less in taxes than their secretaries. So because of these 50 people, he wants to punish the 100,000,000 other people who have money in the stock market with a higer tax rate on their more risky investments.
BTW, every time the CGT was lowered during the last 8 years, the revenues from CG DID increase. Not a crock, but reality. Taxes have a negative impact on the economy. Look at the UAE - No income taxes and the hotest economy on earth by far.
Another thing, our economy is going south because our money is going offshore. It is really tough to maintaiin a strong dollar when you are shipping off all your money to the Middle East and Venezuela in return for oil. We got plenty here - Let's Drill!
@Hermano:
June 20, 2008 - 13:20 ET by j. frank wilsonFirst you commented Sen. Obama wanted to "double" capital gains - now you say "increase?" Which is it.
It is a crock that lowering the capital gains tax increases revenues. If that were the case, why not reduce the tax to Zero? Do you honestly think investors have no choices? When capital gains taxes are low they elect to push income over there. Some of the apparent increase was temporary (one-off), because people saw the change coming and simply waited for it to take effect.
You have to look at overall government revenues - because investors can shift from one form of income to another.
The hedge fund manager exception is an absolute joke - and starting with Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Repugz don't have the guts to face it and close the loophole.
BTW - haven't you read the House Committee on Natural Resources June 2008 report? There is ample opportunity for oil companies to explore and exploit the gas and oil on public lands. What's the figure - 25 wells drilled in Alaska since 2000 on how many million acres?
"It is a crock that
June 20, 2008 - 14:03 ET by ckc1227"It is a crock that lowering the capital gains tax increases revenues. If that were the case, why not reduce the tax to Zero? "
So, you really are a moron? At least we know.
Now, I'm off to eat a 1,000 cheeseburgers. I mean, if eating one can cure my lunch time hunger cravings, why not eat 1,000?
OK - it used to be 28%.
June 20, 2008 - 14:46 ET by HermanoOK - it used to be 28%. From 15-28% is not double, I will give you that - but it is still an 86% increase. It never ceases to amaze me how obtuse people can be when they believe the government can do more with their money than they can. The same thing goes when there are many instances of something happening (revenue increase) as a result of some action (lower the tax rate). If we look at overall government revenues (which are far too high as it is, IMO) history shows time and time again that lowering taxes helps the economy. How many times do we have to see this before we believe it - 10, 50, 1000? In the 80s when the CGT was raised, revenues decrease. When your hero Bill Clintoon lowered it to 20% from 28% revenues increased. When Bush lowered it to 15% the revenue increased again. Obama proposes raising it in spite of the history. I could explain the reasons this does happen, contrary to Obama's insistance that it might not in simple terms, but I am afraid you might still not get it. But here it goes anyway.
I invest $1000 and earn $100 on that money. I pay $15 to the gov leaving me $85. I invest the $85 and make $8.50 and pay $1.27 to the gov leaving me $7.23. I spend it on lunch which allows someone else to make $1 which the gov gets $0.25 (depending on that persons income - I want to use simple numbers to help you here.) Gov take from me- $16.27
I invest $1000 and earn $100. Pay the gov $28 leaving me with $72. I invest that making $7.20 and give the gov $2.02 leaving me with $5.18. I buy a gallon of gas and the money goes overseas. Gov take from me- $30.02.
With me so far? Looks like the gov makes out, eh? Well if I am making 8.5% on my money, I may continue to invest. If I am making on 7.2% I may choose to do other things with my money, like choose offshore investments that make a lot more money and don't get taxed. So the government then gets $0. $16 is more than $0. Of course, then their are ancillary issues - since I am no longer investing my money or am sending it offshore, there will be one less person working in the US and needing to collect unemployment.
OK, one person investing $1000 cannot make that much of an impact, but for every dollar you take out of this system - by taxing or otherwise - has an impact. As soon as the gov starts making wise investments, taxing will always have a negative impact on the economy. Lowering the CGT to 0? - that would be great! But we do have this Great Governmental Beast which must be fed. As an American, I believe it is OUR job to find a way to control our government, and we have been doing a lousy job for 73 years.
