With a Hat Tip to Torteya for the post:
But you know, a lie is still a lie. The lie being that McCain wants to give you a tax break and Obama wants to steal all your money to fund whatever it is that angry radical christian-muslim inner city blacks do with money. For the majority (majority is an understatement here, by the way) of americans, Obama offers a tax break far bigger than McCain’s. Tose in the top 1 percentile that finally get to pay taxes after years of supply-side bullshit. And they can suck it.
Check out this page, then post your revised “Tax Relief” here:
Mine:
Obama: -$433.92
McCain: -$80.59
The page isn’t working. I think it’s figured out I’m a Republican. Or maybe both of them would raise my taxes and I’m screwed, it’s entirely possible.
Why does the “top 1 percent” have to “suck it”? Why not reduce the size of government by slashing entitlement spending and earmarks, and then you can lower everybody’s taxes. Anger at the “top 1 percent” simply because they’re the “top 1 percent” is a crappy reason to make policy.
Or it could be swamped from traffic.
The anger stems from the top 1% not paying their fair share of taxes over the past 8 years. The burden on the rest of us, regardless of our party affiliation, have not received the same level of benefit.
Earmarks and Entitlements, Tax burdens, Tax Relief: These are all rhetorical terms that put a negative spin on the basic responsibilities of government. Who is supposed to build roads? How do we take care of the elderly, the poor and those who cannot take care of themselves?
If we are going to talk about Earmarks, I do believe Governor Palin can return the federal money Alaska received. Maybe they can have a sales tax or an income tax to pay for their own bridges.
And if we want to reduce the size of government, let’s eliminate the Missile Shield–it doesn’t work. Let’s end the war in Iraq and let our vets get the help they need and help them get new jobs so they can continue to contribute to our society.
Sorry, but this administration has done more increase the size of the government AND then shift the responsibility of government to private agencies.
Bush’s policies have led to this 700-billion dollar bailout, so Bush’s constituents are going to have to pay for it.
“Fair share?” Bullshit, Marty. The current system isn’t progressive enough? Want to go back to the pre-JFK days of 90% top marginal tax rates, when high achievers and high earners were moving their money everywhere else they could find? Forget the torrent of money that was released into the Treasury when Democratic icon JFK cut the top marginal rate, and when Ronald Reagan did it again in the early 1980s?
2006 tax data from the Tax Foundation for individual income tax filings:
Top 1 percent of wage earners: 22.06% of adjusted gross income, 39.89% of income taxes.
Top 5 percent of wage earners: 36.66% of adjusted gross income, 60.14% of income taxes.
Top 10 percent of wage earners: 47.32% of adjusted gross income, 70.79% of income taxes.
Bottom 50 percent of wage earners: 12.51% of adjusted gross income, 2.99% of income taxes.
The cutoff for the “top 1 percent” in 2006, BTW, was an AGI of $388,806.
And BUSH’S policies have led to the $700 billion bailout? Gee, seems to me the Community Reinvestment Act revisions in 1997 started causing “community activists” to strongarm banks into increasing their lending into risky areas. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started handling subprime mortgages in 1999, with Franklin Raines at the helm–a guy who Obama’s dialed a few times. (See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260 ) Who have been Fannie and Freddie and the subprime industry’s biggest defenders? Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, neither one a Republican.
No, Marty, that “Bush’s policies” stuff isn’t going to work. This is a bipartisan fuckup of the first order. Both parties are responsible for it. I’d just as soon, at this point, let the politicians and the CEOs whose greed caused this pay for it, instead of taking even more of my tax money to scoop up the steaming dogpile they crapped.
BTW:
“Sorry, but this administration has done more increase the size of the government AND then shift the responsibility of government to private agencies. ”
I actually agree with this statement. As much as I respect George W. Bush and agree with him on many things, I think his handling of Federal spending has been nothing short of disastrous. W had four years with a Congress allegedly loyal to him and did exactly jack and shit to lower spending in line with his tax cuts. Growing government much faster than Bill Clinton ever did is not exactly a selling point for “compassionate conservatism”.
I need to read up more on the details of both Obama’s and McCain’s tax policies. I’m more skeptical of Obama’s because of Democratic records in the past, because of the way they’ve tended to target their “tax cuts” toward people who aren’t paying very much tax anyway, in absolute *or* relative terms. But then again, maybe he’s doing it differently. Ditto McCain.
Seth explained most of what you’re arguing here.
As for your source, the Tax foundation, I question the validity of your source. In short, they play with the numbers to make taxes look more like a “Burdern” than it is.
As for bipartisan fuckups: The republicans were in charge from 1994-2006. The dems should have stood up, and they did not. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been Moral Hazards since their founding–but they have been utilized to see the “Ownership” society that Bush has been pushing for since 2001.
We agree , however, that the politicians and CEOs should have to pay for it–but I do not think the party who has been in power and oversaw deregulation should be the guys restructuring our failing economy.
Lewis, This is what I have in mind.
The very very very rich, have had close to three decades of economic policies that have worked for nobody but them. I can’t wait for the economy to work for those of us in the overwhelming majority who’ve been “sucking it” for all these years.
What is enough money?
