Explain to me this, then. Let's hypothesize for a moment that maybe, just maybe, keeping tax levels stable or a slight raise in taxes is not the death knell to the economy that some conservatives theorize, particularly from the policies directed by the Executive branch...
In the past twenty-eight years, we've had twelve years under two Republican administrations, eight years of a Democratic administration, and eight years of a Republican administration. At the end of the first twelve years, we were nearing a recession. By the end of the Democratic administration we were in a surplus, and our economy was relatively strong. Now, at the end of eight years of a Republican administration, we face economic crisis again. Why is it that in recent history, our economy has prospered under a Democratic administration and floundered under Republican administration? And if this is the case, why are people so concerned about possibly using Democratic economic policies?
Maybe the Tech boom worked for Clinton. Not sure but I still do not think Gore invented the INternet
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Maybe the Tech boom worked for Clinton. Not sure but I still do not think Gore invented the INternet
Huh? Sorry, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything? What makes us think Republican economic policies work? They obviously haven't worked recently.
Explain to me this, then. Let's hypothesize for a moment that maybe, just maybe, keeping tax levels stable or a slight raise in taxes is not the death knell to the economy that some conservatives theorize, particularly from the policies directed by the Executive branch...
In the past twenty-eight years, we've had twelve years under two Republican administrations, eight years of a Democratic administration, and eight years of a Republican administration. At the end of the first twelve years, we were nearing a recession. By the end of the Democratic administration we were in a surplus, and our economy was relatively strong. Now, at the end of eight years of a Republican administration, we face economic crisis again. Why is it that in recent history, our economy has prospered under a Democratic administration and floundered under Republican administration? And if this is the case, why are people so concerned about possibly using Democratic economic policies?
I would argue first and foremost that the economy is cyclical. It's going to boom and bust no matter what.
For what it's worth, the greatest economic times of my lifetime came under Reagan.
Clinton would be second, thanks in part to the tech bubble, which burst during his second term and had us on the brink of recession by the time he left office.
If I thought a president's economic policies had all that much effect on the economy at large -- and I don't -- I would say it's amazing GW II's policies were able to stave off that recession for seven more years, despite the grave economic interruption of 9/11.
The only thing I do feel strongly about is that I don't believe taxing the bejesus out of everyone left and right is a smart thing to do when the economy is sick.
EDIT: I was thinking a bit about the economy today, and something Fred Thompson said back when he wasn't running for president. He didn't want to run, he said, because he didn't want to have to spend time crisscrossing the country trying to convince people they have it worse off than they really do.
I keep reading all this grim economic news, and how we're supposedly in the worst crisis since the Great Depression ... and all I can think is, "That's it?" Where are all these people who are so destitute, who weren't eight years ago? Better yet, show me people who are destitute through no fault of their own (that omits the folks who took on a mortgage they couldn't afford. Sorry, guys. Shoulda read the fine print.)
I look at my own life: I'm probably making double what I was making eight years ago. My taxes, percentage-wise, are considerably less. I'm a homeowner, but with a loan I can afford. I own two cars, have a pretty good nest-egg in the bank and have started a retirement account.
I'm not rich, by any means, and probably never will be. But I certainly don't feel like this is the worst I've ever been. And if it's the worst thing to hit this country since the Depression ... well, then I'd say our country has had a damn good run. In most countries, our "recession" would be their "economic golden years."
Obviously, there are people out there who are in deep crisis through no fault of their own. The government should help them. But I get the feeling that Phil Gramm was right. This "crisis" really is in everybody's heads ... and once it gets there, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
The only thing I do feel strongly about is that I don't believe taxing the bejesus out of everyone left and right is a smart thing to do when the economy is sick.
I don't think anyone believes in that, but from what I read about both candidates tax plans...Obama plans to really tax the richest Americans really hard....not saying the rest won't be taxed.
What I'm saying is he will only be taxing the bejesus out of those earning $250,000.00 or more...which accounts for like MAYBE 5% of your population so to say he'd tax the bejesus out of everyone is incorrect.
I don't think anyone believes in that, but from what I read about both candidates tax plans...Obama plans to really tax the richest Americans really hard....not saying the rest won't be taxed.
What I'm saying is he will only be taxing the bejesus out of those earning $250,000.00 or more...which accounts for like MAYBE 5% of your population so to say he'd tax the bejesus out of everyone is incorrect.
I'm not just talking about income taxes here, although that is certainly part of it.
I'm more worried about Obama's plan to tax the bejesus out of corporations and small businesses, who either employ most of us, or sell most of us every good in our household.
So, sure, that 95 percent of middle class Americans who Obama is allegedly not taxing won't feel the pinch -- unless they plan to buy groceries at any regular intervals, or feel like earning a paycheck from a corporation.
You can't just tax "the rich" or "corporations" in this country without trickling down to everybody. Taxing corporations isn't going to create jobs, it's going to eliminate them. And it's going to drive up the cost of basic neccesities even more than they already are. And I believe that will only serve to make a bad economic situation worse.
I would urge both parties, instead of "taxing more," they need to be talking about "spending less."