And lastly, the Reps are not currently in control of the Legislature (say it with me - Leg-i-sla-ture) which writes the laws. They are more worried about the price of a sandwich in their cafeteria than they are about the US economy. Of course, you could have the Legislature write a law that forces everyone to invest their money so the gov can get their 28%. I guess that would be OK.
@Hermano & BD:
June 20, 2008 - 18:35 ET by j. frank wilsonAt least be honest enough to state that the goal of reducing capital gains tax is to reduce revenues and shrink the size of the federal government - drown in the bathtub, as Grover Norquist put it.
Tax cuts don't "pay for themselves" - Council of Economic Advistors Edward Lazear (September 26, 2006, Senate testimony) "As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves." Alan D. Viard, former Council of Economic Advisors senior economist (October 17, 2006 Washington Post article) "...federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the [Bush Administration] tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that." Secretary Paulson at his confirmation hearing "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." Federal Reserve Chair Ben Mernanke (April 27, 2006 Congressional testimony) "I don't think that as a general rule tax cuts pay for themselves."
Do you see a pattern here? Unless you're as closed-minded as Sheer Insannity, you'll spot the trend.
JFW,
June 20, 2008 - 20:26 ET by Indiana JoeThe only pattern I see is you quoting what people "think." You don't offer any numbers, merely what people "believe." The only quote that doesn't include one of those words is the one claiming "...federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the [Bush Administration] tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that." So it's a consensus, huh? Not a fact. No one can know what revenue would have been in a theoretical scenario.
But it is a fact that revenues have increased with tax cuts in the past. See here, here, and here. This is after-the-fact analysis, not what someone "thinks."
Just thought I'd jump in with that. Carry on.
Tax cuts don't "pay for
June 20, 2008 - 20:35 ET by HermanoTax cuts don't "pay for themselves" - Council of Economic Advistors Edward Lazear (September 26, 2006, Senate testimony) "As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves."
But he actually says this in the same briefing:
The tax cuts passed the Congress and signed into law by President Bush have helped the economy grow. Probably most significant was the cut in dividends and capital gains taxes enacted in 2003. However, the lowering of marginal tax rates on labor income was also an important contribution to economic growth.
Lower tax rates enable workers to keep more of their earnings, stimulating work effort and labor force participation. Lower tax rates also encourage greater innovation, entrepreneurial activity, and small business formation. Lowering the tax rate on capital income has encouraged greater investment, which is seen as the main driver of economic growth.
Of course, Lazear points out the tax cuts spurred the economy. It is interesting to note that the graph that he refers to to "suggest" that tax cuts do not pay for themselves shows an excess revenue stream for the fed after the Clintoon tax cuts to capital gains of 8% and a negative trend from 2000-2003. The rebound in revenues takes place after the tax cuts go into effect. EXPLAIN THAT! BTW, he later goes on to talk about the "high economic growth and enhanced revenues." I will be among the first to admit that the economy is a complex thing, but if Lazear truly believed that tax cuts do not pay for themselves, then why does he recommend "continuing our pro-growth tax agenda" instead of recommending that the tax cuts be revoked.
I can spot trends, but I also know when there is a high correlation amond data. It is interesting that all these experts happen to use the same words when dealing with a Democrat-run congress. I will give you a bone here, though. They are right. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. The economy runs stronger, providing more jobs, more income, more consumer confidence and spending. The result IS HIGHER REVENUES. Small government is the key to success.
@Hermano & BD:
June 23, 2008 - 10:21 ET by j. frank wilsonIt's relatively simple math - tax cuts can't pay for themselves. Even if one accepts the premise that reducing taxes increases growth, the bulk of the economic activity will be taxed at the reduced rate - and the taxes generated from the new (resulting) activity can't be high enough to make up for the shortfall.
Suppose a tax cut increases overall economic growth by 25% - and that would be a remarkable result, indeed. There is still that pesky 75% of activity being taxed at the lower rate - additional taxes collected on the increase (25%) can not cover the loss on the tail (75%).
BD - I certainly realize you are the second coming of John Maynard Keynes, and we commentators at NB are fortunate to be able to grovel at the alter of your economic knowledge. But please do look at the numbers - they really aren't that hard to figure out...
You are completely wrong J Frank - you are ignoring
June 23, 2008 - 10:57 ET by Dee Bunkthe fact that economic growth does not = reported income growth. For your theory to even have any validity, income growth reported to the IRS would have to remain equal to the income growth and it doesn't.