The people who cannot fathom the notion of enough money are the ones who exploited the system and revised the mechanisms of our economy to the point where it has collapsed. I don’t know who all is directly responsible, but I know a central question of any good investigation is: Who benefited?
I know that the economy was abused for the purpose of getting more money out of it, and that to do that you need both a) a lot of money-slash-power to flex and b) a sense that you can never have enough of either. So I don’t the names of the fuck-ups, but I know where they live: where the money is. This isn’t just the greed of CEOs, it’s a culture of greed.
That money that’s in the top 1% of the US population is money that used to circulate but is now accumulated at the top. Nothing else—nothing—has successfully gotten that money back into the public world of infrastructure and civilization-building other than taxes. Our roads weren’t built by rich citizens interested in improving their nation.
A civilization isn’t bettered by individual excess. A person in a society is not entitled to excess. The trick pulled on all of us is that none of us can identify excess, it seems, because we all want to reserve the right to have such excess ourselves later on.
We do not need to defend an individual’s right to fabulous wealth for it is well established and well protected. The conflict is between the public wellbeing and the engorgement of an invisible aristocracy that we defend like castles in the hopes that one day, when we are under siege or knighted ourselves, we will be allowed inside.
You can’t imagine how weird it is for me to argue this point, now, Lewis. I used to be a big proponent of small government. I used to be something like a Libertarian. For personal freedoms, I still am. But the economy is public, and the money being stockpiled by that top percentage wasn’t minted for that purpose.
The richest got richer. How has that made the world a better place? How has that improved the American civilization?
Big picture.
I don’t have time for this shit people. Marty, I should kick your ass for getting me involved in this. There are still comments from the other thread from last week that I want to respond to, but don’t have time. Lol Plus, you need to teach me how you people type abracadabra and make it glow as a hyperlink to other sites. I’m behind you big leaguers.
Anyway… I’m surprised that Lewis and I agree on something. First off, Lewis said, “go back to the pre-JFK days of 90% top marginal tax rates.” I COULDN’T AGREE MORE. Oh? Wait… was that sarcastic? Did you not want to do that? Damn. And I thought we were gonna get around the campfire and sing Kumbaya. Yes, I want to increase taxes on the rich a lot. Scratch that, a fuck ton.
I would love to see JFK era progressive tax system. I would like to get to the 70% rate of JFK back, but would happily settle for 50%. A 50% they actually have to pay with none of this “I own 7 houses and get to write a bunch of shit off”. If you have seven houses you don’t need to write anything off. What we have now is a joke and the wealthy are the only ones laughing. If you earn 100 million dollars, yes, you should have to pay 70 million in taxes. You would still have 30 million dollars! You’re rich. You want for nothing. Chill the fuck out.
You stats, regardless of their possible accuracy (of which I’m doubtful) irritate me because the folks at the top are not paying nearly enough. And ya know who agrees with me, Warren Buffett (see below). This is where I could use the help with this new-fangled technology stuff.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21553857/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/06/warren-buffet-p.html
BTW: Buffett helped Hilary in the primary and he’s helping Obama now. Buffett, a rich fuck’n guy with a conscience. That’s neat. And he also points out that he doesn’t keep his money in off-shore tax shelters, but knows full well that most fat cats do.
I would also like to point out that corporations don’t pay nearly what they used to as a portion of the federal revenue stream. That burden has been shifted onto the back of individual citizens. I’m sure the response will have something to do with how cutting taxes on corporations is good for an economy that needs to always be in a state of growth. I question the long term viability of a system that needs to constantly be growing. But that aside, don’t you think the corporations that are profiting off of us should be paying more too? I certainly do.
This part I love, Lewis. You said, “Gee, seems to me the Community Reinvestment Act revisions in 1997 started causing “community activists” to strongarm banks into increasing their lending into risky areas. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started handling subprime mortgages in 1999, with Franklin Raines at the helm–a guy who Obama’s dialed a few times.” Why don’t you grow some balls and come and say what ya really think? This is all code for “we fucked up when we lent money to the blacks and the browns and the poor folk because they’re irresponsible. Oh, and by the way, Obama’s black and he once spoke to someone else who’s black who worked at Fannie. Black Black Black”
Give me a break. Do you really have the audacity… Are you so ignorant… Did you actually just blame the folks who were taken advantage of in this crisis? I can’t even get out a coherent thought at this point I’m so disturbed. God forbid minorities get a piece of the so-called American dream. What an atrocity to increase wealth, primarily via home ownership, in communities that are prevented from acquiring wealth, both in the past as a matter of law and today unofficially. I want to vomit every time I think of the fact that this crisis has been taking shape, at the very least, over the past year and a half. What have we done to the folks who lost there homes over the past year and a half? Jack shit, that’s what! And we find that acceptable. However, Wall Street takes a dive, banks crumble from there greed, to the rescue we are told we must go. Puke.
Did you ignore the sentence in the article you referenced which said, “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages…felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.” Giving loans to folks on the margins wasn’t altruistic on the part of the lenders. It also wasn’t Fannie simply following the law. This crisis was created from sheer greed. Lenders, with an insatiable appetite, used this as a mechanism to extract more wealth out of already struggling communities. I don’t have time to do the research, but I have no doubt that there was lobbying done to get this bill passed, not only by those community organizers who scare you so deeply because they believe in justice and equality, but also by the banks who knew they could rake a ton of money out of these struggling communities. What’s next? Are you going to tell that Pay-Day loans are to poor Black communities, as Penicillin was to scarlet fever?
