An Obama Panic?

[PeterS]

KMAN is the new paperboy. The New York Post is about as reputable as the Weekly World News.

But when it says what you want does it need to be reputable?

 

[jillian]

Because, of course, the banks were forced to lend money to people who couldn't pay. Face it... this is the "free market", voodoo economics trickle down nonsense come home to roost.

But let's see if I have this straight...based on the premise of your thread title, there's panic at the thought of obama being president... but people are flocking to obama because the economy is in the tank....

is that what you were trying to say?

i hope you realize how silly that looks.

 

[The Paperboy]

Because, of course, the banks were forced to lend money to people who couldn't pay.

You do understand that that is true? Banks were required to do so.

But let's see if I have this straight...based on the premise of your thread title, there's panic at the thought of obama being president... but people are flocking to obama because the economy is in the tank...

.

No, it's the 40% of tax filers who don't pay any Federal Taxes and who Obama promises to send a check to who are flocking to him. That and young people who've never earned money. After that all he needs is another 11% of bleeding heart, guilty liberals. Tell me Jillian, what are we going to do when we've increased taxes on the "rich" but still can't afford the trillion dollars in spending Obama has promised? As a student of history you should know it's always the middle class that gets soaked. Welcome to your Brave New World. I absolutely guarantee you that if Obama is elected you will have less of your paycheck in 4 years then you do now.

 

[Larkinn]

You do understand that that is true? Banks were required to do so.

No, they weren't. They were forced to lend to BLACKS who had the exact same income/financial situation as whites who the banks were lending too. Unless there is something about having darker skin that makes you an at risk lender?

This CRA bullshit is disgusting.

 

[jillian]

You do understand that that is true? Banks were required to do so.

Fibbie...fibbie... there ya go again, you betcha.... the law required them not to redline. It did not require them to be irresponsible

No, it's the 40% of tax filers who don't pay any Federal Taxes and who Obama promises to send a check to who are flocking to him.

More lies and intellectual masturbation. Wanna know how I know? Because it's the red states that get the money that I, and the rest of my brothers and sisters in the blue states, pay in taxes. Put that in your paper and print it.

That and young people who've never earned money.

Which is why every judge, attorney, accountant and member of academia whom I know is voting for him. right? None of us earn a pay check?

Oh yeah... and my in-laws (old folk in florida....) who would probably have voted McCain except for him picking Palin...

Oh yeah... and the people I know who have employer-based health coverage and know that McCain's policies are giong to force them into the market where they will have to pay twice as much...

And people I know who KNOW they've been stuck by the GOP for the last 8 years and McCain has all of the same failed policies as Baby Bush.

After that all he needs is another 11% of bleeding heart, guilty liberals.

I don't have a guilty bone in my body. My people were in Belarus during slavery. And I supported Hillary... you had your chance at my vote when she lost.... same as I would have voted for him in 2000. And then McCain got on his knees and genuflected to Hagee and Parsley. Oops... there went *my* vote.

Tell me Jillian, what are we going to do when we've increased taxes on the "rich" but still can't afford the trillion dollars in spending Obama has promised? As a student of history you should know it's always the middle class that gets soaked. Welcome to your Brave New World. I absolutely guarantee you that if Obama is elected you will have less of your paycheck in 4 years then you do now.

You did badly under Bill Clinton? I didn't. My family didn't.... We're not talking about anything more than that.

Besides, someone's got to pay the bill you guys ran up and clean up the mess you left. Someone's got to pa the credit card bill.

Now tell me again how I'm giving you the party line.

 

[DavidS]

David,

Let's not rehash this. I agree that the Gramm bill was not good but without the Community Reinvestment Act I don't think we'd find ourselves in this situation and I don't think the Gramm bill would have caused any problem. Just my opinion.

I think you'll agree it'll be along time before anyone gets a subprime loan again or that people get approved for home loans who don't meet basic credit requirements including a normal down payment.

Enough said. Excuse me if I don't debate this one with you further.

