The Clintons: The gift that keeps on giving

[SnakeBoy]

Clinton blames dems for financial mess. :lmao

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/25/fox-news-blames-democrats-financial-crisis-bill-clinton-agrees

Going very much against the media meme that the current financial crisis is all George W. Bush and the Republicans' fault, Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC's Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have 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"

Major Clinton supporter will be working to deliver hispanic vote for McCain
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122179087917055511.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



How long before the Clintons just come out and endorse McCain? They might as well since it's clear they want him to win. Maybe that will be the big October suprise this election.

[whottt]

The won't directly endorse him under any circumstances just like they won't leave the Democratic Party under any circumstances.

[hitmanyr2k]

Clinton blames dems for financial mess. :lmao

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/25/fox-news-blames-democrats-financial-crisis-bill-clinton-agrees

ANGLE: And so shaky mortgages spread throughout the system. But in 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then chaired by Republican Richard Shelby, tried to rein in the two organizations bypassing some strong new regulations.

WALLISON: Which would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring this bad -- these bad mortgages. It actually gave a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie the kinds of powers that a bank regulator had.

ANGLE: All the Republicans voted for it. All the Democrats, including the current chairman, Senator Chris Dodd, voted against it, and that was after Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had issued a stark warning to senators that Fannie and Freddie were playing with fire. Greenspan said without stronger regulations, "We increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis. Without restrictions on the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States."


Republicans were foolish to vote for this bill. And they don't mention that the Bush administration opposed it because it was weak...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-1/hr1461sap-h.pdf


The Administration has long called for legislation to create a stronger, more effective regulatory regime to improve oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks ("housing government-sponsored enterprises" or "housing GSEs") and appreciates the considerable efforts of Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker in crafting H.R. 1461. However, H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large. As a result, the Administration opposes the bill.

The regulatory regime envisioned by H.R. 1461 is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions. This regime is of particular concern given that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently hold only about half of the capital of comparable financial institutions. In order for a financial regulator to be respected and credible, it must have the authority and ability to adjust capital requirements of the institutions it oversees as circumstances dictate to ensure prudential operations. An effective oversight regime must also provide for clear review of business activities to ensure the integrity of the housing finance system and consistency with the GSEs' housing mission. The Administration does not believe that the housing GSEs should be exempt from these important standards of world-class regulation.


In other words this bill was a toothless, flawed, giveaway to GSEs. It was right up Fannie and Freddie's alley. To give specifics this bill expanded the maximum loan amount to allow the GSEs to take over the jumbo market. It still mandated affordable housing funds. The bill neither increased capital requirements nor set a cap on portfolio size. Fannie and Freddie could continue to grow their portfolios to cook the books on their earnings. Their new regulator wouldn't have much more say than the old one and they'd get a full year without anyone looking over their shoulders. Completely worthless. Even the Bush administration saw how silly this bill was.

[Supergirl]

Republicans sure don't read too good. Just because Clinton can put the blame on multiple people doesn't mean he's saying it's "all the Democrats fault." It's certainly as much McSame's fault since he's been in office for all these years while economics of deregulation have been happening.

[BRHornet45]

Republicans sure don't read too good. Just because Clinton can put the blame on multiple people doesn't mean he's saying it's "all the Democrats fault." It's certainly as much McSame's fault since he's been in office for all these years while economics of deregulation have been happening.


shutup butch

[George Gervin's Afro]

We can thank the GOP and George W Bush for the economy today! We need more of this so let's all vote GOP!

[florige]

Why won't Clinton just go ahead and start wearing a McCain/Palin for president t-shirt and save us his famous quotes of how great McCain is....:rolleyes

[101A]

We can thank the GOP and George W Bush for the economy today! We need more of this so let's all vote GOP!

Is that how I should make up my mind?

O.K, I will. I've got a good job, make quite a bit more than I did when Clinton was President, AND I pay lower taxes on what I do make. The GOP, therefore, is great.

But wait, I made more under Clinton, a lot more, than I did under George's dad. I need to vote for the Democrat.

Fuck. Now I'm confused.

