People who make under $250,000 a year aren't really the biggest investors in the stock market. Considering how bad it is doing we need more investment, not less. I think he wants to raise the capital gains tax back up to 28%. That's stupid. When Bush cut it he doubled the revenue. Why raise it if you will take in less revenue? Oh wait..."Fairness" And while McCain won't balance the budget he will come closer than Obama.

 

 

 

I'd prefer some statistics to back up your first claim. Why would the wealthy cut down investment if cap gains went up? They'd still make money on any additional investment, just slightly less relative to under Bush. Obama only wants to raise cap gains by 5% anyway, not 13. Why would Obama raise cap gains? Simple, to finance his economy, especially the bailout at the moment. McCain's tax policies are unrealistic.

 

 

 

As for your budget claim, The Tax Policy Centre estimates that under McCain's tax plans the national debt would rise by $748 billion by 2018, and in contrast Obama's tax plans would reduce the debt by $748 billion. McCain's reckless borrowing would push up interest rates and crowd out productive private investment.

I think you are talking about the deficit not the debt. We are already projected to raise the debt like 2 trillion by 2018. McCain's plan would reduce revenues by like a trillion more but they would both decrease revenues. When you add spending onto that Obama will raise the deficit more than McCain. And if you raise the capital gains tax you take in less money. If you lower it, you take in more. It has been shown many times. Raising it would lower investment and in a time like this any tax increase at all is the opposite of what we need.

 

 

 

[hide=]

Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite. They would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. Moreover, with the credit crunch, the housing slump, and high energy prices weakening the U.S. economy, his proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession. It was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.

 

 

 

We are very concerned with Barack Obama's opposition to trade agreements such as the pending one with Colombia, the new one with Central America, or the established one with Canada and Mexico. Exports from the United States to other countries create jobs for Americans. Imports make goods available to Americans at lower prices and are a particular benefit to families and individuals with low incomes. International trade is also a powerful source of strength in a weak economy. In the second quarter of this year, for example, increased international trade did far more to stimulate the U.S. economy than the federal government's "stimulus" package.

 

 

 

Ironically, rather than supporting international trade, Barack Obama is now proposing yet another so-called stimulus package, which would do very little to grow the economy. And his proposal to finance the package with higher taxes on oil would raise oil prices directly and by reducing exploration and production.

 

 

 

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

 

 

 

After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

 

 

 

In sum, Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience.

 

 

 

Robert Barro, Harvard University

 

 

 

Gary Becker, University of Chicago

 

 

 

Sanjai Bhagat, University of Colorado

 

 

 

Michael Block, University of Arizona

 

 

 

Brock Blomberg, Claremont-McKenna University

 

 

 

Michael Bordo, Rutgers University

 

 

 

Michael Boskin, Stanford University

 

 

 

Ike Brannon, McCain-Palin 2008

 

 

 

James Buchanan, George Mason University

 

 

 

Todd Buchholtz, Two Oceans Fund

 

 

 

Charles Calomiris, Columbia University

 

 

 

Jim Carter, Vienna VA

 

 

 

Barry Chiswick, University of Illinois at Chicago

 

 

 

John Cogan, Hoover Institution

 

 

 

Kathleen Cooper, Southern Methodist University

 

 

 

Ted Covey, McLean VA

 

 

 

Dan Crippen, former CBO Director

 

 

 

Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt

 

 

 

Steve Davis, University of Chicago

 

 

 

Christopher DeMuth, American Enterprise Institute

 

 

 

William Dewald, Ohio State University

 

 

 

Frank Diebold, University of Pennsylvania

 

 

 

Isaac Ehrlich, State University of New York at Buffalo

 

 

 

Paul Evans, Ohio State University

 

 

 

Dan Feenberg, NBER

 

 

 

Martin Feldstein, Harvard University

 

 

 

Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University

 

 

 

Kristin Forbes, MIT

 

 

 

Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University

 

 

 

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Hudson Institute

 

 

 

