A Six-Point Plan to Restore Economic Growth and Prosperity

[g5000]

More from Barney Frank:

By the way, in 2007, when we finally first passed a bill to stop subprime mortgages, The Wall Street Journal had an editorial saying we were interfering with the free market, subprime mortgages were very good for poor people and they were getting to be home owners, and there go Democrats again trying to interfere with the market.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why not listen to Barney??

Okay. Let's do that. It gives me pleasure to destroy your bogus conclusions constructed from an out of context not even complete sentence from him.

FRANK: It was irresponsible lending, primarily by the private sector and primarily by non-banks. You know, the banks have a right to complain. What happened was this: 30 years ago, if you took out a mortgage, you basically took it out from a bank, which had money that came from depositors, and there was deposit insurance, and it was regulated. And then new sources of liquidity came up in the world, where you could get money to be in the lending business from depositors, which meant you didn't necessarily have to be getting deposit insurance, or you weren't regulated. Secondly, information technology made possible securitization, which meant, one, that the loans were being originated by institutions that were not regulated, and two, that these institutions then packaged the loans, sold them, and had no financial responsibility that they weren't paid back. It's called securitization, and that's basically what happened. This effort to blame the government is nonsensical.

Some of them try to blame the Community Reinvestment Act. Every regulator under both Bushes has said it was not the case, and even three of the four members of the financial inquiry commission, who were appointed by the Republicans, said it wasn't the case. The only one who argues that is this real extremist called Peter Wallison, and it just flies in the teeth of all the evidence. The Community Reinvestment Act didn't do it.

You said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did have a role in pushing this along. How heavily do you think they contributed?

FRANK: It's hard to quantify. They were not the major factor. Let's put it this way: I think you would have had a crisis without them.

yes dear and as Barney learned more and more he hoped that Fan /Fred would be demolished since their only purpose was to get people into homes they could not afford. Obviously, if they could afford them you would not need Fan Fred.

Got it now??

 

[g5000]

Here's a hilarious National Review article from 2007 you all may enjoy: Sub-Prime Numbers National Review Online

For one thing, the current crisis is unlikely to affect the economy in any significant way. As that becomes clearer, the hysteria will subside.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Lenders are making fewer risky loans. Some of the biggest, such as Countrywide Financial, have tapped large lines of credit to cover short-term borrowing needs, announced layoffs, and instituted other cost-cutting measures.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

And now, some cheerleading for subprime lending:

In fact, sub-prime lending is not an unmitigated evil. The advent of sub-prime lending brought about a fairly dramatic increase in U.S. home ownership, which for decades hovered around 64 percent until shooting up to 69 percent between 1994 and 2004.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

More from Barney Frank:

By the way, in 2007, when we finally first passed a bill to stop subprime mortgages, The Wall Street Journal had an editorial saying we were interfering with the free market, subprime mortgages were very good for poor people and they were getting to be home owners, and there go Democrats again trying to interfere with the market.

yes dummy Barney said many things before he concluded Fan Freddie had to be demolished!!! That's what makes him so persuasive and why he has character while you are merely a liberal bigot.


Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. .

 

[g5000]

Wall Street was not being forced to make the loans they were cramming into CDOs to sell to investors which were bringing them record profits. They were going full gangbusters trying to find suckers to borrow money. Anyone with a pulse. They needed people to keep borrowing money so they could keep making CDOs and keep making profits.

It's as simple as that.

 

[g5000]

More from Barney Frank:

By the way, in 2007, when we finally first passed a bill to stop subprime mortgages, The Wall Street Journal had an editorial saying we were interfering with the free market, subprime mortgages were very good for poor people and they were getting to be home owners, and there go Democrats again trying to interfere with the market.

yes dummy Barney said many things before he concluded Fan Freddie had to be demolished!!! That's what makes him so persuasive and why he has character while you are merely a liberal bigot.


Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. .

Nope. You took Barney out of context. You are stupid enough to think a chopped up, out of context quote proves something.

Because you are an idiot with a serious confirmation bias problem.

Read the links I gave you. I know it scares the living bejeesus out of you to have your utterly stupid belief system destroyed, but do yourself the favor.

 

[g5000]

When you see the right wing gospel National Review cheering subprime loans and the increased homeownership resulting from them, you know the whole "they wuz forced" gig is up.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Nope. You took Barney out of context..

So then dumto3 tell us what he meant in context?????????

Barney Frank: "I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fanny Freddie... it was a great mistake to push lower income people into homes they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it"

See why we say dumbto3?????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When you see the right wing gospel National Review cheering subprime loans and the increased homeownership resulting from them, you know the whole "they wuz forced" gig is up.

lame attempt by dumto3 to change subject after he lost debate.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Wall Street was not being forced to make the loans they were cramming into CDOs to sell to investors which were bringing them record profits. They were going full gangbusters trying to find suckers to borrow money. Anyone with a pulse. They needed people to keep borrowing money so they could keep making CDOs and keep making profits.

It's as simple as that.