So, according to you, poor people shouldn't get loans. Should they be given healthcare? Jobs? Why don't we just declare this country an oligarchy?

 

[The Paperboy]

So, according to you, poor people shouldn't get loans.

Are you serious?

When I was poor not only could I not get a loan I didn't want a frickin' loan.

Up this point I was actually taking you seriously, David.

Sigh.

 

[The Paperboy]

Fibbie...fibbie... there ya go again, you betcha.... the law required them not to redline. It did not require them to be irresponsible



More lies and intellectual masturbation. Wanna know how I know? Because it's the red states that get the money that I, and the rest of my brothers and sisters in the blue states, pay in taxes. Put that in your paper and print it.



Which is why every judge, attorney, accountant and member of academia whom I know is voting for him. right? None of us earn a pay check?

Oh yeah... and my in-laws (old folk in florida....) who would probably have voted McCain except for him picking Palin...

Oh yeah... and the people I know who have employer-based health coverage and know that McCain's policies are giong to force them into the market where they will have to pay twice as much...

And people I know who KNOW they've been stuck by the GOP for the last 8 years and McCain has all of the same failed policies as Baby Bush.



I don't have a guilty bone in my body. My people were in Belarus during slavery. And I supported Hillary... you had your chance at my vote when she lost.... same as I would have voted for him in 2000. And then McCain got on his knees and genuflected to Hagee and Parsley. Oops... there went *my* vote.



You did badly under Bill Clinton? I didn't. My family didn't.... We're not talking about anything more than that.

Besides, someone's got to pay the bill you guys ran up and clean up the mess you left. Someone's got to pa the credit card bill.

Now tell me again how I'm giving you the party line.

Jillian,

I'm afraid I have to add you to my ignore list, not because you are nasty, you're not (most of the time) but your thinking is so full of illogic I don't want to waste further time attempting to convince you of the errors in your thinking. You seem like a nice person but you exhaust me with your obtuseness and I simply don't want to bother with you further.

 

[jillian]

So, according to you, poor people shouldn't get loans. Should they be given healthcare? Jobs? Why don't we just declare this country an oligarchy?

No one should be given a loan that it is beyond their ability to pay. But that isn't what the law required, notwithstanding the misrepresentations of the loonies.

But then again, I don't think my government should live on a credit card either. Apparently that doesn't trouble them, though.

And don't tell him that Greenspan said he was "surprised" that the banks didn't do appropriate risk assessment. It'll confuse him.

 

[rayboyusmc]

without the Community Reinvestment Act I don't think we'd find ourselves

Total bullshit talking point papertoy. The crash is related to the sub prime lenders doing their thing not the CRA, but gives a shit about facts.

Look at the data. It isn't loans to minorities that are the majority of defaulted loans.

Get a life or a real paper route.

 

[jillian]

Jillian,

I'm afraid I have to add you to my ignore list, not because you are nasty, you're not (most of the time) but your thinking is so full of illogic I don't want to waste further time attempting to convince you of the errors in your thinking. You seem like a nice person but you exhaust me with your obtuseness and I simply don't want to bother with you further.

Read: I've kicked your ass repeatedly and you have no answers.

Thanks for playing, propaganda boy.

And pssssst... I don't think you can put a mod on ignore.

 

[Your Overlord]

While the polls are reflecting Obama's steady hand, the markets haven't. In fact, they're getting worse by the day as Obama's lead widens. Most investors know the devil is in the details - and the details of Obama's economic plans are anything but reassuring.

Full story here

Just thought I'd add to the big ???

How's Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion? - WSJ.com

how's about Joe the mathmatician tell me how this all works out for the betterment of the country cause I cant seem to understand:

How's Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion?
The Democrat's tax and spending plans deserve closer examination.By ALAN REYNOLDS
The most troublesome tax increases in Barack Obama's plan are not those we can already see but those sure to be announced later, after the election is over and budget realities rear their ugly head.