It doesn't because more people agree to pay taxes instead of sheltering their income. GDP has nothing to do with income reported to the IRS. It's calculated by adding Consumer spending, Industry Investments, Exports (less imports), and Government Spending. Income reported on tax returns has nothing to do with GDP.
You do not have any understanding of Economics. Most Dems don't. You can't argue with the fact that total tax receipts have increased after the tax cuts. You are trying to play some sort of Svengali by assuming the same amount of income would be reported (just less the growth). Even with your first false assumption, you also couldn't even assume positive growth. If there were not tax cuts it could have been negative growth. No one can know that for sure. The only thing we can know is that when taxes are reduced, the treasury takes in more money every time.
@DeeBunk:
June 23, 2008 - 12:25 ET by j. frank wilsonSo it should be a relatively simple matter for you to draw a stright line from specific Bush tax cuts to specific increases in tax revenues.
Otherwise you are at risk of conflating coincidence with causation.
J Frank - it's your own previous logic that proves it
June 23, 2008 - 12:35 ET by Dee BunkThe reported income went up disproportionately to GDP growth. And that salary increases as reported by businesses were way off the mark also. It's not coincidence and it happened the same way when Regan did it.
You either have to admit that the economy had much bigger gains than was reported in GDP or that the tax cuts worked. Either way, Bush worked miracles with the economy that was on a decline when he came in and then took a huge nose dive of unprecedented nature (since the depression) due to the Sept 11th attacks. He kept us from going into a recession or depression.
It is NOT relitively simple
June 23, 2008 - 11:00 ET by BDIt is NOT relitively simple in that Tx cuts do not pay for themselve. Laying aside that the do not need to pay for themselves, you miss the obvious fact that revenues to the fed actually INCREASE to record levels post tax cuts to get the Laffer curve down to the optimal level.
You can do all the mathematical projections you want, historically it is true that the optimal tax rate is just over 10%.
John Mayndard Keynes? Me? Boy do you have it wrong. I do not believe federal outlays in the form of spending are the way to an improved economy that hods tot he Keynsian model.
I prefer the Friedmen model in which private citizens hold and spend the welth of the nation rather than the beauracracy in the Federal government.
You obviously are holding to the falacious argument that all money belongs to the Fed Government and the fed returnign tax money ot the public or failing to take it in in the first place is an OUTLAY when it clearly is NOT.
@BD:
June 23, 2008 - 12:29 ET by j. frank wilsonOnce again you miss the point. I commented that it's a crock to claim cutting taxes increases revenues. For you to state that is not the point shows you are more concerned with responding and yelling than actually reading and understanding.
We have clearly demonstrated the serious flaws in J. Franks
June 23, 2008 - 12:38 ET by Dee Bunkarguments. He can't respond so he only states that it's a crock even though he has no logical argument for why tax receipts increased much larger than could be accounted for in the small GDP growth.
But the effect is that
June 23, 2008 - 13:22 ET by BDBut the effect is that decreases in tax rates DOES equal higher revenues to the treasury.
The claim that not following the Laffer Curve and maintaining minimal rates means you are the one adhering to the "Crock."
→ BD
June 23, 2008 - 13:28 ET by Cool ArrowJ. Frank Wilson (and The Cavaliers) doesn't understand the WalMart concept of increased revenue from high volume at lower prices.
Give that "Crock" one Last Kiss
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
@Cool Arrow:
June 23, 2008 - 14:40 ET by j. frank wilsonNicely done - after 80 weeks you are the first person to get it...
→ Got it J. Frank
June 23, 2008 - 14:45 ET by Cool ArrowI commented on it once last year. A reference to your "cavalier" attitude, I think.
They were from here in my Home Town.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Uh... I got it a long time
June 23, 2008 - 14:51 ET by Clear thinkerUh... I got it a long time ago, but it never seemed important enough to comment on.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
"Wait for me, Wild Bill!"
June 23, 2008 - 17:33 ET by j. frank wilsonI'm sure you did.
Just don't hold your breath waiting for someone to figure out why you call yourself "Clear Thinker."
Gee, thanks for the nasty remark...