Paul Gregory, University of Houston

 

 

 

Earl Grinols, Baylor University

 

 

 

Rik Hafer, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

 

 

 

Gary Hansen, UCLA

 

 

 

Eric Hanushek, Hoover Institutions

 

 

 

Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute

 

 

 

Arlene Holen, Technology Policy Institute

 

 

 

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain-Palin 2008

 

 

 

Glenn Hubbard, Columbia University

 

 

 

Owen Irvine, Michigan State University

 

 

 

Mike Jensen, Harvard University

 

 

 

Steven Kaplan, University of Chicago

 

 

 

Robert King, Boston University

 

 

 

Meir Kohn, Dartmouth

 

 

 

Marvin Kosters, American Enterprise Institute

 

 

 

Anne Krueger, Johns Hopkins University

 

 

 

Phil Levy, American Enterprise Institute

 

 

 

Larry Lindsey, The Lindsey Group

 

 

 

Paul W. MacAvoy. Yale University

 

 

 

John Makin, American Enterprise Institute

 

 

 

Burton Malkiel, Princeton University

 

 

 

Bennett McCallum, Carnegie-Mellon University

 

 

 

Paul McCracken, University of Michigan

 

 

 

Will Melick, Kenyon College

 

 

 

Allan Meltzer, Carnegie-Mellon University

 

 

 

Enrique Mendoza, University of Maryland

 

 

 

Jim Miller, George Mason University

 

 

 

Michael Moore, George Washington University

 

 

 

Robert Mundell, Columbia University

 

 

 

Tim Muris, George Mason University

 

 

 

Kevin Murphy, University of Chicago

 

 

 

Richard Muth, Emory University

 

 

 

Charles Nelson, University of Washington

 

 

 

Bill Niskanen, Cato Institute

 

 

 

June O'Neill, Baruch College, CUNY

 

 

 

Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University

 

 

 

Steve Parente, University of Minnesota

 

 

 

William Poole, University of Delaware

 

 

 

Michael Porter, Harvard University

 

 

 

Barry Poulson, University of Colorado, Boulder

 

 

 

Edward Prescott, Arizona State University

 

 

 

Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard University

 

 

 

Richard Roll, UCLA

 

 

 

Harvey Rosen, Princeton University

 

 

 

Robert Rossana, Wayne State University

 

 

 

Mark Rush, University of Florida

 

 

 

Tom Saving, Texas A&M University

 

 

 

Anna Schwartz, NBER

 

 

 

George Shultz, Stanford University

 

 

 

Chester Spatt, Carnegie-Mellon University

 

 

 

David Spencer, Brigham Young University

 

 

 

Beryl Sprinkle, Former Chair Council of Economic Advisers

 

 

 

Houston Stokes, University of Illinois in Chicago

 

 

 

Robert Tamura, Clemson University

 

 

 

Jack Tatum, Indiana State University

 

 

 

John Taylor, Stanford University

 

 

 

Richard Vedder, Ohio University

 

 

 

William B. Walstad, University of Nebraska

 

 

 

Murray Weidenbaum, Washington University in St. Louis

 

 

 

Arnold Zellner, University of Chicago

[/hide]

I think you are talking about the deficit not the debt. We are already projected to raise the debt like 2 trillion by 2018. McCain's plan would reduce revenues by like a trillion more but they would both decrease revenues. When you add spending onto that Obama will raise the deficit more than McCain. And if you raise the capital gains tax you take in less money. If you lower it, you take in more. It has been shown many times. Raising it would lower investment and in a time like this any tax increase at all is the opposite of what we need.

 

 

 

[hide=]

Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite. They would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. Moreover, with the credit crunch, the housing slump, and high energy prices weakening the U.S. economy, his proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession. It was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.