Maybe, I make my own way in the World; and create my own success no matter who the fuck is in the White House. Maybe just about everybody else is the same fucking way.

I think I'm gonna choose the candidate who I feel is most likely NOT going to get in my way.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Is that how I should make up my mind?

O.K, I will. I've got a good job, make quite a bit more than I did when Clinton was President, AND I pay lower taxes on what I do make. The GOP, therefore, is great.

But wait, I made more under Clinton, a lot more, than I did under George's dad. I need to vote for the Democrat.

Fuck. Now I'm confused.

Maybe, I make my own way in the World; and create my own success no matter who the fuck is in the White House. Maybe just about everybody else is the same fucking way.

I think I'm gonna choose the candidate who I feel is most likely NOT going to get in my way.

As everything collapses around you. So if everything else in the economy goes to shit wouldn't that affect you at least indirectly?

[Anti.Hero]

As everything collapses around you. So if everything else in the economy goes to shit wouldn't that affect you at least indirectly?

Are you saying Obama would save the economy/nation?

[101A]

As everything collapses around you. So if everything else in the economy goes to shit wouldn't that affect you at least indirectly?

Seriously, what is "collapsing around me?"

Maybe around you. My friends and business associates are doing fine; none the deals I have working with existing or potential clients are in jeopardy in any way. What happens in November effects my pocket book only so far as the tax code changes, frankly. I am not in a high enough bracket to get seriously soaked; nor do I suspect, is any one else on this board (there are a couple I suspect, however).

So what is crumbling, other than some financial institutions on WalStreet? Stop watching the news and look outside.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Are you saying Obama would save the economy/nation?

What I am asking is, can we afford 4 more years of what got us into this mess? I guess with Obama he 'could' do better or worse but we know it won't be more of the same.

[Anti.Hero]

Would it be more of the same?

[2centsworth]

Republicans sure don't read too good. Just because Clinton can put the blame on multiple people doesn't mean he's saying it's "all the Democrats fault." It's certainly as much McSame's fault since he's been in office for all these years while economics of deregulation have been happening.

don't believe the talking points. It was all about housing for minorities and lower income individuals. A good cause, but poorly implemented. So we messed up, who gives a darn, our country will do better later. People act like we won't make mistakes. It's not learning from your mistakes that's the problem.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Would it be more of the same?

Sen McCain is running on George Bush's/ Conservative economic platform so I'd say YEA!

[2centsworth]

Sen McCain is running on George Bush's/ Conservative economic platform so I'd say YEA!


you're giving me clarity on how dumb boths sides can be.

[101A]

Sen McCain is running on George Bush's/ Conservative economic platform so I'd say YEA!

Do you only get your news from Obama adds?

McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent; Obama wants to give MORE tax cuts. What, exactly, is the "George Bush/Conservative economic platform" that "got us into this mess".

Be specific.

What policies that Bush had, and that McCain is going to continue, and that Obama wants to change, SPECIFICALLY caused this, and will cause it to continue.

[Anti.Hero]

Sen McCain is running on George Bush's/ Conservative economic platform so I'd say YEA!


Best Case Scenario, he wins, does 4 mo years 4 mo years...kills off the republican party...then real conservatives step in after a couple decades of failed liberal ideologies.

[2centsworth]

Do you only get your news from Obama adds?

McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent; Obama wants to give MORE tax cuts. What, exactly, is the "George Bush/Conservative economic platform" that "got us into this mess".

Be specific.

What policies that Bush had, and that McCain is going to continue, and that Obama wants to change, SPECIFICALLY caused this, and will cause it to continue.

do you know if we do not significantly increase our tax revenue our national debt and budget deficit will come crashing down on you? Paying a little more now or paying a little less now leads us to the same result, apocolyptic devestation. Our politicians are a joke.

I think we're headed into a free-for-all. Get what you can while you can.
I will get as many houses bought, sold, and rented with as much government assistance as possible.

[101A]

do you know if we do not significantly increase our tax revenue our national debt and budget deficit will come crashing down on you? Paying a little more now or paying a little less now leads us to the same result, apocolyptic devestation. Our politicians are a joke.