June 23, 2008 - 17:40 ET by Clear thinkerNow we all know the real you.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
@Clear Thinker:
June 24, 2008 - 10:42 ET by j. frank wilsonI apologize for any hurt feelings. If you were to read the comments that follow mine, you would readily see that insults, name-calling, miscellaneous schoolyard invective, etc., are the coin of the NB realm. [The rules to the contrary are rather loosely enforced here.]
If I have permitted those miasmas of ill feeling to permeate my personal atmosphere, that is not a good thing and I do apologize to you for it.
"PS: Sen. Obama has
June 20, 2008 - 13:56 ET by ckc1227"PS: Sen. Obama has specifically stated he does not support an increase in the capital gains tax to its previous level. "
Was that before or after he said he would take public financing?
Hey, the market must have
June 20, 2008 - 14:54 ET by BDHey, the market must have been dreadful , right, cause I only paid several thousand dollars in Cap Gains and I am small fish.
Reinstate Higher Capital gains and the capital needed to keep things going will go offshore even faster.
But it won't be long before someone here comments how lowering capital gains taxes increases revenues - what a crock!
First off, don't worry about me (but thank you)...
June 20, 2008 - 12:08 ET by DooperSecond of all, it would result in MORE trading since the incentive to hold positions over a year would be taken away if short term capital gains are taxed at the same rate as long term capital gains. But that has nothing to do with my position.
Trust me, I wont. Of course,
June 20, 2008 - 12:15 ET by HermanoTrust me, I wont. Of course, if you are looking for short term gains, perhaps this is a great strategy. Just don't look for people to invest in much after that. Everything I would do would be related to 401Ks, IRAs and Stock Purchase Plans for the long term. I would certainly not want to take as many hits on trading commissions.
You work on Wallstreet,
June 20, 2008 - 11:58 ET by OldSailor88You work on Wallstreet, and you're going to vote for Obama?
Wow. You must not want to continue to be successful. Good luck in your future employment. Whatever field that may be.
Postatem obscuri lateris nescitis
If the country is on the
June 20, 2008 - 12:04 ET by JerryIf the country is on the wrong path, it is because of LIBERAL policies. Abortion, soft on crime, welfare state, inner city turmoil, appeasment of terrorists, public edcuation/indoctrination fiasco, no drilling, no new refineries, no new nuclear power, no new hydro power, moral decay.... you name it.
If you're gonna vote for Obama, you certainly aren't a conservative.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
It's not liberal nor is it conservative...
June 20, 2008 - 14:11 ET by SyriusJerry,
It's God's plan. He has a plan for all of us, this country, and the world. If he wants abortions to exist, by golly, they will exist. Who are we to question God and his plan for us? If he wants crime to happen as a test for you to experience being a victim then sit back and let it happen...You shouldn't question God. If Obama wins in November, well, that's just part of God's plan. Kneel down and pray for forgiveness, I'm sure he's listening to you.
Syrius
Yawn.
June 20, 2008 - 14:16 ET by MassConservYawn.
Yeah right
June 20, 2008 - 12:04 ET by contrary"80% of Americans think this country is on the wrong path..."
Are you going to be intellectually honest enough to admit
1.) without a link to a reputable poll this is pure BS and opinion. Look, I can do the same thing: 99% of people on this site think your statements are without merit.
2.) Assuming there is some truth to the number you just threw out, it should be obvious not every American thinks we're on the "wrong path" (whatever that is defined as) for the same reasons, or that Democrats automatically can put us on the "right path."
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
Not sure what difference it makes...
June 20, 2008 - 12:31 ET by Doopersince you all think the MSM is a liberal mouthpiece but here you go...
http://ap.google.com...
Came out today.
- Political affiliation:
June 20, 2008 - 13:03 ET by Jerry- Political affiliation: (D) 37%, (I) 23%, (R) 23%.
- 60% thought so because of the economy, mainly high gas prices.
- Congressional ratings: 23 percent approved, 72 percent disapproved.
So, you have a leftward politically skewed poll, with the majority of respondents dis-satisified with gas prices (directly attributable to democrat policies), who are even more dis-satisfied with the democrat Congress.
