How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
- Thread starter John_Wensink
- Start date
The really significant issue is that FNM and FRE were democrat slush funds. Both their ex-ceos, Raines and Johnston , are democrat party hacks. Both are connected to obama, despite his attempt to put them in the same "Do not discuss" category as Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.
There is enough blame here for everyone, but it infuriates me that Obama and his supporters have the gall to try to lay it all off on the republicans. I have a lot of problems with McCain and Bush but they did try to do something with FNM and were met with a solid democrat wall of resistance.
As for the Raines saga, the Post has never disavowed their story, despite bigdave's attempts to confuse the issue. They just faulted McCain for relying on it, which is an interesting position for a newspaper to take. I suppose it is just their way of saying like the rest of the media they are in the tank for Obama , and they are perfectly willing to piss away what little credibility they have left for this noble task.
There is enough blame here for everyone, but it infuriates me that Obama and his supporters have the gall to try to lay it all off on the republicans. I have a lot of problems with McCain and Bush but they did try to do something with FNM and were met with a solid democrat wall of resistance.
As for the Raines saga, the Post has never disavowed their story, despite bigdave's attempts to confuse the issue. They just faulted McCain for relying on it, which is an interesting position for a newspaper to take. I suppose it is just their way of saying like the rest of the media they are in the tank for Obama , and they are perfectly willing to piss away what little credibility they have left for this noble task.
Okay, please quote the part where, as McCain said in his ad "Another CEO for Fannie Mae, Mr. Raines, has been advising Senator Obama on housing policy."
I'd like to read where Raines said that. Of course, he never did, and you're having to stretch and stretch further and further to believe that he did say that.
I'm trying to work with an agreed set of facts, and all parties involved agree that this wasn't the case.
The dissenters are a McCain ad, and you.
From the Washington Post, 9/19/08:
The commercial's main charge is based on an April story in The Washington Post that said Raines has "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters." Reporter Anita Huslin says Raines told her that during an in-person interview.
An Obama spokesman called the ad's contention "a flat-out lie," saying Raines has "never advised Senator Obama about anything, ever." But Raines did not claim to have advised the Illinois senator personally. In an accompanying statement, Raines said he never "provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters." That contradicts what he told Huslin five months ago.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/19/_the_ad_obama_has.html
Okay, they're Democrats. So what? Raines didn't advise Obama, and Johnston only sat on the VP panel, which was nothing to do with economics.
It's not like the guy has hired two dozen FNMA lobbyists or something.
Meanwhile "McCain's campaign is swarming with 26 advisers or fundraisers who have lobbied for Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac--including nearly a dozen who lobby right now. As the Washington Monthly's Steve Benen wrote last week, "one of McCain's top policy advisers, Charlie Black, was lobbyist for Freddie Mac for 10 years, while his campaign manager, Rick Davis, lobbied to help Fannie and Freddie steer clear of additional federal regulations [and earned $2 million in the process]
Did you read the text of the actual bill that McCain cosponsored, that you feel was blocked by the Democrats and died in a Republican committee in 2005? It gets rid of the oversight boards
They clarified the statement in the original story. If you wish to write them a letter, go ahead. Everybody involved has stated what the situation was.
McCain's aides just stretched it a tiny bit, but erroneously.
OBAMA'S TAXES COULD WRECK ECONOMY
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
"Whatever is left of the economy after the current round of crisis interventions by the Fed could go down the drain if Obama is elected and carries out his plans for sharp increases in taxation. Even if Obama does not understand the linkage, most Americans do and will turn sharply against Obamaâs tax plans if McCain hammers away at the risk they pose for us all.
During the Great Depression, Congress raised taxes sharply in the Revenue Act of 1932. The top rate went from 25% to 63%. As a result, the real GDP dropped by 13.3% and unemployment rose from 15.9% to 23.6%.
In 1990, Bush-41 famously broke his âread my lips â no new taxesâ pledge of the 1988 campaign and raised the federal gasoline tax, federal excise taxes, and imposed 10% surtax on the top income bracket, raising its taxes to 31%. The recession which followed in 1991-1992 cost him re-election.
It is obvious that increasing capital gains taxes by a minimum of one-third and possibly doubling them, both of which Obama has proposed during his campaign, would send a clear signal to investors to keep their money under the mattress. Who would buy stock now knowing that the tax on any profits he or she will make is going to go up sharply if Obama becomes president.