Except Fanny Freddie owned/guaranteed 76% of subprime Alt A at time of crash as it turned out when they were sued by SEC

Did you think Barney wants to get rid of them just for fun??? dumto3??

 

[my2¢]

I don't trust people with any plan that includes a new tax, no matter what the accompanying promise.

 

[rdean]

The last time Republicans deregulated, we had a disastrous recession.

There wasn't any "de-regulation," numskull.

You fucking nitwit. EVERY TIME Republicans are in charge, there is always deregulation. Just like Tax Cuts for the rich. They simply can't help themselves.

deregulation under Bush - Google Search

Pick your source. Either discredited right wing links or reputable links. Course they tell opposite stories. The one thing they ALL agree on is deregulation. And that's why you are a nitwit.

 

[rdean]

Wall Street was not being forced to make the loans they were cramming into CDOs to sell to investors which were bringing them record profits. They were going full gangbusters trying to find suckers to borrow money. Anyone with a pulse. They needed people to keep borrowing money so they could keep making CDOs and keep making profits.

It's as simple as that.

Except Fanny Freddie owned/guaranteed 76% of subprime Alt A at time of crash as it turned out when they were sued by SEC

Did you think Barney wants to get rid of them just for fun??? dumto3??

Why would Republicans be so fucking stupid they would think a single gay congressman would be more powerful than the GOP controlled Senate AND the GOP controlled House and a Republican president all put together? That's just so damn dumb. Republicans have to be repeating such nonsense because they think others simply don't know anything. Not everyone is as stupid as the GOP.

 

[eagle7_31]

A Six-Point Plan To Restore Economic Growth And Prosperity - Investors.com

That's a subscription site, so I am going to copy and paste the meat of the article. Not something I ordinarily do.

This plan, for the most part, jibes with my personal beliefs of what we need to do to "get the economy going again".

All bold face and coloring, other than the title of the piece, are mine.




A Six-Point Plan to Restore Economic Growth and Prosperity

<snip>

1. Streamline the federal bureaucracy. Government has become much like the neighbor who has hoarded every magazine and odd knick-knack for 50 years. The attic and every room are stuffed with items no one would miss. The size of the US code has multiplied by over 18 times in 65 years. There are more than 1 million restrictive regulations.

Enough already. It's time to clean out the attic. The president, with some flexibility, should require each agency to reduce the number of regulations under its purview by 20%, at the rate of 5% a year. And then Congress should pass a sunset law for the remaining regulations, requiring them to be reviewed at some point in order to be maintained.

Further, if new rules are needed, then remove some old ones. Stop the growth of the federal regulatory code. We have enough rules today; let's just make sure they're the right ones.

2. Simplify and flatten the income tax. Make the individual income rate 20% (at most) for all income over $50,000, with no deductions for anything. Reduce the corporate tax to 15%, again eliminating all deductions other than what is allowed by standard accounting practice. No perks, no special benefits.

Further, tax foreign corporate income at 5%–10%, and let companies bring it back home to invest here. This strategy will actually increase tax revenues.

3. Replace the payroll tax with a business transfer tax of 15%, which will give lower-income workers a big raise. Companies would pay tax on their gross receipts, minus allowable expenses in the conduct of producing goods and services.

Nearly every economist agrees that consumption taxes are better than income taxes. Further, this tax can be rebated at the border, so it should encourage domestic production and be popular with union workers since it makes US products more competitive internationally.

4. Provide certainty by keeping tax rates low through a tax-limitation constitutional amendment that would require future tax increases to be passed by 60% of the Congress, in combination with a balanced-budget amendment.

We realize that implementation of these measures could be somewhat jarring, so we'd suggest phasing them in over four to five years – more than enough time for everyone to adjust.

5. Roll back the regulatory state. Recognize that many federal agencies are still mired in the mid-20th century if not the 19th. It's time to design a regulatory system that fosters jobs and growth while protecting citizens.

Let's start with the easy target: the Food and Drug Administration. The United States is the wellspring of biotechnological research, yet more and more of our original research is being taken overseas for further development, producing jobs outside the US

A bipartisan commission can design a new agency with a new regulatory regime and bring it to the floor of Congress for a vote. Instead of a system that makes drug-creation prohibitively expensive, favors Big Pharma and exports jobs, let's harness the power of US entrepreneurs.

Streamline the process so healthcare can keep up with research, thereby lowering healthcare costs and providing healthier outcomes for everyone. Then start with the next regulatory agency until all have been updated.

6. Drill for America's domestic energy and use the royalties on federal lands to retire the debt and/or fund needed infrastructure repair instead of raising taxes. An estimated $2 trillion of royalties and other fees could be raised by drilling on non-environmentally sensitive lands, and this would reduce US reliance on foreign oil while breaking the financial back of many terrorist networks.

Growth is the solution to nearly every social, economic, and financial problem in America, and we aren't getting enough of it. This is a plan that puts US competitiveness first and brings middle-class jobs back to America. We are eager to see which candidates – in either party – embrace this prosperity agenda.