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I don't think anyone believes in that, but from what I read about both candidates tax plans...Obama plans to really tax the richest Americans really hard....not saying the rest won't be taxed.
What I'm saying is he will only be taxing the bejesus out of those earning $250,000.00 or more...which accounts for like MAYBE 5% of your population so to say he'd tax the bejesus out of everyone is incorrect.
Let's get one thing right about "taxing the bejesus" out of the rich ... it is restoring the tax levels of the Clinton regime ... we are not talking about the newest tax highs of all time ...
Again, Reagan tried to lower taxes a ton when he first took office, then had to raise them for the majority of his remaining years in office ... "Read my Lips" Bush 41 never got away with tax cuts, he raised taxes ...
We're not talking about changing taxes from 40% to 90%, which is what the Repulicans are scaring people to think ...
If you want shit to work in this country, sorry, the government needs to collect some tax. In times when we're at war, perhaps a little more ...
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Let's get one thing right about "taxing the bejesus" out of the rich ... it is restoring the tax levels of the Clinton regime ... we are not talking about the newest tax highs of all time ...
Again, Reagan tried to lower taxes a ton when he first took office, then had to raise them for the majority of his remaining years in office ... "Read my Lips" Bush 41 never got away with tax cuts, he raised taxes ...
We're not talking about changing taxes from 40% to 90%, which is what the Repulicans are scaring people to think ...
If you want shit to work in this country, sorry, the government needs to collect some tax. In times when we're at war, perhaps a little more ...
So you're saying there's no pork to trim, anywhere? I'd say start there, and if you still need money after that, then we'll talk about a tax hike.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
So you're saying there's no pork to trim, anywhere? I'd say start there, and if you still need money after that, then we'll talk about a tax hike.
I'll have to get the source, but, I believe if you cut all the pork, it would still take many, many years to fight back our deficit ... while pork can be trimmed ... it's not the only answer .... while taxation can go up, it's not the only answer ... while "necessary" (non pork) government spending can be cut, it's not the only answer ...
All facets need to work together.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
For what it's worth, the greatest economic times of my lifetime came under Reagan.
If I thought a president's economic policies had all that much effect on the economy at large -- and I don't -- I would say it's amazing GW II's policies were able to stave off that recession for seven more years, despite the grave economic interruption of 9/11.
EDIT: I was thinking a bit about the economy today, and something Fred Thompson said back when he wasn't running for president. He didn't want to run, he said, because he didn't want to have to spend time crisscrossing the country trying to convince people they have it worse off than they really do.
I keep reading all this grim economic news, and how we're supposedly in the worst crisis since the Great Depression ... and all I can think is, "That's it?" Where are all these people who are so destitute, who weren't eight years ago? Better yet, show me people who are destitute through no fault of their own (that omits the folks who took on a mortgage they couldn't afford. Sorry, guys. Shoulda read the fine print.)
I look at my own life: I'm probably making double what I was making eight years ago. My taxes, percentage-wise, are considerably less. I'm a homeowner, but with a loan I can afford. I own two cars, have a pretty good nest-egg in the bank and have started a retirement account.
I'm not rich, by any means, and probably never will be. But I certainly don't feel like this is the worst I've ever been. And if it's the worst thing to hit this country since the Depression ... well, then I'd say our country has had a damn good run. In most countries, our "recession" would be their "economic golden years."
Obviously, there are people out there who are in deep crisis through no fault of their own. The government should help them. But I get the feeling that Phil Gramm was right. This "crisis" really is in everybody's heads ... and once it gets there, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I was still a child under Reagan, but everything I've read of his reign shows me that he was a terror for the middle-class. The Crash of 87? The widening gap between the rich and poor? The top 1% of the country accumulating far more percentage wealth than ever before? These are all notable attributes of the Reagan Presidency. I also feel that a President's economic policies have an impact; taxes and spending and market confidence are consistently directed by the Executive branch. Bush cut taxes and he didn't cut spending; we now have a massive deficit which is leading to economic difficulties.
I also think it's a little limited and short-sighted to measure the stability of the economy by how you personally are doing (for what it's worth, my family is doing worse and most of my friends are doing worse). Where are the people who are destitute? Where are you? I'm sure they're not far. Unemployment has skyrocketed, and wages are troubling. People's savings are being lost. I live in New York City and work with dozens if not hundreds of homeless every week in my job; do you think it's that all these people just need to get a job? I'm sorry if I'm insulting, I don't mean to be, but it's a passionate topic, that if you're destitute it must be your own doing. Speaking from personal experience, the number of homeless in our streets have skyrocketed in the past eight years. And this is NYC, one of the healthiest metropolises in our union right now; imagine Flint, Michigan. Imagine New Orleans. So if it's all about you then that's fine, but I think it's wrong to extend personal prosperity to the state of the country, particularly when the numbers don't support that.
And I'm sorry, the 'crisis' is not in everybody's heads. These numbers and these stories are not coming from nowhere. The only way Bush's economic policies are not a complete failure is if these stories are a "mental recession." I think it's pretty offensive to insinuate such a thing.
So you're saying there's no pork to trim, anywhere? I'd say start there, and if you still need money after that, then we'll talk about a tax hike.