 

 

 

We are very concerned with Barack Obama's opposition to trade agreements such as the pending one with Colombia, the new one with Central America, or the established one with Canada and Mexico. Exports from the United States to other countries create jobs for Americans. Imports make goods available to Americans at lower prices and are a particular benefit to families and individuals with low incomes. International trade is also a powerful source of strength in a weak economy. In the second quarter of this year, for example, increased international trade did far more to stimulate the U.S. economy than the federal government's "stimulus" package.

 

 

 

Ironically, rather than supporting international trade, Barack Obama is now proposing yet another so-called stimulus package, which would do very little to grow the economy. And his proposal to finance the package with higher taxes on oil would raise oil prices directly and by reducing exploration and production.

 

 

 

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

 

 

 

After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

 

 

 

In sum, Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience.

 

 

 

Robert Barro, Harvard University

 

 

 

Gary Becker, University of Chicago

 

 

 

Sanjai Bhagat, University of Colorado

 

 

 

Michael Block, University of Arizona

 

 

 

Brock Blomberg, Claremont-McKenna University

 

 

 

Michael Bordo, Rutgers University

 

 

 

Michael Boskin, Stanford University

 

 

 

Ike Brannon, McCain-Palin 2008

 

 

 

James Buchanan, George Mason University

 

 

 

Todd Buchholtz, Two Oceans Fund

 

 

 

Charles Calomiris, Columbia University

 

 

 

Jim Carter, Vienna VA

 

 

 

Barry Chiswick, University of Illinois at Chicago

 

 

 

John Cogan, Hoover Institution

 

 

 

Kathleen Cooper, Southern Methodist University

 

 

 

Ted Covey, McLean VA

 

 

 

Dan Crippen, former CBO Director

 

 

 

Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt

 

 

 

Steve Davis, University of Chicago

 

 

 

Christopher DeMuth, American Enterprise Institute

 

 

 

William Dewald, Ohio State University

 

 

 

Frank Diebold, University of Pennsylvania

 

 

 

Isaac Ehrlich, State University of New York at Buffalo

 

 

 

Paul Evans, Ohio State University

 

 

 

Dan Feenberg, NBER

 

 

 

Martin Feldstein, Harvard University

 

 

 

Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University

 

 

 

Kristin Forbes, MIT

 

 

 

Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University

 

 

 

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Hudson Institute

 

 

 

Paul Gregory, University of Houston

 

 

 

Earl Grinols, Baylor University

 

 

 

Rik Hafer, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

 

 

 

Gary Hansen, UCLA

 

 

 

Eric Hanushek, Hoover Institutions

 

 

 

Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute

 

 

 

Arlene Holen, Technology Policy Institute

 

 

 

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain-Palin 2008

 

 

 

Glenn Hubbard, Columbia University

 

 

 

Owen Irvine, Michigan State University

 

 

 

Mike Jensen, Harvard University

 

 

 

Steven Kaplan, University of Chicago

 

 

 

Robert King, Boston University

 

 

 

Meir Kohn, Dartmouth

 

 

 

Marvin Kosters, American Enterprise Institute

 

 

 

Anne Krueger, Johns Hopkins University

 

 

 

Phil Levy, American Enterprise Institute

 

 

 

Larry Lindsey, The Lindsey Group

 

 

 

Paul W. MacAvoy. Yale University

 

 

 

John Makin, American Enterprise Institute

 

 

 

Burton Malkiel, Princeton University

 

 

 

Bennett McCallum, Carnegie-Mellon University

 

 

 

Paul McCracken, University of Michigan

 

 

 

Will Melick, Kenyon College

 

 

 

Allan Meltzer, Carnegie-Mellon University

 

 

 

Enrique Mendoza, University of Maryland

 

 

 

Jim Miller, George Mason University

 

 

 

Michael Moore, George Washington University

 

 

 

Robert Mundell, Columbia University

 

 

 

Tim Muris, George Mason University

 

 

 

Kevin Murphy, University of Chicago

 

 

 

Richard Muth, Emory University

 

 

 

Charles Nelson, University of Washington

 

 

 

Bill Niskanen, Cato Institute

 

 

 