I think we're headed into a free-for-all. Get what you can while you can.
I will get as many houses bought, sold, and rented with as much government assistance as possible.

And Obama is giving 95% of Americans a tax cut, which he is taking from 5%. No net increase to the treasury.

He is also going to implement a universal healthcare plan, give a huge education credit, and I think childcare, as well as several other new programs.

Deficit is the big problem?

O.K. Good luck with that.

[Yonivore]

do you know if we do not significantly increase our tax revenue our national debt and budget deficit will come crashing down on you? Paying a little more now or paying a little less now leads us to the same result, apocolyptic devestation. Our politicians are a joke.

I think we're headed into a free-for-all. Get what you can while you can.
I will get as many houses bought, sold, and rented with as much government assistance as possible.
Hey 2cents, the Bush tax cuts have actually increased federal revenues exponentially.

The only thing that will solve a budget/debt problem is to cut spending...raising taxes only decreases revenues.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Do you only get your news from Obama adds?

McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent; Obama wants to give MORE tax cuts. What, exactly, is the "George Bush/Conservative economic platform" that "got us into this mess".

Be specific.

What policies that Bush had, and that McCain is going to continue, and that Obama wants to change, SPECIFICALLY caused this, and will cause it to continue.

Uh No. I can barely stomach Obama you moron. Mr Obama wants to rescind tax cuts for the upper echelon on the tax bracket. He wants to cut taxas for middle income families. Now I understand that the middle income families pay less in taxes as compared the upper tax bracket but with the additonal money people will have more money to spend. Will the upper income bracket stop investing? Strop trying to make money? I don't think so.

[101A]

Hey 2cents, the Bush tax cuts have actually increased federal revenues exponentially.

The only thing that will solve a budget/debt problem is to cut spending...raising taxes only decreases revenues.


Yoni, I'm as conservative as the next guy, but I haven't found a ton of proof for that. If you can find a link to the data, please post it. Let's not let this current discussion devolve into a debate on supply-side economics.

[101A]

Uh No. I can barely stomach Obama you moron. Mr Obama wants to rescind tax cuts for the upper echelon on the tax bracket. He wants to cut taxas for middle income families. Now I understand that the middle income families pay less in taxes as compared the upper tax bracket but with the additonal money people will have more money to spend. Will the upper income bracket stop investing? Strop trying to make money? I don't think so.

How much more $1,000 per year per family? Is THAT gonna make a HUGE difference on the economy? The stimulus package, which was more than that for many - and didn't take from any, sure didn't. My point is neither plan is going to affect me personally.

[Yonivore]

Yoni, I'm as conservative as the next guy, but I haven't found a ton of proof for that. If you can find a link to the data, please post it. Let's not let this current discussion devolve into a debate on supply-side economics.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/images/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-Tax-Revenue.gif

http://taxprof.typepad.com/./photos/uncategorized/revenue20growth.jpg

[Shastafarian]

Link?

[Yonivore]

Link?
Here's one from the U. S. Treasury

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/docs/charts.pdf

The two charts I posted were from conservative-leaning blogs or websites. I wanted to find one from the source for you.

[Shastafarian]

Can you find me any confirmed correlation?

[Yonivore]

Can you find me any confirmed correlation?

A confirmed correlation with what? Tax rates were cut and revenues went up. You do remember bitching about the tax cuts, right?

[Shastafarian]

A confirmed correlation with what? Tax rates were cut and revenues went up.

A statistical correlation. You can't base an entire theory on such a small sample.

[2centsworth]

And Obama is giving 95% of Americans a tax cut, which he is taking from 5%. No net increase to the treasury.

He is also going to implement a universal healthcare plan, give a huge education credit, and I think childcare, as well as several other new programs.

Deficit is the big problem?

O.K. Good luck with that.

first, Obama is a socialist pig.

I agree with you we need to cut spending too.

However, lets look at the republican side. They talk the talk but we know they do not walk the walk. Now all of a sudden they are willing to try to show Americans they are fiscally conservatives, but at the sake of sending our economy into a tailspin. I promise you that will be a lot more expensive than any tax hike under Obama's plan.