Those earmarks McCain talks about? Make up 16 billion of our annual budget. Now that's nothing to sneeze at, but we will spend more than that in Iraq in the next two months. Also, alot of those earmarks are not Nancy Pelosi's couch or Harry Reid's endless supply of strippers. Most of them are for Veterans' Hospitals, after-school centers, community organizations, etc. etc. etc. While I think the practice needs to be reviewed, I don't think it will politically have much traction. "Senator Smith, how dare you request an earmark for......a hospital for soldiers returning from Iraq suffering from PTSD?"
Yup ... McCain has solid economic advisors ... :rolleyes:
Aren't two of Obama's economic advisors Jim Johnson, who was the CEO of Fannie Mae and a managing director of Lehman Brothers prior and benefited from preferential loans from Countrywide, and Franklin Raines, who was also CEO of Fannie, received preferential loans from Countrywide, and had civil charges brought upon him for account irregularities yet saw fit to pay himself a $20 mil dollar bonus.
I'll have to get the source, but, I believe if you cut all the pork, it would still take many, many years to fight back our deficit ... while pork can be trimmed ... it's not the only answer .... while taxation can go up, it's not the only answer ... while "necessary" (non pork) government spending can be cut, it's not the only answer ...
All facets need to work together.
How far would $845 billion go toward paying down that deficit? Because that's the amount of our tax money Barry wants to give to the U.N. to disperse to other countries that, you know, aren't the United States. (I'm sure the U.N. will take good care of it. They aren't corrupt at all).
Off the top of my head, that's one project I'd cut -- or at least put on hold --rather than raise taxes.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Aren't two of Obama's economic advisors Jim Johnson, who was the CEO of Fannie Mae and a managing director of Lehman Brothers prior and benefited from preferential loans from Countrywide, and Franklin Raines, who was also CEO of Fannie, received preferential loans from Countrywide, and had civil charges brought upon him for account irregularities yet saw fit to pay himself a $20 mil dollar bonus.
Yeah, I feel good about Obama solving the mortgage problem.
Neither side has great advisers I think we can agree on that. The Republicans have had ample time to try and find a way to solve the mortgage problem and GW has chosen (or been told by his party) to lay low and do jack shit...so please don't turn a blind eye to the fact that the Republicans have had the last YEAR to try and do something and they've done NOTHING.
"Rock and roll is something that can't be quantified, sometimes it's not even something you hear, but FEEL!" - Bob Lefsetz
Neither side has great advisers I think we can agree on that. The Republicans have had ample time to try and find a way to solve the mortgage problem and GW has chosen (or been told by his party) to lay low and do jack shit...so please don't turn a blind eye to the fact that the Republicans have had the last YEAR to try and do something and they've done NOTHING.
I know. That's why I'm not voting for either of them. I'm making a protest vote for the third election in a row for a third party.
Neither side has great advisers I think we can agree on that. The Republicans have had ample time to try and find a way to solve the mortgage problem and GW has chosen (or been told by his party) to lay low and do jack shit...so please don't turn a blind eye to the fact that the Republicans have had the last YEAR to try and do something and they've done NOTHING.
I agree. But GW isn't running. John McCain is. And, as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, McCain did at least *try* to do something. He was just ignored, by his party and the opposition party.
It seems disingenuous to blame him or the tax cuts (Joe Biden???) for this crisis.
He was the guy on the deck of the Titanic, warning about the iceberg ahead. It's not his fault nobody listened and the ship wrecked.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Aren't two of Obama's economic advisors Jim Johnson, who was the CEO of Fannie Mae and a managing director of Lehman Brothers prior and benefited from preferential loans from Countrywide, and Franklin Raines, who was also CEO of Fannie, received preferential loans from Countrywide, and had civil charges brought upon him for account irregularities yet saw fit to pay himself a $20 mil dollar bonus.
Yeah, I feel good about Obama solving the mortgage problem.
While neither are above reproach ...
Jim Johnson - once Jim Johnson's issues were made known to the Obama campign ... he was dismissed.
Franklin Raines left Fannie in 2004 ... while his bonus is disgusting, the excessive use of sub prime loans came about after that.
Neither of these were ever the CHEIF economic advisor (like Phil Gramm is for McCain, who, again, said this was a MENTAL RECESSION), that would be Austan Goolsbee ... feel free to dig up dirt on him.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
I know. That's why I'm not voting for either of them. I'm making a protest vote for the third election in a row for a third party.
I have a feeling you'll be voting with 2 percent of the country for the rest of your natural life ... not that there's anything wrong with that, of course
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Jim Johnson - once Jim Johnson's issues were made known to the Obama campign ... he was dismissed.
Franklin Raines left Fannie in 2004 ... while his bonus is disgusting, the excessive use of sub prime loans came about after that.
Neither of these were ever the CHEIF economic advisor (like Phil Gramm is for McCain, who, again, said this was a MENTAL RECESSION), that would be Austan Goolsbee ... feel free to dig up dirt on him.
What's funny is, I actually get where Gramm is coming from. I went into that, either in this thread or somewhere else.