It’s really amazing to me that you blame folks who took out loans in an effort to get a little piece of the pie, yet you ignore entirely the effects of deregulation of many an industry. You blame people for taking out loans they would eventually not be able to afford because their mortgage broker told them they would be able to refinance before their arm jumped up a crazy amount, but offer no criticism of the company who knew exactly what the fine print said and made every effort to get folks to sign on the dotted line. Ya see, my mom used to work in the mortgage business and when I was in college I would work summer jobs in her office. I know the shit they pulled; I saw it with my own eyes on a daily basis. One isolated example, just one place of business you say? Let me introduce you to a dozen guys I’ve played cards with who work in the mortgage industry and can tell you about how they’ve screwed people. But then again, god forbid we pay for a world class education for all Americans so they can all learn about how industries like the mortgage industry twist their arm around their back invisibly. And, it’s just nuts to require all this nonsense to stop. If we regulated and simplified things so that folks could actually know what’s going on then those at the top wouldn’t be able take obnoxious amounts of money from the middle and poor classes.
Furthermore, I just need to point something out. Why is it that the GI bill post-WWII was a massive success in creating a middle class and allowing for home ownership, but this time it all well to hell? Wait… was the GI bill a government run program? Hmm. And it worked well. According to the right the government doesn’t work and only the market does. Yea… fuck that. Government doesn’t work when the people in charge of it have a vested interest in it not working in order to create an argument for privatization at a profit. Yea, you’re right; I’m pissed at Bill Clinton too. He should have stood up to these greedy bastards, done what was right, and created a government program, non-for-profit, that helped black and brown folk establish themselves and create wealth so that they could pass it onto their children instead of letting these greedy bastards get their way into the mix which resulted in them blowing the whole economy to hell.
There is one point in which I, literally, agree with you 100% Lewis. You said, “No, Marty, that “Bush’s policies” stuff isn’t going to work. This is a bipartisan fuckup of the first order. Both parties are responsible for it. I’d just as soon, at this point, let the politicians and the CEOs whose greed caused this pay for it, instead of taking even more of my tax money to scoop up the steaming dogpile they crapped.” I couldn’t agree with you more. You’re right. And this is not all Bush’s fault. The Democrats are only slightly better than the Republicans when it comes to this massive fuck up. Deregulation started in a big way with that schmuck, Reagan. Clinton exacerbated it. Clinton also made NAFTA worse and helped usher in the WTO. His advisors, Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin were meeting with Obama about the current crisis and I wanted to cry. The Democrats are certainly not innocent with regard to this whole mess and I’m pissed at them as well. If they pass this bailout and redistribute more wealth into the hands of fat cats… I can’t bear the thought of it.
It doesn’t have to run this way, but I believe it will because those in power have little interest in changing the status quo. I’m starting to wonder if I’m living though the age of permanent American decline, the destruction of the empire. If so, maybe next time we’ll get it right?
Ummm… I wrote a post and it’s not showing up. What’s the deal. yo?
I’m posting it in chunks.
I don’t have time for this shit people. Marty, I should kick your ass for getting me involved in this. There are still comments from the other thread from last week that I want to respond to, but don’t have time. Lol Plus, you need to teach me how you people type abracadabra and make it glow as a hyperlink to other sites. I’m behind you big leaguers.
Anyway… I’m surprised that Lewis and I agree on something. First off, Lewis said, “go back to the pre-JFK days of 90% top marginal tax rates.” I COULDN’T AGREE MORE. Oh? Wait… was that sarcastic? Did you not want to do that? Damn. And I thought we were gonna get around the campfire and sing Kumbaya. Yes, I want to increase taxes on the rich a lot. Scratch that, a fuck ton.
I would love to see JFK era progressive tax system. I would like to get to the 70% rate of JFK back, but would happily settle for 50%. A 50% they actually have to pay with none of this “I own 7 houses and get to write a bunch of shit off”. If you have seven houses you don’t need to write anything off. What we have now is a joke and the wealthy are the only ones laughing. If you earn 100 million dollars, yes, you should have to pay 70 million in taxes. You would still have 30 million dollars! You’re rich. You want for nothing. Chill the fuck out.
You stats, regardless of their possible accuracy (of which I’m doubtful) irritate me because the folks at the top are not paying nearly enough. And ya know who agrees with me, Warren Buffett (see below). This is where I could use the help with this new-fangled technology stuff.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21553857/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/06/warren-buffet-p.html
BTW: Buffett helped Hilary in the primary and he’s helping Obama now. Buffett, a rich fuck’n guy with a conscience. That’s neat. And he also points out that he doesn’t keep his money in off-shore tax shelters, but knows full well that most fat cats do.
I don’t have time for this shit people. Marty, I should kick your ass for getting me involved in this. There are still comments from the other thread from last week that I want to respond to, but don’t have time. Lol Plus, you need to teach me how you people type abracadabra and make it glow as a hyperlink to other sites. I’m behind you big leaguers.