Second, to cut spending we need to reign in health care expenditures. Now two ways of doing this. Cutting everyone off which we will not do, and morally we shouldn't do. So reducing the cost of medical treatment is the only feasible solution that I can see. The only way to do that is through a "ONE PAYOR" not "ONE PROVIDER". otherwise, adverse selection and the aging of the baby boomers will eat us alive.

third, we can not grow our way out of this. Reducing taxes is not the entire solution. Otherwise, we should cut them to 1%.

fourth, do you not see contradictions in the rhetoric as oppossed to the actions from the republicans?

[Yonivore]

A statistical correlation. You can't base an entire theory on such a small sample.
Sample? It's the Treasury's coffers, you idiot. That's what the took in, in taxes.

Bush signed off on tax cuts in 2003 and the federal till filled up to the tune of 2.4 trillion dollars...a record.

[Shastafarian]

Sample? It's the Treasury's coffers, you idiot. That's what the took in, in taxes.

Bush signed off on tax cuts in 2003 and the federal till filled up to the tune of 2.4 trillion dollars...a record.

I'll admit I don't know a whole lot about the economy. I'm asking if there is a correlation of cutting taxes to increased revenues. A correlation depends on a larger sample than just a few years.

[Yonivore]

I'll admit I don't know a whole lot about the economy. I'm asking if there is a correlation of cutting taxes to increased revenues. A correlation depends on a larger sample than just a few years.

Well, I'm not going to do your homework for you but, I'll point you in the right direction.

See Reagan tax cuts, Kennedy tax cuts, and the Laffer Curve. Google all three. Every time taxes have been cut, revenues have increased.

[101A]

first, Obama is a socialist pig.

I agree with you we need to cut spending too.

However, lets look at the republican side. They talk the talk but we know they do not walk the walk. Now all of a sudden they are willing to try to show Americans they are fiscally conservatives, but at the sake of sending our economy into a tailspin. I promise you that will be a lot more expensive than any tax hike under Obama's plan.

Second, to cut spending we need to reign in health care expenditures. Now two ways of doing this. Cutting everyone off which we will not do, and morally we shouldn't do. So reducing the cost of medical treatment is the only feasible solution that I can see. The only way to do that is through a "ONE PAYOR" not "ONE PROVIDER". otherwise, adverse selection and the aging of the baby boomers will eat us alive system.

third, we can not grow our way out of this. Reducing taxes is not the entire solution. Otherwise, we should cut them to 1%.

fourth, do you not see contradictions in the rhetoric as oppossed to the actions from the republicans?

I own a company that pays medical claims for a living. One Payor would not be me - or the thirty people I employ. If we make healthcare super-efficient, and reduce expenditures a great, great deal; where is that money coming from? Unless you are talking about a great many people taking pay cuts, you ARE talking about a great many people not having jobs in the health care industry, aren't you?

Trust me, the administration of a healthcare plan is not cheap, but it is small potatoes compared to what the actual cost of care is.

Administration of claims is about 15% of the total cost of the plan for our block (We process claims for about 15,000 people. I'm betting Medicaid/Medicaire are NOT as efficient as my company is. Now I am certainly biased, but a single payor system, since it will be run by the govt. will cost private sector jobs, and increase cost.

I will tell you what I tell my clients, "If you want to save money on your plan, you have to change the claims themselves". THAT is where the bulk of the money is spent. Also, when you are talking about the overall cost of healthcare in the country, "Adverse Selection", by defintion, cannot apply. That is also an entirely different discussion; let's have it after the election.

I agree that reducing taxes is not the solution; I said so in the thread about what we disagree with the candidates on. Getting the deficit under control is paramount.

[Shastafarian]

Well, I'm not going to do your homework for you but, I'll point you in the right direction.
LOL How does it feel? Now you know why I ain't going back to the Global Cooling thread. There's no way to prove what you're saying. Association is not causation.


See Reagan tax cuts, Kennedy tax cuts, and the Laffer Curve. Google all three. Every time taxes have been cut, revenues have increased.