June O'Neill, Baruch College, CUNY

 

 

 

Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University

 

 

 

Steve Parente, University of Minnesota

 

 

 

William Poole, University of Delaware

 

 

 

Michael Porter, Harvard University

 

 

 

Barry Poulson, University of Colorado, Boulder

 

 

 

Edward Prescott, Arizona State University

 

 

 

Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard University

 

 

 

Richard Roll, UCLA

 

 

 

Harvey Rosen, Princeton University

 

 

 

Robert Rossana, Wayne State University

 

 

 

Mark Rush, University of Florida

 

 

 

Tom Saving, Texas A&M University

 

 

 

Anna Schwartz, NBER

 

 

 

George Shultz, Stanford University

 

 

 

Chester Spatt, Carnegie-Mellon University

 

 

 

David Spencer, Brigham Young University

 

 

 

Beryl Sprinkle, Former Chair Council of Economic Advisers

 

 

 

Houston Stokes, University of Illinois in Chicago

 

 

 

Robert Tamura, Clemson University

 

 

 

Jack Tatum, Indiana State University

 

 

 

John Taylor, Stanford University

 

 

 

Richard Vedder, Ohio University

 

 

 

William B. Walstad, University of Nebraska

 

 

 

Murray Weidenbaum, Washington University in St. Louis

 

 

 

Arnold Zellner, University of Chicago

[/hide]

 

Does it matter? As said, the differences between them are so minor in the scheme of things there really is no tangible difference.

 

 

 

Unless you're saying McCain would have removed a bank's right to lend to whoever they want (i.e., not allow them to give mortgages to people who can't afford to repay them), the sub-prime mortgage collapse would have happened with or without him. Unless you're saying he believes in state intervention to oversee and prevent crises like this happening again, the economy would have gone into recession with or without him. Same goes for Obama.

 

 

 

It seems daft you think McCain would have been any better in this situation when this was a systemic problem inside the financial sector - a sector he's repeatedly been uncomfortable with talking about state intervention with.

I laugh at Mccains idea that Obama will raise taxes on everyone although false, and the dumb[cabbage] republicans that think "o cuz he sed it its right lol obama is a terorst."

I laugh at Mccains idea that Obama will raise taxes on everyone although false, and the [cabbage] republicans that think "o cuz he sed it its right lol obama is a terorst."

 

He will be raising taxes though, gotta pay for that huge government ;)

I think you are talking about the deficit not the debt. We are already projected to raise the debt like 2 trillion by 2018. McCain's plan would reduce revenues by like a trillion more but they would both decrease revenues. When you add spending onto that Obama will raise the deficit more than McCain. And if you raise the capital gains tax you take in less money. If you lower it, you take in more. It has been shown many times. Raising it would lower investment and in a time like this any tax increase at all is the opposite of what we need.

 

 

 

[hide=]

Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite. They would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. Moreover, with the credit crunch, the housing slump, and high energy prices weakening the U.S. economy, his proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession. It was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.

 

 

 

We are very concerned with Barack Obama's opposition to trade agreements such as the pending one with Colombia, the new one with Central America, or the established one with Canada and Mexico. Exports from the United States to other countries create jobs for Americans. Imports make goods available to Americans at lower prices and are a particular benefit to families and individuals with low incomes. International trade is also a powerful source of strength in a weak economy. In the second quarter of this year, for example, increased international trade did far more to stimulate the U.S. economy than the federal government's "stimulus" package.

 

 

 

Ironically, rather than supporting international trade, Barack Obama is now proposing yet another so-called stimulus package, which would do very little to grow the economy. And his proposal to finance the package with higher taxes on oil would raise oil prices directly and by reducing exploration and production.

 

 

 

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

 

 

 

After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

 

 

 

In sum, Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience.