I think if people would just turn off the news and live their lives, most of us would realize they're just fine. I certainly don't feel like I'm living in the "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression." My grandparents, who lived through an actual Depression, would probably try to slap me if I claimed otherwise.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I agree. But GW isn't running. John McCain is. And, as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, McCain did at least *try* to do something. He was just ignored, by his party and the opposition party.
It seems disingenuous to blame him or the tax cuts (Joe Biden???) for this crisis.
He was the guy on the deck of the Titanic, warning about the iceberg ahead. It's not his fault nobody listened and the ship wrecked.
I'm not assigning blame to anyone for the crisis itself...I'm saying that the Republicans are doing NOTHING to get America out of this crisis, and then throwing mud at Obama for how he plans to run things while telling voters to give them another shot with Mccain. If they have all the answers WHY isn't America already OUT of the crisis?? Why are they sitting back and doing fuck all until after the election??? Cause they are blowing smoke and don't have the right answers any more than Obama or anyone else. OR they know that what they may need to do will piss off potential voters so for political reasons they let people suffer.
"Rock and roll is something that can't be quantified, sometimes it's not even something you hear, but FEEL!" - Bob Lefsetz
I'm not assigning blame to anyone for the crisis itself...I'm saying that the Republicans are doing NOTHING to get America out of this crisis, and then throwing mud at Obama for how he plans to run things while telling voters to give them another shot with Mccain. If they have all the answers WHY isn't America already OUT of the crisis?? Why are they sitting back and doing fuck all until after the election??? Cause they are blowing smoke and don't have the right answers any more than Obama or anyone else. OR they know that what they may need to do will piss off potential voters so for political reasons they let people suffer.
Honestly ... I don't think there really IS an answer. Politicans like to talk about changing this or that ... but the economy is it's own beast, and it just has to right itself on its own.
That's why Obama and McCain both have been downright incoherent on this issue of late. There isn't a good answer, but they have to pretend they have one. Nothing they do is likely to fix anything. You've just got to try to ride out the storm, and maybe try to figure out a way not to let these things happen again.
And also, IMO, for God's sake no more bailouts.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
What's funny is, I actually get where Gramm is coming from. I went into that, either in this thread or somewhere else.
I think if people would just turn off the news and live their lives, most of us would realize they're just fine. I certainly don't feel like I'm living in the "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression." My grandparents, who lived through an actual Depression, would probably try to slap me if I claimed otherwise.
"I think if people would just turn off the news and live their lives, most of us would realize they're just fine."?
Really? I mean ... really? Let's all ignore what the rich and politicians are doing to us (no party ... all of them) .... let's just stick our head in the sand?
Let's not worry about wars being fought, gas prices tripling, national debt, the housing crisis ... it'll all just wash away cyclicly? REALLY?
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
I have a feeling you'll be voting with 2 percent of the country for the rest of your natural life ... not that there's anything wrong with that, of course
Honestly ... I don't think there really IS an answer. Politicans like to talk about changing this or that ... but the economy is it's own beast, and it just has to right itself on its own.
That's why Obama and McCain both have been downright incoherent on this issue of late. There isn't a good answer, but they have to pretend they have one. Nothing they do is likely to fix anything. You've just got to try to ride out the storm, and maybe try to figure out a way not to let these things happen again.
And also, IMO, for God's sake no more bailouts.
LOL You know what...I couldn't agree more.
Tho I will say this...I do think that whomever is in office needs to focus a little more on domestic policy then foreign policy. I'm not saying leave the troops out to dry or anything...just saying be say 60-40 domestic to foreign rather than like 80-20 foreign to domestic like GW.
"Rock and roll is something that can't be quantified, sometimes it's not even something you hear, but FEEL!" - Bob Lefsetz
I think if people would just turn off the news and live their lives, most of us would realize they're just fine. I certainly don't feel like I'm living in the "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression." My grandparents, who lived through an actual Depression, would probably try to slap me if I claimed otherwise.
People of vastly different backgrounds are facing vastly different circumstances, in vastly different parts of this country. I mentioned this before, but I don't understand how somebody's economic mindset would be that "well, I don't feel like I'm doing that much worse, so that must mean that most people elsewhere are OK, too." I mean, there's 300 million other people in this country; you can't just poll yourself. I'm sorry that I brought it up earlier and am repeating myself, but I can't get my head around that notion that if people would really just smell the fresh air they'd be fine, and that since you yourself are better off the country is as well. You have an individual story and pushing your story onto the economic stability of every other person in this country is a wrong move, and a disastrous way to view the state of our country.
Tho I will say this...I do think that whomever is in office needs to focus a little more on domestic policy then foreign policy. I'm not saying leave the troops out to dry or anything...just saying be say 60-40 domestic to foreign rather than like 80-20 foreign to domestic like GW.
Let me say this ... McCain, Obama, Barr, Nadar .... whomever it is ... if their total focus of domestic + foreign actually equals 100% ... well, we're ALREADY doing WAY better than we have it now!
Jan 20 cannot come soon enough.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
"I think if people would just turn off the news and live their lives, most of us would realize they're just fine."?
Really? I mean ... really? Let's all ignore what the rich and politicians are doing to us (no party ... all of them) .... let's just stick our head in the sand?