Anyway… I’m surprised that Lewis and I agree on something. First off, Lewis said, “go back to the pre-JFK days of 90% top marginal tax rates.” I COULDN’T AGREE MORE. Oh? Wait… was that sarcastic? Did you not want to do that? Damn. And I thought we were gonna get around the campfire and sing Kumbaya. Yes, I want to increase taxes on the rich a lot. Scratch that, a fuck ton.
I would love to see JFK era progressive tax system. I would like to get to the 70% rate of JFK back, but would happily settle for 50%. A 50% they actually have to pay with none of this “I own 7 houses and get to write a bunch of shit off”. If you have seven houses you don’t need to write anything off. What we have now is a joke and the wealthy are the only ones laughing. If you earn 100 million dollars, yes, you should have to pay 70 million in taxes. You would still have 30 million dollars! You’re rich. You want for nothing. Chill the fuck out.
You stats, regardless of their possible accuracy (of which I’m doubtful) irritate me because the folks at the top are not paying nearly enough. And ya know who agrees with me, Warren Buffett (see below). This is where I could use the help with this new-fangled technology stuff.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21553857/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/06/warren-buffet-p.html
BTW: Buffett helped Hilary in the primary and he’s helping Obama now. Buffett, a rich fuck’n guy with a conscience. That’s neat. And he also points out that he doesn’t keep his money in off-shore tax shelters, but knows full well that most fat cats do.
I would also like to point out that corporations don’t pay nearly what they used to as a portion of the federal revenue stream. That burden has been shifted onto the back of individual citizens. I’m sure the response will have something to do with how cutting taxes on corporations is good for an economy that needs to always be in a state of growth. I question the long term viability of a system that needs to constantly be growing. But that aside, don’t you think the corporations that are profiting off of us should be paying more too? I certainly do.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21553857/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/06/warren-buffet-p.html
BTW: Buffett helped Hilary in the primary and he’s helping Obama now. Buffett, a rich fuck’n guy with a conscience. That’s neat. And he also points out that he doesn’t keep his money in off-shore tax shelters, but knows full well that most fat cats do.
I would also like to point out that corporations don’t pay nearly what they used to as a portion of the federal revenue stream. That burden has been shifted onto the back of individual citizens. I’m sure the response will have something to do with how cutting taxes on corporations is good for an economy that needs to always be in a state of growth. I question the long term viability of a system that needs to constantly be growing. But that aside, don’t you think the corporations that are profiting off of us should be paying more too? I certainly do.
This part I love, Lewis. You said, “Gee, seems to me the Community Reinvestment Act revisions in 1997 started causing “community activists” to strongarm banks into increasing their lending into risky areas. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started handling subprime mortgages in 1999, with Franklin Raines at the helm–a guy who Obama’s dialed a few times.” Why don’t you grow some balls and come and say what ya really think? This is all code for “we fucked up when we lent money to the blacks and the browns and the poor folk because they’re irresponsible. Oh, and by the way, Obama’s black and he once spoke to someone else who’s black who worked at Fannie. Black Black Black”
Give me a break. Do you really have the audacity… Are you so ignorant… Did you actually just blame the folks who were taken advantage of in this crisis? I can’t even get out a coherent thought at this point I’m so disturbed. God forbid minorities get a piece of the so-called American dream. What an atrocity to increase wealth, primarily via home ownership, in communities that are prevented from acquiring wealth, both in the past as a matter of law and today unofficially. I want to vomit every time I think of the fact that this crisis has been taking shape, at the very least, over the past year and a half. What have we done for the folks who lost there homes over the past year and a half? Jack shit, that’s what! And we find that acceptable. However, Wall Street takes a dive, banks crumble from their own greed, and to the rescue we are told we must go. Puke.
Did you ignore the sentence in the article you referenced which said, “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages…felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.” Giving loans to folks on the margins wasn’t altruistic on the part of the lenders. It also wasn’t Fannie simply following the law. This crisis was created from sheer greed. Lenders, with an insatiable appetite, used this as a mechanism to extract more wealth out of already struggling communities. I don’t have time to do the research, but I have no doubt that there was lobbying done to get this bill passed, not only by those community organizers who scare you so deeply because they believe in justice and equality, but also by the banks who knew they could rake a ton of money out of these struggling communities. What’s next? Are you going to tell that Pay-Day loans are to poor Black communities, as Penicillin was to scarlet fever?
It’s really amazing to me that you blame folks who took out loans in an effort to get a little piece of the pie, yet you ignore entirely the effects of deregulation of many an industry. You blame people for taking out loans they would eventually not be able to afford because their mortgage broker told them they would be able to refinance before their arm jumped up a crazy amount, but offer no criticism of the company who knew exactly what the fine print said and made every effort to get folks to sign on the dotted line. Ya see, my mom used to work in the mortgage business and when I was in college I would work summer jobs in her office. I know the shit they pulled; I saw it with my own eyes on a daily basis. One isolated example, just one place of business you say? Let me introduce you to a dozen guys I’ve played cards with who work in the mortgage industry and can tell you about how they’ve screwed people. But then again, god forbid we pay for a world class education for all Americans so they can all learn about how industries like the mortgage industry twist their arm around their back invisibly. And, it’s just nuts to require all this nonsense to stop. If we regulated and simplified things so that folks could actually know what’s going on then those at the top wouldn’t be able take obnoxious amounts of money from the middle and poor classes.