 

 

 

Robert Barro, Harvard University

 

 

 

Gary Becker, University of Chicago

 

 

 

Sanjai Bhagat, University of Colorado

 

 

 

Michael Block, University of Arizona

 

 

 

Brock Blomberg, Claremont-McKenna University

 

 

 

Michael Bordo, Rutgers University

 

 

 

Michael Boskin, Stanford University

 

 

 

Ike Brannon, McCain-Palin 2008

 

 

 

James Buchanan, George Mason University

 

 

 

Todd Buchholtz, Two Oceans Fund

 

 

 

Charles Calomiris, Columbia University

 

 

 

Jim Carter, Vienna VA

 

 

 

Barry Chiswick, University of Illinois at Chicago

 

 

 

John Cogan, Hoover Institution

 

 

 

Kathleen Cooper, Southern Methodist University

 

 

 

Ted Covey, McLean VA

 

 

 

Dan Crippen, former CBO Director

 

 

 

Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt

 

 

 

Steve Davis, University of Chicago

 

 

 

Christopher DeMuth, American Enterprise Institute

 

 

 

William Dewald, Ohio State University

 

 

 

Frank Diebold, University of Pennsylvania

 

 

 

Isaac Ehrlich, State University of New York at Buffalo

 

 

 

Paul Evans, Ohio State University

 

 

 

Dan Feenberg, NBER

 

 

 

Martin Feldstein, Harvard University

 

 

 

Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University

 

 

 

Kristin Forbes, MIT

 

 

 

Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University

 

 

 

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Hudson Institute

 

 

 

Paul Gregory, University of Houston

 

 

 

Earl Grinols, Baylor University

 

 

 

Rik Hafer, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

 

 

 

Gary Hansen, UCLA

 

 

 

Eric Hanushek, Hoover Institutions

 

 

 

Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute

 

 

 

Arlene Holen, Technology Policy Institute

 

 

 

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain-Palin 2008

 

 

 

Glenn Hubbard, Columbia University

 

 

 

Owen Irvine, Michigan State University

 

 

 

Mike Jensen, Harvard University

 

 

 

Steven Kaplan, University of Chicago

 

 

 

Robert King, Boston University

 

 

 

Meir Kohn, Dartmouth

 

 

 

Marvin Kosters, American Enterprise Institute

 

 

 

Anne Krueger, Johns Hopkins University

 

 

 

Phil Levy, American Enterprise Institute

 

 

 

Larry Lindsey, The Lindsey Group

 

 

 

Paul W. MacAvoy. Yale University

 

 

 

John Makin, American Enterprise Institute

 

 

 

Burton Malkiel, Princeton University

 

 

 

Bennett McCallum, Carnegie-Mellon University

 

 

 

Paul McCracken, University of Michigan

 

 

 

Will Melick, Kenyon College

 

 

 

Allan Meltzer, Carnegie-Mellon University

 

 

 

Enrique Mendoza, University of Maryland

 

 

 

Jim Miller, George Mason University

 

 

 

Michael Moore, George Washington University

 

 

 

Robert Mundell, Columbia University

 

 

 

Tim Muris, George Mason University

 

 

 

Kevin Murphy, University of Chicago

 

 

 

Richard Muth, Emory University

 

 

 

Charles Nelson, University of Washington

 

 

 

Bill Niskanen, Cato Institute

 

 

 

June O'Neill, Baruch College, CUNY

 

 

 

Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University

 

 

 

Steve Parente, University of Minnesota

 

 

 

William Poole, University of Delaware

 

 

 

Michael Porter, Harvard University

 

 

 

Barry Poulson, University of Colorado, Boulder

 

 

 

Edward Prescott, Arizona State University

 

 

 

Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard University

 

 

 

Richard Roll, UCLA

 

 

 

Harvey Rosen, Princeton University

 

 

 

Robert Rossana, Wayne State University

 

 

 

Mark Rush, University of Florida

 

 

 

Tom Saving, Texas A&M University

 

 

 

Anna Schwartz, NBER

 

 

 

George Shultz, Stanford University

 

 

 

Chester Spatt, Carnegie-Mellon University

 

 

 

David Spencer, Brigham Young University

 