BTW, Republicans don't call themselves Independents, although, many Democrats do, to flee from the "liberal" tag, so it is probably even more skewed than it appears.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
"Those who said the country
June 20, 2008 - 15:20 ET by contrary"Those who said the country was on the wrong track totaled 76 percent of the people contacted in the survey, which was taken from June 12-16. That's up from 71 percent in April and 66 percent near the end of 2007."
"Six in ten of those who chose wrong track blamed the struggling economy, with gasoline prices hovering above $4 a primary reason. "Poor leadership" accounted for 23 percent, while 20 percent said the war in Iraq."
So an opinion poll shows gas prices/struggling economy being the primary reason we are on the "wrong track" (specifically, .76*.60 = 45% of those polled.) This would seem to be a consequence of both parties in Congress. Assuming the right track would be low gas prices, that would satisfy 45% more people. What we really should be asking is why its the government's role to "fix" gas prices and the economy.
The nebulous "poor leadership" reason could apply to anyone in Congress, the White House, or Supreme Court. How does this exactly translate to just Republicans.
Look, I agree with you the direction of the country is not where I would like to see it. The blame is not just one party or solely the President. The reasons why people think the US is sinking are varied and numerous.
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
Here's a sampling of reasons
June 20, 2008 - 15:50 ET by contraryHere's a sampling of reasons people have given me.
Loss of freedoms
Bad Supreme Court decisions
Partisan bickering in Congress
Low salaries
High cost of living
War in Iraq not ending quickly enough
Just being in Iraq
Our image in Europe
Illegal immigration
Taxation without representation
Expensive and inefficient social programs
Unconstitutional use of taxpayer’s money
Global Warming
Too many environmental regulations
Media bias affecting important issues
Laws that favor some special interest group
Voter disenfranchisement
Big business making too much money
Gun control measures ineffective
Racial discrimination
Looks like the Federal Government has some explaining to do.
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
And one more...
June 20, 2008 - 12:48 ET by DooperFrom that bastion of liberal minded agendas...CBS
http://www.cbsnews.c...
LOL
June 20, 2008 - 14:05 ET by MassConservLOL
"From that bastion of liberal minded agendas...CBS", and you don't even realize how right you are.
I'm considering voting
June 20, 2008 - 12:05 ET by mattmI'm considering voting independent myself... but your statement "Anybody that doesn't toe the line is considered lefty and liberal" is not correct. You're making a generalization about me that isn't true, and using it as a way of backing up your argument. That's not very good logic, but no biggie.
You say 80% think the country is on the wrong path. Maybe so, but why blame only republicans? Democrats stole the majority in the Senate in 2000, have filibustered and obstructed the republican agenda (which is their right to do), and they won all of Congress in 2006 - yet now their approval numbers are lower than Bush's even though they haven't been getting bashed in the media every five minutes.
So, why are the Dems not in worse trouble than the Republicans? I say it's for one reason - which the GOP establishment probably won't admit to - because too many republicans have compromised and betrayed the GOP platform.
"80% of Americans think
June 20, 2008 - 13:52 ET by ckc1227"80% of Americans think this country is on the wrong path and in want of
change and I guarantee you most of them would not consider themselves
liberal."
Most of them wouldn't consider themselves dumb either, but if they're voting for a Marxist promising change just because they want change, then they aren't very smart.
Different "Back Out"
June 20, 2008 - 12:03 ET by zeestephenSouthJersey - I forget the exact details, but before the Primaries McCain agreed to some form of public finance which I believe applied only for the Primaries - by doing that he automatically qualified for a place on the ballots of several states, without having to go through the usual signature petition sort of things - thus, some people now claim that McCain's name is (or was) illegally on those ballots, since McCain later rejected public finance for the Primaries - also, in that same time period, McCain applied for some sort of private campaign loan - the allegation is that the federal matching funds he applied for were a form of implicit "collateral" for the private campaign loan - when McCain later rejected Primary matching funds, some people allege he used "fraud" to obtain his private campaign loan
@SouthJersey1953:
June 20, 2008 - 13:46 ET by j. frank wilsonNope.
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2008/mccainletter.pdf
I think Joseph Farah (WND.com) is right
June 20, 2008 - 11:12 ET by SouthJersey1953The more I think about it (and hear from our two candidates), the more I think Joseph Farah is right:
WRITE IN "None of the Above" this November. Maybe if 20% of the electorate votes for None of Above someone "might" get the hint.