Furthermore, I just need to point something out. Why is it that the GI bill post-WWII was a massive success in creating a middle class and allowing for home ownership, but this time it all well to hell? Wait… was the GI bill a government run program? Hmm. And it worked well. According to the right the government doesn’t work and only the market does. Yea… fuck that. Government doesn’t work when the people in charge of it have a vested interest in it not working in order to create an argument for privatization at a profit. Yea, you’re right; I’m pissed at Bill Clinton too. He should have stood up to these greedy bastards, done what was right, and created a government program, non-for-profit, that helped black and brown folk establish themselves and create wealth so that they could pass it onto their children instead of letting these greedy bastards get their way into the mix which resulted in them blowing the whole economy to hell.
There is one point in which I, literally, agree with you 100% Lewis. You said, “No, Marty, that “Bush’s policies” stuff isn’t going to work. This is a bipartisan fuckup of the first order. Both parties are responsible for it. I’d just as soon, at this point, let the politicians and the CEOs whose greed caused this pay for it, instead of taking even more of my tax money to scoop up the steaming dogpile they crapped.” I couldn’t agree with you more. You’re right. And this is not all Bush’s fault. The Democrats are only slightly better than the Republicans when it comes to this massive fuck up. Deregulation started in a big way with that schmuck, Reagan. Clinton exacerbated it. Clinton also made NAFTA worse and helped usher in the WTO. His advisors, Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin were meeting with Obama about the current crisis and I wanted to cry. The Democrats are certainly not innocent with regard to this whole mess and I’m pissed at them as well. If they pass this bailout and redistribute more wealth into the hands of fat cats… I can’t bear the thought of it.
It doesn’t have to run this way, but I believe it will because those in power have little interest in changing the status quo. I’m starting to wonder if I’m living though the age of permanent American decline, the destruction of the empire. If so, maybe next time we’ll get it right?
This just in: The New York Times reported on Monday that Rick Davis, campaign manager to the McCain campaign was paid more 30,000 per MONTH (1.8 million over 5 years) to be president of an “advocacy group” (read: lobbyist) called The Home Ownership Alliance. He lobbied for the deregulation of banking industry and defended Fannie and Freddie against government regulation. What they were really buying was access to McCain. “The value that Rick Davis brought to the relationship was the closeness to Senator McCain and the possibility that Senator McCain was going to run for president again.” Robert McCarson, Former Fannie Mac Spokesman.
This was on MSNBC.
And there was lobbying on the part of the mortgage companies to get into more markets to make more money via deregulation. Do you still want to blame the folks who bought the mortgages? If so, I suggest you also blame the parents of the babies in China who ate the tainted milk. It wouldn’t make sense to blame the corporation who cut corners and put poison filler in the milk.
And another thing…
There is now the desire on the part of some to blame the victim in this whole economic debacle. Yet what no one addresses the fact that corporations, in an effort to constantly make sick amounts of money and increase profits, spend billions of dollars each year to make sure that we act as consumers. The American people are robots who have been programmed to buy, buy again, and buy some more! This programming, which leads to materialism and consumerism, is also greatly to blame for this mess. A great many of these loans that are failing not only went to overspending on a home, but when to refinancing. Often time when folks refinanced the equity they had in their home was used to purchase stuff, or pay off credit cards – credit cards that were then loaded up again with more debt from more stuff. Again, I call into question a system in which this behavior is encouraged. Remember what we were told to do as we were going to war? GO SHOPPING!
These are links to articles published in NYT and Newsweek that I referenced last night from MSNBC. Essentially they talk about how Freddie Mac was purchasing influence via Rick Davis, campaign manager to the McCain campaign. Destruction of the old boys network my ass. McCain’s a dirty bastard.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/160561/output/print
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/w24davis.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1222269221-Cmn0zZs1vRAzJJE60DROKA
This is all code for “we fucked up when we lent money to the blacks and the browns and the poor folk because they’re irresponsible. Oh, and by the way, Obama’s black and he once spoke to someone else who’s black who worked at Fannie. Black Black Black”
Mike, Take a chill pill.
You had me, right up until then. Sorry.
Boy, Mike, you kind of, uh, upstaged us all there. I’ll be surprised if this doesn’t put an end to this thread.
But let’s see.
After poking around some right-wing websites the last couple of weeks, it seems clear to me that news like this report of Rick Davis lobbying for Fannie and Freddie can be discounted by the right because it comes from “left-wing” and “biased” news sources like MSNBC and the NY Times. The Republican brand has expertly positioned itself to use the media as a loudspeaker, same as anybody, while simultaneously training its own pundits to lambaste all damning news as “liberal bias.” The result? Good news can be used as fuel, while bad news can be scraped off as bias.
It’s actually ingenious, even while it’s disingenuous. The argument goes like this: If the mass media reported it, and it speaks ill of a conservative candidate, it must just be liberal claptrap; but if the mass media reported it, and it speaks well of a conservative candidate, then it must be so big and so true that it cannot be denied because, look, even the liberal media reported it. It’s a cunning bit of chicanery, really, even though it’s chicanery.