 

 

Beryl Sprinkle, Former Chair Council of Economic Advisers

 

 

 

Houston Stokes, University of Illinois in Chicago

 

 

 

Robert Tamura, Clemson University

 

 

 

Jack Tatum, Indiana State University

 

 

 

John Taylor, Stanford University

 

 

 

Richard Vedder, Ohio University

 

 

 

William B. Walstad, University of Nebraska

 

 

 

Murray Weidenbaum, Washington University in St. Louis

 

 

 

Arnold Zellner, University of Chicago

[/hide]

 

Does it matter? As said, the differences between them are so minor in the scheme of things there really is no tangible difference.

 

 

 

Unless you're saying McCain would have removed a bank's right to lend to whoever they want (i.e., not allow them to give mortgages to people who can't afford to repay them), the sub-prime mortgage collapse would have happened with or without him. Unless you're saying he believes in state intervention to oversee and prevent crises like this happening again, the economy would have gone into recession with or without him. Same goes for Obama.

 

 

 

It seems daft you think McCain would have been any better in this situation when this was a systemic problem inside the financial sector - a sector he's repeatedly been uncomfortable with talking about state intervention with.

 

 

 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises. It is because of them and laws like the community reinvestment act which was changed under Bill Clinton and had them encouraging loans to people who shouldn't be getting them. They knew if they needed it they would be bailed out. The President himself warned 17 times about what was coming. Congressional democrats blocked any move to increase oversight of them. McCain himself co-sponsored legislation to regulate them.

 

 

 

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973

 

 

 

And it also matters where we go from here. Do we raise taxes on business and the rich even though it will cost jobs and discourage investment?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is Hilarious. Especially the last guy.

 

 

 

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/ ... ut/727521/

It is because of them and laws like the community reinvestment act which was changed under Bill Clinton and had them encouraging loans to people who shouldn't be getting them. They knew if they needed it they would be bailed out. The President himself warned 17 times about what was coming. Congressional democrats blocked any move to increase oversight of them. McCain himself co-sponsored legislation to regulate them.

 

 

 

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973

 

So you're effectively blaming Bill Clinton for this mess? Ahh shock, he's a Democrat. Didn't see that coming.

 

 

 

The Republicans had control of the White House and Congress for four years. The Democrats were no where in sight. If Bush was as much of a prophet as you claim, why didn't he change the system? He had ample opportunity to do so.

 

 

 

I don't personally blame any specific person or group of people for this. I blame the thinking over the past 20 years that free market privatisation is always the best option, and if you want anyone to blame for that, blame Thatcher.

 

 

 

I also point to the number of Republicans in the bail-out vote who felt ideologically uncomfortable with the state getting involved in the banking sector. Do you wish to blame their reluctance on the Democrats as well?

 

 

 

And it also matters where we go from here. Do we raise taxes on business and the rich even though it will cost jobs and discourage investment?

 

The US has gone about this all wrong. Gordon Brown seems to have chosen the right option, and the rest of Europe seems to be following suit. Part-nationalise the banks. If they're such a vital part of the economic structure of capitalism, and they're at the verge of collapse, then the state should take over. With the state's weight behind the banks, confidence improves, and shares rise. When things are better, you sell the shares off. Maybe for a loss, maybe for a profit, but no where near the $700B mark.

 

 

 

I was never a fan of trickle-down economics. You'll seldom meet many people in Europe who are. They are grossly inadequate for the poorer classes, which constitute the majority of a population in any truly capitalist state.

I'm not sure whether this is of interest to anyone, but I suppose it's topical.

 

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 09?sp=true

 

 

 

Canada has the world's soundest banking system, closely followed by Sweden, Luxembourg and Australia, a survey by the World Economic Forum has found as financial crisis and bank failures shake world markets.

 

...

 

 

 

...The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report based its findings on opinions of executives, and handed banks a score between 1.0 (insolvent and possibly requiring a government bailout) and 7.0 (healthy, with sound balance sheets).