"Yet in the 1980s, the initial era of supply-side tax cuts, per capita revenue from personal income taxes, adjusted for inflation, rose just 0.5 percent annually, according to the Office of Management and Budget.That was far below the average annual increase of 6.3 percent in the eight years of the Clinton administration when tax rates at the high end of the income ladder were raised. Since 2002, with the Bush tax cuts in place, the annual per capita increase was 2.3 percent."

Reagan tax cuts didn't work so well because he thought it was a good idea to spend tons of money.

[2centsworth]

I'll admit I don't know a whole lot about the economy. I'm asking if there is a correlation of cutting taxes to increased revenues. A correlation depends on a larger sample than just a few years.
there absolutely is a correlation, but it doesn't matter because it won't be nearly enough.

[Yonivore]

LOL How does it feel? Now you know why I ain't going back to the Global Cooling thread. There's no way to prove what you're saying. Association is not causation.
Wait a minute cowboy. My posts have already proved that federal revenues rose after the 2003 tax cuts.

You wanted me to do extra credit work. Do it yourself. I told you where to look.

[Yonivore]

there absolutely is a correlation, but it doesn't matter because it won't be nearly enough.
Well, if you increase taxes...you will decrease tax revenues.

Cutting spending is the only way -- at this point -- to reduce the deficit and the debt.

[Shastafarian]

Wait a minute cowboy. My posts have already proved that federal revenues rose after the 2003 tax cuts.

You wanted me to do extra credit work. Do it yourself. I told you where to look.

And I did. I already showed you how your "look at Reagan's tax cuts" evidence was wrong.

[2centsworth]

I own a company that pays medical claims for a living. One Payor would not be me - or the thirty people I employ. If we make healthcare super-efficient, and reduce expenditures a great, great deal; where is that money coming from? Unless you are talking about a great many people taking pay cuts, you ARE talking about a great many people not having jobs in the health care industry, aren't you?

Trust me, the administration of a healthcare plan is not cheap, but it is small potatoes compared to what the actual cost of care is.

Administration of claims is about 15% of the total cost of the plan for our block (We process claims for about 15,000 people. I'm betting Medicaid/Medicaire are NOT as efficient as my company is. Now I am certainly biased, but a single payor system, since it will be run by the govt. will cost private sector jobs, and increase cost.

I will tell you what I tell my clients, "If you want to save money on your plan, you have to change the claims themselves". THAT is where the bulk of the money is spent. Also, when you are talking about the overall cost of healthcare in the country, "Adverse Selection", by defintion, cannot apply. That is also an entirely different discussion; let's have it after the election.

I agree that reducing taxes is not the solution; I said so in the thread about what we disagree with the candidates on. Getting the deficit under control is paramount.


government should just end all government sponsored plans and send vouchers to everyone to cover the cost of basic care. People who want more benefits can add them, but at their own cost. Everyone can be entitled to basic care, but right now we're trying to provide "cadillac" care for everyone. Eliminate any type of tax-deduction for premiums. Then watch how basic coverage is forced to be effecient and less expensive.

[Yonivore]

And I did. I already showed you how your "look at Reagan's tax cuts" evidence was wrong.
No, you didn't. The tax cuts increased federal revenue.

You pointed out that increased spending decreased the affect the tax cuts had. Well, blow me down...

Now, we can debate whether or not Reagan era spending was warranted but, that's a whole other topic...in which I'd like to have former Soviet Premier Gorbachev.

[Yonivore]

government should just end all government sponsored plans and send vouchers to everyone to cover the cost of basic care. People who want more benefits can add them, but at their own cost. Everyone can be entitled to basic care, but right now we're trying to provide "cadillac" care for everyone. Eliminate any type of tax-deduction for premiums. Then watch how basic coverage is forced to be effecient and less expensive.
How many Med School graduates will there be by the third year of your plan?

[2centsworth]

Well, if you increase taxes...you will decrease tax revenues.

Cutting spending is the only way -- at this point -- to reduce the deficit and the debt.

you can increase taxes strategically. For instance, let's say our country makes a drastic shift for oil to natural gas cars. the cost would be dramatically lower for each consumer which would allow the governement to increase the tax they collect. Companies that rely strictly on oil production would suffer, but it's called progress. Just like the beta max.


as far as cutting spending, republicans talk the good fight. I think we may be at the point we get all that we possibly can NOW! People want to be united as Americans, I think, but both parties are splitting us down the middle and it's becoming a free-for-all.