The new president, whoever he is, will start out facing a budget deficit of at least $1 trillion, possibly much more. Sen. Obama has nonetheless promised to devote another $1.32 trillion over the next 10 years to several new or expanded refundable tax credits and a special exemption for seniors, according to the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center (TPC). He calls this a "middle-class tax cut," while suggesting the middle class includes 95% of those who work.

Mr. Obama's proposed income-based health-insurance subsidies, tax credits for tiny businesses, and expanded Medicaid eligibility would cost another $1.63 trillion, according to the TPC. Thus his tax rebates and health insurance subsidies alone would lift the undisclosed bill to future taxpayers by $2.95 trillion -- roughly $295 billion a year by 2012.

But that's not all. Mr. Obama has also promised to spend more on 176 other programs, according to an 85-page list of campaign promises (actual quotations) compiled by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. The NTUF was able to produce cost estimates for only 77 of the 176, so its estimate is low. Excluding the Obama health plan, the NTUF estimates that Mr. Obama would raise spending by $611.5 billion over the next five years; the 10-year total (aside from health) would surely exceed $1.4 trillion, because spending typically grows at least as quickly as nominal GDP.

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least $4.3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 -- roughly an extra $430 billion a year by 2012-2013.

How is he going to pay for it?

Raising the tax rates on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $200,000-$250,000, and phasing out their exemptions and deductions, can raise only a small fraction of the amount. Even if we have a strong economy, Mr. Obama's proposed tax hikes on the dwindling ranks of high earners would be unlikely to raise much more than $30 billion-$35 billion a year by 2012.

Besides, Mr. Obama does not claim he can finance his ambitious plans for tax credits, health insurance, etc. by taxing the rich. On the contrary, he has an even less likely revenue source in mind.

In his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention on Aug. 28, Mr. Obama said, "I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens." That comment refers to $924.1 billion over 10 years from what the TPC wisely labels "unverifiable revenue raisers." To put that huge figure in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office optimistically expects a total of $3.7 trillion from corporate taxes over that period. In other words, Mr. Obama is counting on increasing corporate tax collections by more than 25% simply by closing "loopholes" and complaining about foreign "tax havens."

Nobody, including the Tax Policy Center, believes that is remotely feasible. And Mr. Obama's dream of squeezing more revenue out of corporate profits, dividends and capital gains looks increasingly unbelievable now that profits are falling, banks have cut or eliminated dividends, and only a few short-sellers have any capital gains left to tax.

When it comes to direct spending -- as opposed to handing out "refund" checks through the tax code -- Mr. Obama claims he won't need more revenue because there will be no more spending. He even claims to be proposing to cut more spending ending up with a "net spending cut." That was Mr. Obama's most direct answer to Bob Schieffer, the moderator of the last debate, right after Mr. Schieffer said "The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CFARB) ran the numbers" and found otherwise.

When CFARB "ran the numbers," they relied almost entirely on unverifiable numbers eagerly provided to them by the Obama campaign. That explains why their list of Mr. Obama's new spending plans is so much shorter than the National Taxpayers Union fully documented list.

But nothing quite explains why even the vaguest promises to save money are recorded by CFARB as if they had substance. Mr. Obama is thus credited with saving $50 billion in a single year (2013) by reducing "wasteful spending" and unnamed "obsolete programs." He is said to save Medicare $43 billion a year by importing foreign drugs and negotiating bargains from drug companies. Yet even proponents of that approach such as the Lewin Group find that cannot save more than $6 billion a year. So the remaining $37 billion turns out to depend on what the Obama campaign refers to as undertaking "additional measures as necessary" (more taxes?).

The number of U.S. troops in Iraq will decline, regardless of who the next president is. Yet the CFARB credits John McCain's budget with only a $5 billion savings from troop reduction in Iraq, while Mr. Obama gets an extra $55 billion.

Straining to add credibility to Mr. Obama's fantasy about discovering $75 billion in 2013 from "closing corporate loopholes and tax havens," CFARB assures us that "the campaign has said that an Obama administration would look for other sources of revenue." Indeed they would.