 

 

 

Canadian banks received 6.8, just ahead of Sweden (6.7), Luxembourg (6.7), Australia (6.7) and Denmark (6.7).

So, according to the executive partner of Slaughter and May, the current financial situation has led to a massive increase in the need for lawyers.

 

 

 

Suddenly, I'm not viewing this as a uni-laterally bad thing anymore O:)

Couldn't we just get rid of currency altogether and instead of working for money, you work for tokens that you can trade for whatever.

Couldn't we just get rid of currency altogether and instead of working for money, you work for tokens that you can trade for whatever.

 

Epic contradiction is epic.

 

 

 

You basically said we should get rid of currency to use currency instead. Wat

At least with the messed up economy, gas prices are going down. I drive 550 miles to wrok everyday and it kills on gas.

 

 

 

Really?

 

 

 

I haven't seen the effects of this yet, as my city is one of the most affluent in the state, but I'm sure it will start soon. My worry at the moment is whether I'll be able to get loans from banks for college. Does anyone know the state of that? I was under the impression that banks don't make that much from college loans anyway, but if it's going to be a problem I would like to know.

 

 

 

If you live in the U.K. you will defiantly get a loan for uni as it is done partly through the goverment. I'm not sure how it works in the U.S. if you live there.

I know i'm probably not really following the discussion BUT:

 

 

 

>>DONT<< invest with the aid of banks, or even expensive brokers. ALL banks are crooks, it's sad to say but they are, and good brokers are expensive because they give advice. Now, if you learned the basics about the economy and stock market, you can get yourself a discount broker online to deal with you. Alongside my brother's friend who is in finance (he pretty much knows the Canadian economy inside-out), i'm investing $7k in 60$ stocks 40% bonds and leaving it there for the minimum 8 years.

 

 

 

Now, to make my stocks raise in price... EVERYONE GO BUY STOCKS NOW THEY ARE LOOOOOOOOOWWWW!!! :thumbsup:

 

:thumbup:

It is because of them and laws like the community reinvestment act which was changed under Bill Clinton and had them encouraging loans to people who shouldn't be getting them. They knew if they needed it they would be bailed out. The President himself warned 17 times about what was coming. Congressional democrats blocked any move to increase oversight of them. McCain himself co-sponsored legislation to regulate them.

 

 

 

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973

 

So you're effectively blaming Bill Clinton for this mess? Ahh shock, he's a Democrat. Didn't see that coming.

 

 

 

The Republicans had control of the White House and Congress for four years. The Democrats were no where in sight. If Bush was as much of a prophet as you claim, why didn't he change the system? He had ample opportunity to do so.

 

 

 

I don't personally blame any specific person or group of people for this. I blame the thinking over the past 20 years that free market privatisation is always the best option, and if you want anyone to blame for that, blame Thatcher.

 

 

 

I also point to the number of Republicans in the bail-out vote who felt ideologically uncomfortable with the state getting involved in the banking sector. Do you wish to blame their reluctance on the Democrats as well?

 

 

 

And it also matters where we go from here. Do we raise taxes on business and the rich even though it will cost jobs and discourage investment?

 

The US has gone about this all wrong. Gordon Brown seems to have chosen the right option, and the rest of Europe seems to be following suit. Part-nationalise the banks. If they're such a vital part of the economic structure of capitalism, and they're at the verge of collapse, then the state should take over. With the state's weight behind the banks, confidence improves, and shares rise. When things are better, you sell the shares off. Maybe for a loss, maybe for a profit, but no where near the $700B mark.

 

 

 

I was never a fan of trickle-down economics. You'll seldom meet many people in Europe who are. They are grossly inadequate for the poorer classes, which constitute the majority of a population in any truly capitalist state.

 

I love Clinton but from what I understand it was his set up which set the course for this. But Bush had his hand at the wheel when the course should have been altered and he didn't...despite the warnings. So it was Bush's failure in the end.