This has worked so well that McCain and Sarah Palin no longer need to speak to the public to vilify the press. The Republican platform is so well branded that it can chug along even while the candidates dodge the media and refuse to submit to public scrutiny.
This is a tactic related to the phenomenon in which shameful Republicans are seen as outliers while shameful Democrats are seen as representative of the party. The Republican campaign machines of the past, uh, many years have demonstrated incredible rhetorical mastery.
Shame about everything else.
I’ll try and squeeze this in quickly…I’ve got some minorities I’ve got to go keep oppressed a little bit later today, right, Mike?
You are actually right about a lot of what you’re saying, and I can recognize that even though I’m offended as hell (but hardly surprised) that you doubled down on the race card immediately. I draw a differentiation between “fault” and “responsibility” when talking about the subprime mess…but I may post that over on my own blog after I’ve got some time to compose it better.
The fact is, you’re right that I ignored de-regulation, or more precisely, an aspect of the financial industry that’s never really been regulated. The explosion in risky subprime mortgages may have been the dry tinder that started this fire, but Wall Street somehow taking a couple hundred billion in mortgages and turning them into $45 TRILLION in esoteric, complicated, incomprehensible “derivatives” is the gasoline, hydrazine, and oxygen that’s been shot right into the heart of the flames. It’s a two-pronged problem, and you can’t have the current situation without either prong.
That having been said, I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you as being 100% opposed to the bailout. I’d like to see if there’s a legitimate, workable free-market solution on the Wall Street side, or at least something that doesn’t take a $700 billion blank check and give it to Hank Paulson. You want a bipartisan issue for the 2008 campaign? This is it. Most of the conservatives I know are really up in arms over this. They don’t want this bailout any more than you do, and our reasoning is surprisingly similar. I want to see investigations, and maybe, if there’s real criminality there, a few perp walks.
If the Federal government does have to get involved and end up buying a bunch of this toxic paper, I want the taxpayers to get something back out of it. Control of the companies, or at least some sort of guarantee that there will be at least breaking even, with no net losses to the Treasury.
Now, as to the debtors. I know where they’re coming from. I had six credit cards with about $20,000 in balance last year, all of them delinquent to one degree or another. I had to admit defeat and ended up going with a credit counseling service that negotiated with five of them to cut my interest rates. The sixth said “screw you” and threw me into collections, still charging 31% APR. I’ll have that one paid off next month, and the others paid off in about four years. But all six companies had every right to tell me “sorry, dude” and come after me with guns blazing…because paying those cards is my responsibility. Just like if I took an 80/20 ARM and couldn’t get it refinanced and got boned by the payments. Bad things happen to good people, and to put it bluntly, it is not the job of the “top 1 percent” to bail out my credit cards or somebody else’s dodgy mortgage…or pay for the top execs at Lehman Brothers’ haircuts.
By the way…I think a lot of folks here are going under some outdated thinking that Republicans (and conservatives in particular) are the “party of the rich” and the “party of big business”. Go to someplace like opensecrets.org and check out the donations of the big folks on Wall Street, and who gets their money might surprise you. They’re masters of playing both sides of the street, and trust me, crony capitalism–which is the real core of this problem on both “prongs”–is not limited to the Republicans.
One more thing. A link over to my blog where I’ve got an article from, of all people, Chuck Colson. Don’t spaz out–he makes some of the same points you guys have made, and makes them quite well. http://moosedroppings.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/accounting-for-disaster/
Oh! Back on the original topic! I got this to work at home yesterday, and I actually came out pretty much even (within about $30 I think) between the two plans. If Wife Unit gets back more into the jewelry-making business, and we get more supplemental income that way, the McCain plan would start to pull ahead, very slightly. What I’d be curious to know is, are those numbers reductions from the current tax code, which include the Bush cuts still, or after the Bush cuts expire. Because when the Bush cuts expire, I’m going to get hit hard, IIRC.
“The number reported above is the estimated difference between income taxes paid under George Bush’s proposed plan and the the taxes under the proposed Obama/McCain plans.”
That’s the “fine print” on the tax calculator thingee. I -think- that means it is comparing to the current tax code. Not really sure. Somebody want to dig into the Tax Policy Center raw data (where these estimates were taken from)? 😛
Lewis, predatory lending means people were talked into mortgages they could not afford by people who are supposed to be the experts and whose job it is to know mortgages and do good business. When you get swindled, you are not considered a culprit because you signed on the dotted line.
As for the notion of the Republicans as the party of big business: Dick Cheney has been one of the big Republican decision-makers for a few years now and the party is going to have to accept some responsibility for those decisions. The disparity of conservative philosophy and Republican action can’t be reconciled by diffusing blame.
My issue isn’t that one party is richer than another, it’s that our government has been corrupted and abused by the rich for the rich. The horizontal conflict between parties is kabuki, distracting from the more dangerous vertical conflict between money-addicted plutocrats and the plurality.
For eight years, a Republican administration has been in power and the party doesn’t get to disown its responsibility by disowning the administration or its actions. Both parties have to be responsible for the people who act in their name, or the party divisions became utterly meaningless. You cannot absolve the party simply by participating in mandatory elections—that’s not what they’re for.