Let's not worry about wars being fought, gas prices tripling, national debt, the housing crisis ... it'll all just wash away cyclicly? REALLY?
That's not what I'm saying at all.
What I'm saying is, the 24-hour news cycle has a way of convincing us that things are worse than they really are.
I watch the news all day ... and I hear them tell me all this horrible news about the stock market ... and allegedly the economy is tanking ... and everybody is losing their jobs and their houses ... and .... Lehman Brothers just filed Chapter 11 ... and the government had to bailout AIG ... and ... and
It's all bad news, to be sure, but guess what?
Everybody I know is fine. Nobody has lost their job. Nobody has lost their houses. Most of us are doing substantially better than we were eight years ago. Where are all these destitute people I keep hearing about? I don't doubt there are some people out there who are hurting, through no fault of their own, and those people definitely need and deserve government assistance.
But to listen to the news, you'd think everyone is standing in a bread line. That just isn't the case, and it isn't going to be the case.
This is the "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression?" Really? My grandparents heard that and laughed their asses off.
But people hear it, over and over, and so it must be true. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. "I've got money, but I'm not buying that new car or TV, because the economy's bad." And that just makes a bad economy worse.
I mentioned in a previous post a quote from Fred Thompson, back when he claimed he wasn't going to run for president. HE said something to the effect of "I'm not going to run, because I don't want to have to spend the next year crisscrossing the country, trying to convince people they are worse off than they actually are."
That's what I'm getting at here.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
People of vastly different backgrounds are facing vastly different circumstances, in vastly different parts of this country. I mentioned this before, but I don't understand how somebody's economic mindset would be that "well, I don't feel like I'm doing that much worse, so that must mean that most people elsewhere are OK, too." I mean, there's 300 million other people in this country; you can't just poll yourself. I'm sorry that I brought it up earlier and am repeating myself, but I can't get my head around that notion that if people would really just smell the fresh air they'd be fine, and that since you yourself are better off the country is as well. You have an individual story and pushing your story onto the economic stability of every other person in this country is a wrong move, and a disastrous way to view the state of our country.
I do get that there are people who are hurting economically. I'm not trying to pump sunshine and say everything's hunky dorey.
But I do believe, for the vast majority of us, things aren't as bad as we're being told.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Everybody I know is fine. Nobody has lost their job. Nobody has lost their houses. Most of us are doing substantially better than we were eight years ago. Where are all these destitute people I keep hearing about? I don't doubt there are some people out there who are hurting, through no fault of their own, and those people definitely need and deserve government assistance.
My last post, cause it's late; although I respect your viewpoint I have no understanding of the opinion you're taking on the manner. Let me tell you about some people that I know; I work with some non-profit organizations, and much of my work involves getting out-of-work or homeless individuals housing and employment opportunities. These are not just the permanent homeless; alot of lower-middle class workers are now losing the grip. It's back-breaking because there are so many applicants, so many homeless in our city. And this is only one organization in one city in the entire nation. My best friend moved in with his new wife two years ago; they're now facing possible foreclosure.
These are the people I know; that I know all these people seems to refute your notion about the lack of destitute people and dire situations in this country. I'm not going to say that due to my personal experience, the majority of people in this country are facing significant difficulty; I will say that it goes against progress to assume that since you and yours are taken care of, so goes the nation. And I think the facts, figures, and testimonies of middle-class individuals throughout this country are proof. Unemployment has skyrocketed this year so far; they're not just making this stuff up. And I think it's best to trust the large numbers of middle and working class men and women in this country who claim to be facing significant difficulties, and not say that they're fooling themselves.
McCain is finally listening to me . This from a speech in Iowa (why is he in Iowa?) today:
Senator Obama talks a tough game on the financial markets but the facts tell a different story. He took more money from Fannie and Freddie than any Senator but the Democratic chairman of the committee that regulates them. He put Fannie Mae's CEO who helped create this disaster in charge of finding his Vice President. Fannie's former General Counsel is a senior advisor to his campaign. Whose side do you think he is on? When I pushed legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Senator Obama was silent. He didn't lift a hand to avert this crisis. While the leaders of Fannie and Freddie were lining the pockets of his campaign, they were sowing the seeds of the financial crisis we see today and enriching themselves with millions of dollars in payments. That's not change, that's what's broken in Washington.
...
Senator Obama has never made the kind tough reform we need today. His idea of reform is what his party leaders in Congress order him to do. We tried for bipartisan ethics reform and he walked away from it because his bosses didn't want real change.
...
When AIG was bailed out, I didn't like it, but I understood it needed to be done to protect hard working Americans with insurance policies and annuities. Senator Obama didn't take a position. On the biggest issue of the day, he didn't know what to think. He may not realize it, but you don't get to vote present as President of the United States. While Senator Obama and Congressional leaders don't know what to think about the current crisis, we know what their plans are for the economy. Today Senator Obama's running mate said that raising taxes is patriotic. Raising taxes in a tough economy isn't patriotic. It's not a badge of honor. It's just dumb policy. The billions in tax increases that Senator Obama is proposing would kill even more jobs during tough economic times. I'm not going to let that happen.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Comments
Maybe the Tech boom worked for Clinton. Not sure but I still do not think Gore invented the INternet
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Huh? Sorry, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything? What makes us think Republican economic policies work? They obviously haven't worked recently.