[Shastafarian]

No, you didn't. The tax cuts increased federal revenue. No they didn't.

Here's another opinion!

"While Laffer insists that tax revenue will rise when tax rates are cut, other supply-siders are less categorical. Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist who was the first chairman of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers and now supports McCain, estimates that a 10 percent tax cut would reduce tax revenue, but only by 3 percent to 5 percent."

[2centsworth]

How many Med School graduates will there be by the third year of your plan?

they will make less, no doubt, but still quite a bit would attend. Medical professionals are not "entitled" to huge paychecks either. It's what the market can bear, and our market can no longer bear the expense unless you want our country to crash and burn.

[101A]

government should just end all government sponsored plans and send vouchers to everyone to cover the cost of basic care. People who want more benefits can add them, but at their own cost. Everyone can be entitled to basic care, but right now we're trying to provide "cadillac" care for everyone. Eliminate any type of tax-deduction for premiums. Then watch how basic coverage is forced to be effecient and less expensive.

Reasonable. (Got to keep tax deductions for business, however, simply so I can stay in business)

[2centsworth]

Reasonable. (Got to keep tax deductions for business, however, simply so I can stay in business)

business will still provide some of the extras as a benefit, but you would probably have to delve more into employee benefits. I know that's easy for me to say, so I would be open to a reasonable alternative.

[101A]

business will still provide some of the extras as a benefit, but you would probably have to delve more into employee benefits. I know that's easy for me to say, so I would be open to a reasonable alternative.

Already there; it, frankly, isn't nearly as interesting (though far more profitable).

Ultimately the country has to do what the country has to do, and I recognize a small fish like myself could very well end up outside looking in. Such is life.

[Yonivore]

No they didn't.
Let me rephrase in simpler terms...taxes were cut and federal revenues, from taxes, increased. Period, end of argument. It happened.

John F. Kennedy cut taxes and tax revenues increased.

Ronald W. Reagan cut taxes and tax revenues increased.

George W. Bush cut taxes and tax revenues increased.



Here's another opinion!

"While Laffer insists that tax revenue will rise when tax rates are cut, other supply-siders are less categorical. Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist who was the first chairman of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers and now supports McCain, estimates that a 10 percent tax cut would reduce tax revenue, but only by 3 percent to 5 percent."
An opinion on future events? That's rebuttal?

Besides, I didn't say you could indefinitely cut taxes and realize increased revenues. That's where the Laffer Curve part of your lesson came in. Come back when you've studied more.

[Findog]

Looks like Obama doesn't need the Clintons to win. haha

[Shastafarian]

An opinion on future events? That's rebuttal?

Besides, I didn't say you could indefinitely cut taxes and realize increased revenues. That's where the Laffer Curve part of your lesson came in. Come back when you've studied more.

Show me a statistical study that shows you're right and I'll study some more. Otherwise, admit supply-side economics is a theory and not fact.

[Yonivore]

you can increase taxes strategically. For instance, let's say our country makes a drastic shift for oil to natural gas cars. the cost would be dramatically lower for each consumer which would allow the governement to increase the tax they collect. Companies that rely strictly on oil production would suffer, but it's called progress. Just like the beta max.
The only taxes that aren't passed on to consumers are individual income taxes. Raising them anywhere costs me money that I won't then have to spend elsewhere. Sorry, your proposition is weak.


as far as cutting spending, republicans talk the good fight. I think we may be at the point we get all that we possibly can NOW! People want to be united as Americans, I think, but both parties are splitting us down the middle and it's becoming a free-for-all.
You won't get much of an argument from me on the evils of Republican spending or the rank partisanship that's taken over in Washington. But, I think much of the blame can be laid at the feet of Democrats who -- by and large -- only reach across the aisle when they want to set a Republican up to look like a fool.

[Yonivore]

Show me a statistical study that shows you're right and I'll study some more. Otherwise, admit supply-side economics is a theory and not fact.
That the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts all resulted in increased federal tax revenues is a fact.