The image of the Republican party as the party of the rich doesn’t mean they’re the party of just the rich, obviously. But it is the party than ran the CEO President, that privatized a war, that deregulated the economy at the behest of Wall Street lobbyists, and that has been spearheaded by plutocrats like Mr. Cheney. That’s party-of-big-business enough to warrant the label, sir.
The fact that big business (whatever the hell that really means) and Wall Street exert their influence and their money on both parties doesn’t make the party you speak out on behalf of any less culpable.
I’ll grant you that the conservative philosophy—which you so often defend, and which I have great respect for—is not much represented by the current Republican party. You are not a CEO or a Wall Street mogul, so it might seem weird to think that “your party” is the party of people who are not you. But what has the party done for you in the last eight years that hasn’t benefited the rich and big business more than you?
That’s what makes them the party of big business. That’s what makes them the party of the rich. It doesn’t matter how many “ordinary folks” vote for them—it hasn’t changed the character of your party leadership lately.
How long does your party have to act contrary to your philosophy before you will accept that the people who claim to represent you are saying one thing and doing another? How long until you stop letting the party off the hook? How long until you take action to change your party?
What would the Republicans have to do with their power for you to decide they’re not representing you?
Voting for McCain isn’t going to tell the Republican party that you have any issue at all with how things have been run. That vote sends exactly the same signal as the vote of someone who is fine with how the last four years have gone.
“Mike, Take a chill pill. You had me, right up until then. Sorry.”
The chill pill I won’t be popping anytime soon. It’s all good that you disagree with me, but I will call out racism when I see. Most white folk are too dismissive when it comes to race as far as I’m concerned. This is just a different version of “slavery was 200 years ago – get over it”. Moreover, this idea of a post-racial society is ludicrous. What we need to do is learn to understand our racism and, hopefully, eventually, embrace our differences.
“Boy, Mike, you kind of, uh, upstaged us all there. I’ll be surprised if this doesn’t put an end to this thread.”
Not trying to upstage anyone and not trying to kill the conversation, but unwilling to not call it as I see it. And I would expect nothing else from anyone patriotic enough to engage in a debate. For all the shit I give Lewis, and as strongly as I disagree with him on, well, almost everything….
Lewis, not that you need it or want it, but you have my respect for sticking around and engaging.
I agree with what Will said. Especially this, “My issue isn’t that one party is richer than another, it’s that our government has been corrupted and abused by the rich for the rich.” You will not find me defending Obama or the Dems when I disagree with them. I place quite a bit of blame on Bill Clinton (and the DLC) because they were the ones leading the deregulation party for 8 years prior to W. The consolidation of the banking and insurance companies took place during his presidency.
I would also add, with respect to Republicans being the “party of the rich”, that they have that label among those of us on the left for a couple of reasons. 1) They get folks to vote for them regardless of income level based on slogans like “cutting taxes”. This is brilliant because they are successful at getting people to vote against their communities’ interests because the truth of the matter is that they are really talking about giving tax cuts to wealthy folk. 2) Putting aside the issue of taxes, the other reason I think of them as a party of the rich is because I watch them appeal to people’s fears, religion, and conservative “values”. Truth be told, I’d be willing to bet that the oligarchs on the right care very little about any of this. Yes, I think many of them are completely disingenuous, but they know that the American people care about these issues. That allows them to get elected, speak platitudes about “family values” – you know the ones: god hates fags, 10 commandments in schools, baby killer, etc – and pay lip service to national security – 9/11, terrorist, 9/11, Muslim, 9/11 – then pass economic policies which are bad for most and good for a few, the wealthy and powerful.
In fairness, the Dems do it too. The plutocrats have hedged their bets (after all plenty of them work on Wall Street and this is their specialty). The Dems just do it in a slightly different way. They take advantage of the votes of the poor and minorities and then Bill Clinton comes along and destroys welfare. And, I must admit, I roll my eyes every time Obama lets us know that 95% of Americans will be getting a tax cut on his plan. I really don’t care and it sickens me that he has to get in the mud and appeal to greed. Obama pissed me off also when he supported the FISA bill and started spouting that crap about him believe that the second amendment really does mean that just about everyone should be allowed to have a gun – bullshit. And I really wish he would shut up about Washington because he sounds EXACTLY like an anti-government Republican. Gross.
These are links to articles published in NYT and Newsweek that I referenced last night from MSNBC. Essentially they talk about how Freddie Mac was purchasing influence via Rick Davis, campaign manager to the McCain campaign. Destruction of the old boys network my ass.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/160561/output/print
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/w24davis.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1222269221-Cmn0zZs1vRAzJJE60DROKA
I won’t be a part of any discussion that is this blatantly incindeary. Call it whatever you wish Mike. I call it trying to incite.
You have no idea what people are thinking and it is arrogant to think that you can.
That was an interesting response.
A few thoughts…
Sure, I guess I am guilty of being incendiary, an incitant, and maybe even a little arrogant, or a lot arrogant if that’s how you prefer to describe me. That’s up to you.
I know I’ve been easily dismissed for using definitions in the past, but I’ll give it another shot none-the-less. As I review these definitions I fail to see how they are inherently evil.