Look at what happened just last year in Michigan. Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm raised taxes on almost everything in 2007. Income taxes shot up 11.5% and the stateâs 6 percent sales tax was expanded to dozens of new services like investment advice, janitorial services, landscaping, ski lifts, carpet cleaning, and tanning. The $1.75 billion tax package shook the economy to its foundations. Michigan became the only one of the fifty states with a shrinking gross domestic product (GDP). The value of all goods and services produced in the state fell by one half of one percent while the national GDP rose by 3.4%. The state fell from 23rd in GDP to 35th. Taxes caused a disaster.
In a strong economy, Obamaâs tax hikes would raise questions. In a weak economy, they portend a catastrophe. It would be like bleeding a sick patient, the medicine of two hundred years ago, depriving him of blood even as he needs more not less circulating through his arteries.
McCainâs populist rhetoric, including his pledge to fire SEC Chairman former Congressman Christopher Cox, is important for a Republican candidate. But his focus should shift to the tax issue. With firms suffering, withering, and dying for a lack of capital, tax increases on those who invest would be a horrible mistake. Americans will realize this obvious fact and McCain should use it to gain the advantage in discussing the economy. There is no reason for the economy to work to Obamaâs advantage when he is committed to a doctrinaire program of tax increases and spending hikes. McCain can use the issue to run rings around him."
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
"Whatever is left of the economy after the current round of crisis interventions by the Fed could go down the drain if Obama is elected and carries out his plans for sharp increases in taxation. Even if Obama does not understand the linkage, most Americans do and will turn sharply against Obamaâs tax plans if McCain hammers away at the risk they pose for us all.
During the Great Depression, Congress raised taxes sharply in the Revenue Act of 1932. The top rate went from 25% to 63%. As a result, the real GDP dropped by 13.3% and unemployment rose from 15.9% to 23.6%.
In 1990, Bush-41 famously broke his âread my lips â no new taxesâ pledge of the 1988 campaign and raised the federal gasoline tax, federal excise taxes, and imposed 10% surtax on the top income bracket, raising its taxes to 31%. The recession which followed in 1991-1992 cost him re-election.
It is obvious that increasing capital gains taxes by a minimum of one-third and possibly doubling them, both of which Obama has proposed during his campaign, would send a clear signal to investors to keep their money under the mattress. Who would buy stock now knowing that the tax on any profits he or she will make is going to go up sharply if Obama becomes president.
Look at what happened just last year in Michigan. Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm raised taxes on almost everything in 2007. Income taxes shot up 11.5% and the stateâs 6 percent sales tax was expanded to dozens of new services like investment advice, janitorial services, landscaping, ski lifts, carpet cleaning, and tanning. The $1.75 billion tax package shook the economy to its foundations. Michigan became the only one of the fifty states with a shrinking gross domestic product (GDP). The value of all goods and services produced in the state fell by one half of one percent while the national GDP rose by 3.4%. The state fell from 23rd in GDP to 35th. Taxes caused a disaster.
In a strong economy, Obamaâs tax hikes would raise questions. In a weak economy, they portend a catastrophe. It would be like bleeding a sick patient, the medicine of two hundred years ago, depriving him of blood even as he needs more not less circulating through his arteries.
McCainâs populist rhetoric, including his pledge to fire SEC Chairman former Congressman Christopher Cox, is important for a Republican candidate. But his focus should shift to the tax issue. With firms suffering, withering, and dying for a lack of capital, tax increases on those who invest would be a horrible mistake. Americans will realize this obvious fact and McCain should use it to gain the advantage in discussing the economy. There is no reason for the economy to work to Obamaâs advantage when he is committed to a doctrinaire program of tax increases and spending hikes. McCain can use the issue to run rings around him."
Well Dick Morris, unbiased observer, Clinton raised taxes in his first term and then one of the greatest booms in history occurred.
The fact that you guys are still pumping trickle down when clearly it does not work is just amazing to me. How many times must it fail before you learn?
Actually, the truth is that the boom started from Reagan lowering taxes dramatically in the mid-80s. What Bush senior and Clinton did was cave in to special interests and start applying the brakes with their tax increases. Fortunately, the Republican Congress balanced the budget in the 90s and the disaster (bursting of the stock market bubble and ensuing mini-recession) was delayed until 2000. Fortunately again, we had GWB in place by then to catch the ball, lower taxes again and avert yet another Dem fiasco. Call it what you will (supply-side-econ, whatever, doesn't matter) lower taxes work, they always have.
Too bad he actually raised taxes.
"In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
"According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
"In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate.
"In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.
"The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.
"According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy."
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp
So the growth under Clinton from 1994 to 1998 was because of the guy almost 18 years earlier who dropped taxes by raising them.
You should probably change your response.
If he Republican congress balanced the budget why did Clinton need to shutdown the entire government to get them to pass their budget.
It's hard to argue with that, when it makes so little sense.