I would argue first and foremost that the economy is cyclical. It's going to boom and bust no matter what.
For what it's worth, the greatest economic times of my lifetime came under Reagan.
Clinton would be second, thanks in part to the tech bubble, which burst during his second term and had us on the brink of recession by the time he left office.
If I thought a president's economic policies had all that much effect on the economy at large -- and I don't -- I would say it's amazing GW II's policies were able to stave off that recession for seven more years, despite the grave economic interruption of 9/11.
The only thing I do feel strongly about is that I don't believe taxing the bejesus out of everyone left and right is a smart thing to do when the economy is sick.
EDIT: I was thinking a bit about the economy today, and something Fred Thompson said back when he wasn't running for president. He didn't want to run, he said, because he didn't want to have to spend time crisscrossing the country trying to convince people they have it worse off than they really do.
I keep reading all this grim economic news, and how we're supposedly in the worst crisis since the Great Depression ... and all I can think is, "That's it?" Where are all these people who are so destitute, who weren't eight years ago? Better yet, show me people who are destitute through no fault of their own (that omits the folks who took on a mortgage they couldn't afford. Sorry, guys. Shoulda read the fine print.)
I look at my own life: I'm probably making double what I was making eight years ago. My taxes, percentage-wise, are considerably less. I'm a homeowner, but with a loan I can afford. I own two cars, have a pretty good nest-egg in the bank and have started a retirement account.
I'm not rich, by any means, and probably never will be. But I certainly don't feel like this is the worst I've ever been. And if it's the worst thing to hit this country since the Depression ... well, then I'd say our country has had a damn good run. In most countries, our "recession" would be their "economic golden years."
Obviously, there are people out there who are in deep crisis through no fault of their own. The government should help them. But I get the feeling that Phil Gramm was right. This "crisis" really is in everybody's heads ... and once it gets there, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
for the least they could possibly do
I don't think anyone believes in that, but from what I read about both candidates tax plans...Obama plans to really tax the richest Americans really hard....not saying the rest won't be taxed.
What I'm saying is he will only be taxing the bejesus out of those earning $250,000.00 or more...which accounts for like MAYBE 5% of your population so to say he'd tax the bejesus out of everyone is incorrect.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9fbxpMw4mco If you want to see the numbers.
I'm not just talking about income taxes here, although that is certainly part of it.
I'm more worried about Obama's plan to tax the bejesus out of corporations and small businesses, who either employ most of us, or sell most of us every good in our household.
So, sure, that 95 percent of middle class Americans who Obama is allegedly not taxing won't feel the pinch -- unless they plan to buy groceries at any regular intervals, or feel like earning a paycheck from a corporation.
You can't just tax "the rich" or "corporations" in this country without trickling down to everybody. Taxing corporations isn't going to create jobs, it's going to eliminate them. And it's going to drive up the cost of basic neccesities even more than they already are. And I believe that will only serve to make a bad economic situation worse.
I would urge both parties, instead of "taxing more," they need to be talking about "spending less."
for the least they could possibly do
Let's get one thing right about "taxing the bejesus" out of the rich ... it is restoring the tax levels of the Clinton regime ... we are not talking about the newest tax highs of all time ...
Again, Reagan tried to lower taxes a ton when he first took office, then had to raise them for the majority of his remaining years in office ... "Read my Lips" Bush 41 never got away with tax cuts, he raised taxes ...
We're not talking about changing taxes from 40% to 90%, which is what the Repulicans are scaring people to think ...
If you want shit to work in this country, sorry, the government needs to collect some tax. In times when we're at war, perhaps a little more ...
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
So you're saying there's no pork to trim, anywhere? I'd say start there, and if you still need money after that, then we'll talk about a tax hike.
for the least they could possibly do
I'll have to get the source, but, I believe if you cut all the pork, it would still take many, many years to fight back our deficit ... while pork can be trimmed ... it's not the only answer .... while taxation can go up, it's not the only answer ... while "necessary" (non pork) government spending can be cut, it's not the only answer ...
All facets need to work together.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
I was still a child under Reagan, but everything I've read of his reign shows me that he was a terror for the middle-class. The Crash of 87? The widening gap between the rich and poor? The top 1% of the country accumulating far more percentage wealth than ever before? These are all notable attributes of the Reagan Presidency. I also feel that a President's economic policies have an impact; taxes and spending and market confidence are consistently directed by the Executive branch. Bush cut taxes and he didn't cut spending; we now have a massive deficit which is leading to economic difficulties.
I also think it's a little limited and short-sighted to measure the stability of the economy by how you personally are doing (for what it's worth, my family is doing worse and most of my friends are doing worse). Where are the people who are destitute? Where are you? I'm sure they're not far. Unemployment has skyrocketed, and wages are troubling. People's savings are being lost. I live in New York City and work with dozens if not hundreds of homeless every week in my job; do you think it's that all these people just need to get a job? I'm sorry if I'm insulting, I don't mean to be, but it's a passionate topic, that if you're destitute it must be your own doing. Speaking from personal experience, the number of homeless in our streets have skyrocketed in the past eight years. And this is NYC, one of the healthiest metropolises in our union right now; imagine Flint, Michigan. Imagine New Orleans. So if it's all about you then that's fine, but I think it's wrong to extend personal prosperity to the state of the country, particularly when the numbers don't support that.