I heard a McLame ad last night touting his "strong stand" on Global Warming. If I didn't know better, I would think he was the Democrat's candidate....
ARGHHHHH!!!!!
2 reasons to vote for the
June 20, 2008 - 12:45 ET by Dan The Man 22 reasons to vote for the GOP, both SCOTUS picks. The Presidency lasts for 4 years while SCOTUS lasts for 20 or more. Im sure you dont want more GITMO decisions coming in. I this fear mongering, yes and if it doesn't work then you will know the real meaning of fear the Lord your God.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
that's what I thought until....
June 20, 2008 - 14:04 ET by SouthJersey1953I was for McCain for the sole reaosn of SCOTUS choices, but last week he was talking to Dems, trying to get their vote, and he told them that he voted FOR Ginsburg.......makes me worry about who he would name.....
More reason we should pray
June 20, 2008 - 14:10 ET by Dan The Man 2More reason we should pray hard and long.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
South Jersey, McCain had the chance to support conservate judges
June 23, 2008 - 17:53 ET by jefflebowskiand he opted to form the gang of 14. Why anyone believes that McPain will fight Charlie Schumer to seat a conservative on the SC is beyond me. Again, McCain is a Democrat!!!
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
1st
June 20, 2008 - 11:13 ET by cvgbuckeyeIf I were on McCain's staff, the 1st commercial I would make would be a remake of that old Holiday Inn commercial.
It would feature taking about 10 seconds out of one of Osama Obama's haughty speeches. He would be interrupted by someone asking "Are you really someone with great leadership experience"?
He would quietly answer, "No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night".
Anybody remember those commercials?
More appropriate for Bush...
June 20, 2008 - 11:54 ET by DooperOnly problem is its not a commercial!!
I
June 20, 2008 - 12:19 ET by cvgbuckeyeI stand humbly corrected dooper
MORE AP CRAP First of
June 20, 2008 - 11:13 ET by mattmMORE AP CRAP
First of all, he's not a "former aide" he was a spokesman. Secondly, they portray his unsubstantiated hearsay as if it were credible.
Somebody ought to sue this puke for slander, and take the crAP down with them.
Too Complicated
June 20, 2008 - 11:15 ET by PurdueMattI don't think the voting public will care, because they won't be able to understand what it means.
Faux Noise
June 20, 2008 - 11:15 ET by j. frank wilsonwon't cover it, but you can read it here:
http://www.responsibleplan.com/o/2757/images/responsible_plan.pdf
A clear, cogent, sensible plan to unwind the Iraq debacle.
Something defeatists and
June 20, 2008 - 11:42 ET by mattmSomething defeatists and other BDS opportunists won't heed:
http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010665
@mattm:
June 20, 2008 - 12:13 ET by j. frank wilsonOn the one hand we have Frederick Keagan; on the other we have Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (ret.), Lawrence Korb, and many others...Now there's a tough choice!
Well, j. frank, you're just
June 20, 2008 - 12:29 ET by mattmWell, j. frank, you're just going to believe what you want, listen only to that which you agree with.
It doesn't seem to matter to you that since the so-called "surge" we have dramatically turned the tide. Everyday the situation improves, and the media fail to cover it.
The people in the report you cited were Nixon/Ford-esqe establishment types or ex-democrat administration (Carter or Clinton) people who were basically against the Iraq plan from day one.
I don't disagree that there is a case to be made that we should have taken a different approach in the beginning, but the fact that wars don't always work out exactly as planned seems to be lost on people who have an anti-Bush agenda and couldn't care less that 20,000+ terrorists are dead and Iraq is a democracy which could provide an inestimably valuable amount of stability and security to a region that has produce the exact opposite for decades.
It's too bad that so many people would rather see America retreat if it means humiliating Bush than to see the WOT end with a U.S. victory.
@mattm:
June 20, 2008 - 13:33 ET by j. frank wilsonYou read and digest a 50+ page report in an hour and then have the gall to comment about me "... you're just going to believe what you want, listen only to that which you agree with?"