Incendiary:
1) containing chemicals that cause fire
2) likely to catch fire
3) inciting civil unrest
Incite:
1) to stir, encourage, or urge on
2) stimulate or prompt to action
I have a few thoughts about this particular characterization. First, when it comes to inciting civil unrest: I’d love to. I’d love to see folks take to the streets and fight against racial inequality, for social injustice, for economic justice, and so on. You may think I’m arrogant, but I’m not delusional and I certainly don’t think my analysis is in any way going to start such a movement. In fact, I’ve never given it much thought, but as I think of it now, it’s a pretty sexy fantasy. Thanks for that.
More seriously, I do hope some of what I write incites people to respond. After all, I did spend a good bit of time writing it for the post. If it doesn’t stir, or urge one to respond, then I wouldn’t feel it was worth writing. I’m not asking one to agree with me, but if their response is to disengage when they feel strongly about something… Well, I think that says more about them then about what I wrote. I’m troubled not by people who vehemently disagree with me or hate the words I choose to use, but by the idea that being incendiary is inherently bad. I can think of a great many people I admire for whom incendiary is a characteristic in them I relish.
The statement about my posts being “blatantly incendiary” presupposes that they are disingenuous and only designed to start a “fire”. I think it’s only fair to point out that such a statement is predicated on you thinking that you know what I’m thinking. Which makes the following sentence – “You have no idea what people are thinking and it is arrogant to think that you can.” – REALLY hypocritical. But that’s cool.
Just for the record, I mean what I type.
The only distortion in meaning comes from my poor command of the English language. In fact, I wish I could give my writings to Will so that he could rid them of errors.
One may not believe this, but I am, to the best of my ability, being measured in what I say. The line about growing balls used to read “take off the white hood”. I felt that was too much; I didn’t use it. The comments on this site and my reading and watching of media about the current election ignited a fire in me. The people who know me (in the “real” world) know that I don’t write. I don’t have a blog. However, posts on this site in conjunction with current events, life experiences, and my world view required me to respond. When Marty showed his post, “Panic on the Left”, I couldn’t get it out of my head and needed some sort of release. Marty’s words incited me to respond because I am deeply upset about this election. I am thankful to Marty for that. His post was the spark that lit the fuel I’d been storing for quite some time.
I’d like to go back to the issue of the deep racism that is affecting this election in a big way. I find it a little embarrassing to point this out, but a guy whose politics I despise agrees with me on some of this. Dick Armey, the former Majority Leader of the House of Representatives during part of the Clinton administration, one of the guys who lead the charge in cutting Bill Clinton’s nuts off for getting some head, pointed out earlier this month that racism is alive and well. He said, “The ‘Bubba vote’ and underlying racism will hurt Democrat Barack Obama in key battleground states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania…it’s very real, and it is everywhere”. Dick Armey said that. I’m still trying to steady myself from that. You can see it here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-03-armey_N.htm
People may not like what I have to say. And I am arrogant enough to say that I think a big part of that is that my “incendiary” language is “inciting” them to face their own racism. In my mind that’s a good thing. The question is: what are they going to do with it?
And I am arrogant enough to say that I think a big part of that is that my “incendiary” language is “inciting” them to face their own racism.
Last point first: there you go with that “I know what you’re thinking” line. I promise, you don’t.
I’m not asking one to agree with me, but if their response is to disengage when they feel strongly about something… Well, I think that says more about them then about what I wrote.
You’re probably right. What it says about me is:
1) I have worse problems to deal with right now.
2) When discussing things, I try extremely hard, for the sake of courtesy, to treat my opponents as people. Not as faceless representatives of a bloc of evil evil bogeymen. Someone clinging too hard to the Bogeyman position isn’t going to hear what I actually have to say.
And on a more petty level,
3) When somebody descends from general insults to comparing my own personal husband to a dickless wonder and/or Klansman, I don’t appreciate it.
So that’s what choosing to disengage says about me. What it says about your writing is considerably more concise, but I like Marty a hell of a lot and don’t want to cause distress on his blog.
Goddamnit, I’m having a MoveOn moment.
The thing is Mike, you don’t engage me, you annoy me.
You don’t inspire me, you disgust me.
You don’t help me climb new heights, you make me wonder what pit you came out of.
I hope you get the picture. I disengage from people who type the kind of pointless vitrol that you do because I find that they are not worth my time and effort to form a platform for discourse, because they aren’t interested in discourse, they are interested only in conversion.
I actually never accused you on not believing what you said. I have accused you of using language designed to piss people off in order to get a response. In another response somewhere around here, I even said that. I also said that I found it less than helpful.
I really do not care that you find your words lacking, or that you believe what you do (because I assume that you must believe it) all I care about is that you appear to be unwilling or unable to approach people who disagree with you in a civil manner.
Disagreements are great, I thrive on them. Being the “anti-racist” version of a televangelist only serves to make me want to change this channel.
Seriously. Marty has a post about breaching the political divide that I would love to respond to, but I haven’t touched it.
Unless I see a change, as much as I have enjoyed most of these discussion and as much as I respect Marty, I won’t be posting any further. I don’t mind discussion or even debate. My time is worth more than trying to assert my beliefs only to know in advance that they are some how going to be twisted to face my supposed “inner racisim.”