[2centsworth]

The only taxes that aren't passed on to consumers are individual income taxes. Raising them anywhere costs me money that I won't then have to spend elsewhere. Sorry, your proposition is weak.

let me simplify this for you. Lets say we by product A for $5 that includes a $1 federal tax. Then product B comes along and replaces product A at $3 that includes a $1.25 federal tax. The producer of product A will lose, but the new producer on the block product B will gain market share.

It's how capitalism works.



You won't get much of an argument from me on the evils of Republican spending or the rank partisanship that's taken over in Washington. But, I think much of the blame can be laid at the feet of Democrats who -- by and large -- only reach across the aisle when they want to set a Republican up to look like a fool.

stop playing politics.

[Yonivore]

let me simplify this for you. Lets say we by product A for $5 that includes a $1 federal tax. Then product B comes along and replaces product A at $3 that includes a $1.25 federal tax. The producer of product A will lose, but the new producer on the block product B will gain market share.

It's how capitalism works.
I think that is a straw man. Not a very realistic one at that.

If you have one product replacing another at a 40% reduced price, there are other factors involved...such as where it is produced and if there are other benefits (or consequences) to the economy through the reduced price...(employment, tariffs, etc...). Added on taxes have little to do with consumer markets at that point.

If, on the other hand, you have a product worth $5 with a 20% tax and a product worth $3 with a 42% tax, there is a large likelihood that more of product A will sell than product B.

If, as your hypothesis infers, taxes are inflated on a product simply because it can be sold cheapr than another, again, I believe sales will drop.


stop playing politics.
Sorry, but it's a large reason we're in the mess we're in.

[DarkReign]

Sorry, but it's a large reason we're in the mess we're in.

This mess we are in is as bi-partisan as it gets.

This mess goes way beyond Republicans and Democrats.

[George Gervin's Afro]

[QU
OTE=Yonivore;2790013]The only taxes that aren't passed on to consumers are individual income taxes. Raising them anywhere costs me money that I won't then have to spend elsewhere. Sorry, your proposition is weak.


Do you have any proof of this? A company could eat another penny on the dollar rather than tack in it on the final price? Especially if your competitor across the street doesn't pass along that penny either. You talk about straw men..the majority of your arguments involve a straw family.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Show me a statistical study that shows you're right and I'll study some more. Otherwise, admit supply-side economics is a theory and not fact.

Yoni's theories are fact ! Anyone else's theories are just an opinions.

[Yonivore]

This mess we are in is as bi-partisan as it gets.

This mess goes way beyond Republicans and Democrats.
Democrats only say that when they're shit-deep in it.

[Yonivore]

Do you have any proof of this? A company could eat another penny on the dollar rather than tack in it on the final price? Especially if your competitor across the street doesn't pass along that penny either. You talk about straw men..the majority of your arguments involve a straw family.
Well, no. And the price war-type scenario you provide is a another dynamic that applies to few enterprises beyond gas stations and other commercial enterprises that can be found in close proximity to one another. And, there, the motive is not to save the customer money but to attract the business in the hopes that they will sell enough, at the lower price, to offset the cut.

Private companies are in the business of making a profit for the owners and/or stockholders. I believe they decide, at an owner/board level, what a proper return on their investment should be. If a tax hike eats into that profit, they pass it on.

You're correct, in that, they could opt to eat a tax increase by accepting a reduced profit margin but, rarely do. I don't know of an instance when a products price has been lowered because the tax rate was increased. Prices have always gone up, as far as I know.

[florige]

Geeezus why doesn't Clinton just come out and say he is voting for McCain sheeesh!!:rolleyes


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/29/clinton-hesitant-to-call-obama-a-great-man-2/

[Nbadan]

Bill Cinton can't just wash his hands of the current financial situation, so maybe him not being fully behind Obama is not such a bad thing....

How Much Change Does Robert Rubin Believe In?
Tuesday 05 August 2008
by: Steve Weissman, t r u t h o u t | Perspective


"Foreclosure Phil" Gramm and nice guy Robert Rubin put two different faces on the power players who move so easily between Wall Street and Washington.