As to the Surge working, you conflate causation with commonality or coincidence. We didn't have to send over more troops to make the Surge work. All the had to do was ship even more pallets of cash to bribe the milita forces. The problem with this "solution" is that we can't pay them forever, and in the meantime no stable government has been established.
PS: I certainly see your point - what could Gen. Eaton possibly know about the military situation in Iraq? Or Gen. Sanchez? Or Gen. Petraeus?
If you honestly suggest "Iraq is a democracy" that can function on its own you are a blind fool who refuses to see the truth standing on your shoetops.
I saw that report long
June 20, 2008 - 13:46 ET by mattmI saw that report long before you posted it.
I tried to be civil in my response, but the ridiculous and unreasoned tone of your responses, plus the inclusion of bogus claims like: "All the(y) had to do was ship even more pallets of cash to bribe the milita forces," confirms to me that you have no intention of engaging in legitimate debate.
You're just a, B.S.-filled, flame-throwing troll, who's not worth the time to argue with.
I concur with that point.
June 20, 2008 - 15:06 ET by BDI concur with that point. Even when we are winning with improved Intelligence gathering provided by the improved comfort level of a more secure population, the BDS types attempt to stigmatize the hard work of my brothers in arms by saying we are bribing people.
But then again, perhaps that is how liberals handle things - Bribing people. Seems to fit actually :
@BD:
June 20, 2008 - 18:40 ET by j. frank wilsonYou commented "The Mortgage situation means that people who did not deserve mortgages were not getting em. They bitch - so libs bribe them by forcing the Mortgage Companies to make bad loan decisions."
Liberals bribed mortgage companies to make bad loans? You write that and then assert other people have "BDS?" You really aren't very bright, are you?
Re-read the statement, JFW:
June 20, 2008 - 20:38 ET by Indiana JoeRe-read the statement, JFW: "The Mortgage situation means that people who did not deserve mortgages were not getting em. They bitch - so libs bribe them by forcing the Mortgage Companies to make bad loan decisions."
What BD was asserting was that the "libs bribe" the "people who did not deserve mortgages." THAT is the "them" referred to. They did this "by forcing the Mortgage Companies to make bad loan decisions," thereby resulting in the mortgage "crisis."
It's a little clumsy in the construction, but the meaning is clear. And I won't make any comment on how "bright" you may or may not be.
@IndianaJoe & BD:
June 21, 2008 - 11:23 ET by j. frank wilsonOK - I'll read it your way. Who "forced" mortgage companies to make bad loans? It was the growth of securitization that permitted brokers and table-funding mortgage companies to crank out huge volumes of bad loans. The brokers and companies did it for the points, not because they were forced to do it. They were allowed to do it. Dangle 3 or 4 points in front of the average residential mortgage broker and you'll lose your hand when it grabs the bait.
It was very lax federal regulation of the entire industry - both on the mortgage (retail) side and on the securitization (Wall Street and overseas) market side that permitted this debacle to take place.
About 18 months ago the Wall Street Journal ran an article about CMO's that stated origination "underwriters" (they were really brokers, as well) were keeping larger and larger portions of the CMO's they had been selling, primarily to overseas investors. I read that and concluded the party was over - the sales people were beginning to believe their own line of b.s. and the end was coming...
So: Please expain how the "libs" (whoever they are? They weren't in the White House or running Congress, we know that for sure - despite Hermano commenting that 2006 Congressional testimony was before a Democratic-majority House or Senate) forced mortgage companies to make bad loans?
Read it the way it was written
June 21, 2008 - 12:18 ET by Indiana JoeWell, I believe the modern "it's everyone's right to have affordable housing" liberal meme caused mortgage lenders to provide high-risk mortgages. Who and how do you decide what's "affordable?" And I seem to remember some kind of "community re-investment" act that required lenders to make so many loans in such-and-such area.
But imagine if these lenders hadn't made these high-risk loans. The cries of "racism" and "red-lining" would have been raised at least as loudly (and by the same people, i.e. Jackson et al) as the cries of "racism" and "taking advantage" are being raised now.
There's more than one way to skin a bank.
@Indiana Joe:
June 23, 2008 - 10:30 ET by j. frank wilsonClearly you don't know anything about the lending industry. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) has been on the books for many, many years. And it is a regulatory requirement that makes a great deal of sense - banks and thrifts (do you know the difference between the two?) should loan money in the communities from which they gather deposits. All such loans are to be "safe and sound" - that's part of the law, as well.