And I'm sorry, the 'crisis' is not in everybody's heads. These numbers and these stories are not coming from nowhere. The only way Bush's economic policies are not a complete failure is if these stories are a "mental recession." I think it's pretty offensive to insinuate such a thing.
Those earmarks McCain talks about? Make up 16 billion of our annual budget. Now that's nothing to sneeze at, but we will spend more than that in Iraq in the next two months. Also, alot of those earmarks are not Nancy Pelosi's couch or Harry Reid's endless supply of strippers. Most of them are for Veterans' Hospitals, after-school centers, community organizations, etc. etc. etc. While I think the practice needs to be reviewed, I don't think it will politically have much traction. "Senator Smith, how dare you request an earmark for......a hospital for soldiers returning from Iraq suffering from PTSD?"
Aren't two of Obama's economic advisors Jim Johnson, who was the CEO of Fannie Mae and a managing director of Lehman Brothers prior and benefited from preferential loans from Countrywide, and Franklin Raines, who was also CEO of Fannie, received preferential loans from Countrywide, and had civil charges brought upon him for account irregularities yet saw fit to pay himself a $20 mil dollar bonus.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109770752803244715.html?mod=Review-Outlook-US
Yeah, I feel good about Obama solving the mortgage problem.
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
How far would $845 billion go toward paying down that deficit? Because that's the amount of our tax money Barry wants to give to the U.N. to disperse to other countries that, you know, aren't the United States. (I'm sure the U.N. will take good care of it. They aren't corrupt at all).
Off the top of my head, that's one project I'd cut -- or at least put on hold --rather than raise taxes.
for the least they could possibly do
Neither side has great advisers I think we can agree on that. The Republicans have had ample time to try and find a way to solve the mortgage problem and GW has chosen (or been told by his party) to lay low and do jack shit...so please don't turn a blind eye to the fact that the Republicans have had the last YEAR to try and do something and they've done NOTHING.
I know. That's why I'm not voting for either of them. I'm making a protest vote for the third election in a row for a third party.
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
I agree. But GW isn't running. John McCain is. And, as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, McCain did at least *try* to do something. He was just ignored, by his party and the opposition party.
It seems disingenuous to blame him or the tax cuts (Joe Biden???) for this crisis.
He was the guy on the deck of the Titanic, warning about the iceberg ahead. It's not his fault nobody listened and the ship wrecked.
for the least they could possibly do
While neither are above reproach ...
Jim Johnson - once Jim Johnson's issues were made known to the Obama campign ... he was dismissed.
Franklin Raines left Fannie in 2004 ... while his bonus is disgusting, the excessive use of sub prime loans came about after that.
Neither of these were ever the CHEIF economic advisor (like Phil Gramm is for McCain, who, again, said this was a MENTAL RECESSION), that would be Austan Goolsbee ... feel free to dig up dirt on him.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
I have a feeling you'll be voting with 2 percent of the country for the rest of your natural life ... not that there's anything wrong with that, of course
for the least they could possibly do
What's funny is, I actually get where Gramm is coming from. I went into that, either in this thread or somewhere else.
I think if people would just turn off the news and live their lives, most of us would realize they're just fine. I certainly don't feel like I'm living in the "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression." My grandparents, who lived through an actual Depression, would probably try to slap me if I claimed otherwise.
for the least they could possibly do
I'm not assigning blame to anyone for the crisis itself...I'm saying that the Republicans are doing NOTHING to get America out of this crisis, and then throwing mud at Obama for how he plans to run things while telling voters to give them another shot with Mccain. If they have all the answers WHY isn't America already OUT of the crisis?? Why are they sitting back and doing fuck all until after the election??? Cause they are blowing smoke and don't have the right answers any more than Obama or anyone else. OR they know that what they may need to do will piss off potential voters so for political reasons they let people suffer.
Honestly ... I don't think there really IS an answer. Politicans like to talk about changing this or that ... but the economy is it's own beast, and it just has to right itself on its own.
That's why Obama and McCain both have been downright incoherent on this issue of late. There isn't a good answer, but they have to pretend they have one. Nothing they do is likely to fix anything. You've just got to try to ride out the storm, and maybe try to figure out a way not to let these things happen again.
And also, IMO, for God's sake no more bailouts.
for the least they could possibly do
"I think if people would just turn off the news and live their lives, most of us would realize they're just fine."?
Really? I mean ... really? Let's all ignore what the rich and politicians are doing to us (no party ... all of them) .... let's just stick our head in the sand?
Let's not worry about wars being fought, gas prices tripling, national debt, the housing crisis ... it'll all just wash away cyclicly? REALLY?
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
I hope you're wrong someday.
But I can't help but to agree.
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
LOL You know what...I couldn't agree more.
Tho I will say this...I do think that whomever is in office needs to focus a little more on domestic policy then foreign policy. I'm not saying leave the troops out to dry or anything...just saying be say 60-40 domestic to foreign rather than like 80-20 foreign to domestic like GW.