The personification of old-fashioned, dog-eat-dog capitalism, Gramm appears to find moral virtue in the survival of the fittest and policy guidance in Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake." In his long tenure as the Senate's top Republican on economic policy, he led the fight to roll back state and federal regulation of the economy,
encouraging both the Enron scandal and the sub-prime lending frenzy. Gramm then left the Senate to find his reward as vice chairman of the Swiss-based UBS Investment Bank, for whom he continued to lobby Congress on housing and mortgage legislation. He also joined John McCain's presidential campaign as co-chair and senior economic adviser, until he was forced to resign last month for dismissing the chaos he did so much to create as merely "a mental recession" and the victims he left behind as "whiners."

Robert Rubin would never talk like that. The very model of a modern corporate liberal, he moved with ease from the top of Goldman Sachs to become President Bill Clinton's chief economic adviser and then secretary of the Treasury. Clinton had run as a populist on an economic platform created principally by Robert Reich, who became his labor secretary. But Rubin's Wall Street "realism" quickly trumped Reich's academic populism, and Clinton made the North American Free Trade Agreement his top priority over universal health care. He also eliminated the budget deficit left to him by the first Bush rather than rebuilding the nation's already crumbling infrastructure, and went along with the economic deregulation that Phil Gramm was pushing in the Republican-led Congress.

To Rubin's credit, eliminating the deficit helped fuel the prosperity of the Clinton years. To Rubin's shame, the Clinton free trade agreements provided no safety net for American workers whose jobs went abroad, while the newly unregulated financial markets helped create the speculative crap shoot that led directly to our current economic woes.

Dubbed by Clinton the "greatest secretary of the Treasury since Alexander Hamilton," Rubin left the administration and joined Citigroup, the nation's largest financial conglomerate, whose very existence was made legal by the deregulation measures he had convinced Clinton to accept. According to The Wall Street Journal, Citigroup has so far paid Rubin more than $100 million to serve as chairman of its executive committee, and leaves him free to serve as a key economic adviser to Barack Obama. Even more telling, Rubin's protégé, Jason Furman, now heads Obama's paid economic staff and is expected to join Obama in the White House should he win in November.

Would a President Obama follow in Bill Clinton's footsteps, listening more to Rubin & Co. than to Robert Reich, labor union leaders and the growing number of economic populists in Congress? If Obama does lean toward Rubinomics, I do not expect a whole lot of change I can believe in.

Seven and a half years of George W. Bush has left a budget deficit of $482 billion and growing. Obama's talk of "a war we must win" in Afghanistan could prove an enormous financial burden. And, even if Obama raises taxes on those making over $250,000 a year, as he has promised, Team Rubin will have some very persuasive arguments. Does Obama pay off the Bush deficit, as Rubin just promised on CBS's "Face the Nation?" Or does Obama risk spooking Wall Street by investing heavily in universal health care, a renewable energy program, massive job retraining, the rebuilding of bridges and highways, and so much more?

It's a difficult balancing act, and the internal debates will be intense if Obama makes it to the Oval Office. But one much-needed change could prove decisive, and it would not cost much at all. This past March, Obama made a major economic address at New York's Cooper Union, where he urged immediate relief for homeowners hit by the housing crisis and a $30 billion stimulus package to jumpstart the economy. As important, though rarely mentioned since, he also called for a new regulatory framework to prevent future abuses and crises in the financial system.

"Under Republican and Democratic administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices," he said, in an implicit critique of Rubin and the Clintons. "We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both."

Obama made clear that he saw free markets as "the engine of American prosperity." But, he insisted, government also has a role as umpire and as steward. "Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it," he said. "That is why we have put in place rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest. We have done this not to stifle - but rather to advance prosperity and liberty."

This was the Obama for whom I voted in the primaries - insightful, incisive and to the point. Both in the campaign and in the White House, I can only hope that Robert Rubin and his friends on Wall Street let Obama be Obama, for their sake as well as for the rest of us.

--------

A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France.

Link:Truthout (http://www.truthout.org/article/how-much-change-does-robert-rubin-believe-in)


Obama needs to wash his hands of these greedy Wall Street bastards before they turn a sure thing against him...