High-risk (for the borrowers, not for the loan agents and brokers who originated them) home mortgage loans were not driven by community lending requirements. They were driven by greedy points-driven front people and an extraordinarily lax regulatory environment (another gift from the Republicans).
Do you understand that the unregulated hedge fund / overseas investment / "private money" market is greater today than the regulated stock market? Does that make sense to you? Thank Sen. McCain's economic advisor Phil Grahm for that one...
@J Frank
June 23, 2008 - 10:59 ET by bassndudeCommunity Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, under Jimmy Carter. Carter thought it was a good idea to. The CRA requries banks to meet the lending needs of the entire community. Clinton, in 1995 substantially increase the number of loans to small businesses and to low and moderate income borrowers for home loans. It was this inane act that created the subprime debacle. These newer acts in the CRA forces banks to loan to otherwise non credit worthy borrowers.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
@bassndude:
June 23, 2008 - 12:38 ET by j. frank wilsonIt always comes back to Clinton and Carter, doesn't it?
First of all, the concept that lenders must actually loan money in the communities from which they draw deposits is quite reasonable. It is also very good business. For a couple of years I made excellent loans in a Northern California city redlined (illegally, of course) by many lenders. They were all good loans, and we had the opportunity because many other lenders were bigots.
Are you seriously suggesting that a 1995 change in the law triggered the sub-prime debacle ten years later? That the revised CRA rose from the dead, zombie-like, to wreck havoc on the residential lending industry?
Where is the option-ARM and 4 points upfront mandated by CRA? Gee, I missed that Reg. while preparing for our most recent exam. Could you cite it for me?
No regulation on the books requires lenders to make bad loans. No Reg. permits it, let alone demands it. That's a remarkably stupid claim from someone who clearly has no understanding of the business.
Vintage 2005, 2006 and Q1-Q3 2007 home mortgages are imploding at a record pace. Show me where lenders were required to make these bad loans.
J Frank, anyone, and I mean
June 23, 2008 - 14:58 ET by bassndudeJ Frank, anyone, and I mean anyone that would sign a mortgage with anything like Adjustable Rate in it anywhere, has no business even looking for a loan. As for the 1995 changes in the CRA, that is exactly what they did. It required lenders to make loans to some of those who were bad risks. Any law that is made that dictates how one should spend their money is a bad law. The communities that deposit their money into these institutions, expect those institutions to keep their money safe and have the expectitation of making some intrest on their money. It used to be called a users fee, or a usury fee. Bad loans do just the opposite.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
@bassndude:
June 23, 2008 - 17:45 ET by j. frank wilsonPlease show us all where CRA requires lenders to make loans to people who are bad risks. I can't wait to read that. If it were true - and obviously it isn't - what did it take a dozen or more years for the chickens to come home to roost? You have yet to explain that one.
The concept of CRA is perfectly fair. Banks and thrifts gather deposits using federal deposit insurance (are you against that, as well?) - in turn, they are obliged to loan money in the communities that supply the funds. What the heck is wrong with that?
There is nothing wrong with an ARM loan. It is a tool - the right one for some people, the wrong one for others. If you need a hammer, a hammer is a wonderful thing to have. If you need a screwdriver, that doesn't make a hammer a bad tool - just the wrong tool.
Now, an option ARM with significant neg am probably isn't the right tool for very many borrowers - particularly if its a refi. But if a broker can pocket 3 or 4 points steering a client into one, and make at best a point for a 30-year fixed - I don't have to wonder which loan gets sold.
Fraud is fraud. Much of the sub-prime mess was created by fraud - fake rental agreements, false income information, false loan applications and appraisals, etc., etc. Did CRA mandate fraud as well?
But, back to the original point. I can't wait to read where CRA requires a federally-regulated lender to make bad loans...Next time I'm running an exam and OTS is due in this will make my job so much easier (actually it won't because (1.) you're full of bs and (2.) there is never a good time to make a bad loan). But I'm still looking forward to how you squirm and weasel out of this one...
1.) Read the original
June 23, 2008 - 18:02 ET by BD1.