It is because of them and laws like the community reinvestment act which was changed under Bill Clinton and had them encouraging loans to people who shouldn't be getting them. They knew if they needed it they would be bailed out. The President himself warned 17 times about what was coming. Congressional democrats blocked any move to increase oversight of them. McCain himself co-sponsored legislation to regulate them.

 

 

 

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973

 

So you're effectively blaming Bill Clinton for this mess? Ahh shock, he's a Democrat. Didn't see that coming.

 

 

 

The Republicans had control of the White House and Congress for four years. The Democrats were no where in sight. If Bush was as much of a prophet as you claim, why didn't he change the system? He had ample opportunity to do so.

 

 

 

I don't personally blame any specific person or group of people for this. I blame the thinking over the past 20 years that free market privatisation is always the best option, and if you want anyone to blame for that, blame Thatcher.

 

 

 

I also point to the number of Republicans in the bail-out vote who felt ideologically uncomfortable with the state getting involved in the banking sector. Do you wish to blame their reluctance on the Democrats as well?

 

 

 

And it also matters where we go from here. Do we raise taxes on business and the rich even though it will cost jobs and discourage investment?

 

The US has gone about this all wrong. Gordon Brown seems to have chosen the right option, and the rest of Europe seems to be following suit. Part-nationalise the banks. If they're such a vital part of the economic structure of capitalism, and they're at the verge of collapse, then the state should take over. With the state's weight behind the banks, confidence improves, and shares rise. When things are better, you sell the shares off. Maybe for a loss, maybe for a profit, but no where near the $700B mark.

 

 

 

I was never a fan of trickle-down economics. You'll seldom meet many people in Europe who are. They are grossly inadequate for the poorer classes, which constitute the majority of a population in any truly capitalist state.

 

 

 

I'm not blaming Clinton as much as Democrats. Clinton himself blames democrats.

[Democrats had been]resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

 

 

 

They were the ones who resisted regulation in this case. The Democrats in the House and Senate blocked any attempt to try to regulate them more.

These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.

And it wasn't de-regulation that caused this. It was the community reinvestment act, along with groups like ACORN who fought for these risky loans. ACORN would go into banks with bags of pennies, get in line and get them counted into dollars. Then they would get back in line and get the dollars back into pennies. All to get banks to give out risky loans.

 

 

 

 

 

President Bush did warn numerous times. [hide=]Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

 

 

 

2001

 

 

 

* April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

 

 

 

2002

 

 

 

* May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

 

 

 

2003

 

 

 

* February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

 

 

 

 

 

* September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

 

 

 

 

 

* September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)

 

 

 

 

 

* October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

 

 

 

 

 

* November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

 

 

 

2004

 

 

 

* February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

 

 

 

 

 

* February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

 

 

 

 

 

* April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)

 

 

 

 

 

* June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

 

 

 

2005

 

 

 

* April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

 

 

 

 

 

* July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

 

 

 

2007

 

 

 

* August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)

 

 

 

 

 

* August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)

 

 

 

 

 

* December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

 

 

 

2008

 

 

 

* February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

 

 

 

 

 

* March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

 

 

 

 

 

* April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

 

 

 

 

 

* May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

 

 

 

o "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

 

 

 

 

 

o "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that and Congress is making progress on this is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

 

 

 

 

 

o "Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

 

 

 

* June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

 

 

 

 

 

* July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

 

 

 

 

 

* September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)[/hide]

 

 

 

And cutting taxes for everyone isn't really trickle down economics. The Bush tax cuts actually put more of the tax burden on the rich. Under Bush the top 1% of earners went from paying 33% of all taxes to paying like 40% of all taxes.

Also to clarrify, the word "tax cut(s)" can be decieving, it's not just free money. The gov't will basically say to large companies "Hey, we'll give you guys tax cuts/breaks, but first you gotta do some stuff." And the companies will have to say lower carbon emissions from their plants, do community stuff, give stuff to charity to earn the tax breaks, not just free money.