People of vastly different backgrounds are facing vastly different circumstances, in vastly different parts of this country. I mentioned this before, but I don't understand how somebody's economic mindset would be that "well, I don't feel like I'm doing that much worse, so that must mean that most people elsewhere are OK, too." I mean, there's 300 million other people in this country; you can't just poll yourself. I'm sorry that I brought it up earlier and am repeating myself, but I can't get my head around that notion that if people would really just smell the fresh air they'd be fine, and that since you yourself are better off the country is as well. You have an individual story and pushing your story onto the economic stability of every other person in this country is a wrong move, and a disastrous way to view the state of our country.
Let me say this ... McCain, Obama, Barr, Nadar .... whomever it is ... if their total focus of domestic + foreign actually equals 100% ... well, we're ALREADY doing WAY better than we have it now!
Jan 20 cannot come soon enough.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
That's not what I'm saying at all.
What I'm saying is, the 24-hour news cycle has a way of convincing us that things are worse than they really are.
I watch the news all day ... and I hear them tell me all this horrible news about the stock market ... and allegedly the economy is tanking ... and everybody is losing their jobs and their houses ... and .... Lehman Brothers just filed Chapter 11 ... and the government had to bailout AIG ... and ... and
It's all bad news, to be sure, but guess what?
Everybody I know is fine. Nobody has lost their job. Nobody has lost their houses. Most of us are doing substantially better than we were eight years ago. Where are all these destitute people I keep hearing about? I don't doubt there are some people out there who are hurting, through no fault of their own, and those people definitely need and deserve government assistance.
But to listen to the news, you'd think everyone is standing in a bread line. That just isn't the case, and it isn't going to be the case.
This is the "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression?" Really? My grandparents heard that and laughed their asses off.
But people hear it, over and over, and so it must be true. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. "I've got money, but I'm not buying that new car or TV, because the economy's bad." And that just makes a bad economy worse.
I mentioned in a previous post a quote from Fred Thompson, back when he claimed he wasn't going to run for president. HE said something to the effect of "I'm not going to run, because I don't want to have to spend the next year crisscrossing the country, trying to convince people they are worse off than they actually are."
That's what I'm getting at here.
for the least they could possibly do
the issue is ... people need to EDUCATE themselves ... and we all know, sadly, that ain't gonna happen.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
I do get that there are people who are hurting economically. I'm not trying to pump sunshine and say everything's hunky dorey.
But I do believe, for the vast majority of us, things aren't as bad as we're being told.
for the least they could possibly do
My last post, cause it's late; although I respect your viewpoint I have no understanding of the opinion you're taking on the manner. Let me tell you about some people that I know; I work with some non-profit organizations, and much of my work involves getting out-of-work or homeless individuals housing and employment opportunities. These are not just the permanent homeless; alot of lower-middle class workers are now losing the grip. It's back-breaking because there are so many applicants, so many homeless in our city. And this is only one organization in one city in the entire nation. My best friend moved in with his new wife two years ago; they're now facing possible foreclosure.
These are the people I know; that I know all these people seems to refute your notion about the lack of destitute people and dire situations in this country. I'm not going to say that due to my personal experience, the majority of people in this country are facing significant difficulty; I will say that it goes against progress to assume that since you and yours are taken care of, so goes the nation. And I think the facts, figures, and testimonies of middle-class individuals throughout this country are proof. Unemployment has skyrocketed this year so far; they're not just making this stuff up. And I think it's best to trust the large numbers of middle and working class men and women in this country who claim to be facing significant difficulties, and not say that they're fooling themselves.
Senator Obama talks a tough game on the financial markets but the facts tell a different story. He took more money from Fannie and Freddie than any Senator but the Democratic chairman of the committee that regulates them. He put Fannie Mae's CEO who helped create this disaster in charge of finding his Vice President. Fannie's former General Counsel is a senior advisor to his campaign. Whose side do you think he is on? When I pushed legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Senator Obama was silent. He didn't lift a hand to avert this crisis. While the leaders of Fannie and Freddie were lining the pockets of his campaign, they were sowing the seeds of the financial crisis we see today and enriching themselves with millions of dollars in payments. That's not change, that's what's broken in Washington.
...
Senator Obama has never made the kind tough reform we need today. His idea of reform is what his party leaders in Congress order him to do. We tried for bipartisan ethics reform and he walked away from it because his bosses didn't want real change.
...
When AIG was bailed out, I didn't like it, but I understood it needed to be done to protect hard working Americans with insurance policies and annuities. Senator Obama didn't take a position. On the biggest issue of the day, he didn't know what to think. He may not realize it, but you don't get to vote present as President of the United States. While Senator Obama and Congressional leaders don't know what to think about the current crisis, we know what their plans are for the economy. Today Senator Obama's running mate said that raising taxes is patriotic. Raising taxes in a tough economy isn't patriotic. It's not a badge of honor. It's just dumb policy. The billions in tax increases that Senator Obama is proposing would kill even more jobs during tough economic times. I'm not going to let that happen.
for the least they could possibly do