In one respect, CFARB is more candid than the Obama campaign. Mr. Obama favors a relatively draconian cap-and-trade scheme in which the government would sell rights to emit carbon dioxide. The effect on U.S. families and firms would be like a steep tax on electricity, gasoline and energy-intensive products such as paper, plastic and aluminum. Whenever Mr. Obama claims he has not (yet) proposed any tax increase on couples earning less than $250,000, he forgets to mention his de facto $100 billion annual tax on energy. (The McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade plan is more gradual and much less costly.)

CFARB assumes Mr. Obama's cap-and-trade tax would raise $100 billion in 2013 alone, but the actual revenue raised would be much lower. Like every other steep surge in energy costs, the Obama cap-and-trade tax would crush the economy, reducing tax receipts from profits and personal income.

The Joint Tax Committee reports that the bottom 60% of taxpayers with incomes below $50,000 paid less than 1% of the federal income tax in 2006, while the 3.3% with incomes above $200,000 paid more than 58%. Most of Mr. Obama's tax rebates go to the bottom 60%. They can't possibly be financed by shifting an even larger share of the tax burden to the top 3.3%.

Mr. Obama has offered no clue as to how he intends to pay for his health-insurance plans, or doubling foreign aid, or any of the other 175 programs he's promised to expand. Although he may hope to collect an even larger share of loot from the top of the heap, the harsh reality is that this Democrat's quest for hundreds of billions more revenue each year would have to reach deep into the pockets of the people much lower on the economic ladder. Even then he'd come up short.

Mr. Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute. This was adapted from a paper for Hillsdale College's Free Market Forum (Hillsdale College - Free Market Forum 2008).

 

[Paulie]

So, according to you, poor people shouldn't get loans. Should they be given healthcare? Jobs? Why don't we just declare this country an oligarchy?

Why don't you define what your definition of poor is, and what you think the absolute poorest someone can be while still being given a home loan.

I'm having trouble understanding why a bank should feel compelled to loan money to someone who is considered "poor".

 

[jschuck12001]

No one should be given a loan that it is beyond their ability to pay. But that isn't what the law required, notwithstanding the misrepresentations of the loonies.

But then again, I don't think my government should live on a credit card either. Apparently that doesn't trouble them, though.

And don't tell him that Greenspan said he was "surprised" that the banks didn't do appropriate risk assessment. It'll confuse him.

Everyone on here is an expert and Fannie and Freddie are the reason for the market plunge but nobody is blaming this on Fannie or Freddie including Cox , Snow, and greenspan

"Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) chastised Mica for trying to turn the financial crisis into a political issue. He noted that Freddie and Fannie “certainly played a role” in the current situation, but then asked the witnesses, “Do any of you believe that they were the cause of this financial crisis?” All three men said no". If everyone knows so much about who should and who shouldnt have a loan then please tell me what guidelines you think are acceptable to lend to someone, or does anyone have a clue.

 

[The Paperboy]

Read: I've kicked your ass repeatedly and you have no answers.

Thanks for playing, propaganda boy.

And pssssst... I don't think you can put a mod on ignore.

I shall ignore you never the less after this post. I think if you look at our posts to each other you will see that I have maintained good manners and never personally insulted you. You on the other hand have repeatedly insulted me and been rude. I will go toe to toe with anyone on issues but have no desire to engage in discussions with with someone who is rude and has a toilet for a mouth.

 

[The Paperboy]

Total bullshit talking point papertoy. The crash is related to the sub prime lenders doing their thing not the CRA, but gives a shit about facts.

Look at the data. It isn't loans to minorities that are the majority of defaulted loans.

Get a life or a real paper route.

We will have to agree to disagree. CRA may not be the whole of the problem but it was certainly a contributing factor as were the excesses of Fannie, Freddie and the Gramm deregulation.

I think we can all agree that Congress and the several Presidents sat around with their thumbs up their asses and let it all happen.