Seems fine by me. Would have too look at #3 a little more closely, that being said looks good.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't trust people with any plan that includes a new tax, no matter what the accompanying promise.

Why??? The top 1% are getting away with murder in our tax system and we should close the loop holes on them. People like you have not the slightest clue on what you're talking about.

What is so wrong with a small tax increase?

 

[ScienceRocks]

The last time Republicans deregulated, we had a disastrous recession.

There wasn't any "de-regulation," numskull.

You fucking nitwit. EVERY TIME Republicans are in charge, there is always deregulation. Just like Tax Cuts for the rich. They simply can't help themselves.

deregulation under Bush - Google Search

Pick your source. Either discredited right wing links or reputable links. Course they tell opposite stories. The one thing they ALL agree on is deregulation. And that's why you are a nitwit.

You're so right, but the democrats playing the constant DESTROY THE WHITE MAN and Racism at every turn are fucking themselves out of power.

It makes me sad that you're so right on economic issues and so totally wrong of other issues.

 

[bripat9643]

The last time Republicans deregulated, we had a disastrous recession.

There wasn't any "de-regulation," numskull.

You fucking nitwit. EVERY TIME Republicans are in charge, there is always deregulation. Just like Tax Cuts for the rich. They simply can't help themselves.

deregulation under Bush - Google Search

Pick your source. Either discredited right wing links or reputable links. Course they tell opposite stories. The one thing they ALL agree on is deregulation. And that's why you are a nitwit.

Regulations grew under Bush, numskull. It's true that all libturds agree that Bush deregulated. It's also true that they are all wrong. It's a liberal myth

 

[my2¢]

I don't trust people with any plan that includes a new tax, no matter what the accompanying promise.

Why??? The top 1% are getting away with murder in our tax system and we should close the loop holes on them. People like you have not the slightest clue on what you're talking about.

What is so wrong with a small tax increase?

First of all, I was referring to the proposed new tax listed as one of the 6 points and not referring to any existing taxes.

2nd, about people like me not having the slightest clue. Can you even name two taxes that are placed on wealth (not income) and how they're the real object of Republican's campaign against taxes on the 1%? When you ask, "What is so wrong with a small tax increase?" it answers my question why their campaign over the years has been so successful. Not only are you thinking small, you're also looking in the wrong direction and can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[PredFan]

A Six-Point Plan To Restore Economic Growth And Prosperity - Investors.com

That's a subscription site, so I am going to copy and paste the meat of the article. Not something I ordinarily do.

This plan, for the most part, jibes with my personal beliefs of what we need to do to "get the economy going again".

All bold face and coloring, other than the title of the piece, are mine.




A Six-Point Plan to Restore Economic Growth and Prosperity

<snip>

1. Streamline the federal bureaucracy. Government has become much like the neighbor who has hoarded every magazine and odd knick-knack for 50 years. The attic and every room are stuffed with items no one would miss. The size of the US code has multiplied by over 18 times in 65 years. There are more than 1 million restrictive regulations.

Enough already. It's time to clean out the attic. The president, with some flexibility, should require each agency to reduce the number of regulations under its purview by 20%, at the rate of 5% a year. And then Congress should pass a sunset law for the remaining regulations, requiring them to be reviewed at some point in order to be maintained.

Further, if new rules are needed, then remove some old ones. Stop the growth of the federal regulatory code. We have enough rules today; let's just make sure they're the right ones.

2. Simplify and flatten the income tax. Make the individual income rate 20% (at most) for all income over $50,000, with no deductions for anything. Reduce the corporate tax to 15%, again eliminating all deductions other than what is allowed by standard accounting practice. No perks, no special benefits.

Further, tax foreign corporate income at 5%–10%, and let companies bring it back home to invest here. This strategy will actually increase tax revenues.

3. Replace the payroll tax with a business transfer tax of 15%, which will give lower-income workers a big raise. Companies would pay tax on their gross receipts, minus allowable expenses in the conduct of producing goods and services.

Nearly every economist agrees that consumption taxes are better than income taxes. Further, this tax can be rebated at the border, so it should encourage domestic production and be popular with union workers since it makes US products more competitive internationally.

4. Provide certainty by keeping tax rates low through a tax-limitation constitutional amendment that would require future tax increases to be passed by 60% of the Congress, in combination with a balanced-budget amendment.

We realize that implementation of these measures could be somewhat jarring, so we'd suggest phasing them in over four to five years – more than enough time for everyone to adjust.

5. Roll back the regulatory state. Recognize that many federal agencies are still mired in the mid-20th century if not the 19th. It's time to design a regulatory system that fosters jobs and growth while protecting citizens.

Let's start with the easy target: the Food and Drug Administration. The United States is the wellspring of biotechnological research, yet more and more of our original research is being taken overseas for further development, producing jobs outside the US

A bipartisan commission can design a new agency with a new regulatory regime and bring it to the floor of Congress for a vote. Instead of a system that makes drug-creation prohibitively expensive, favors Big Pharma and exports jobs, let's harness the power of US entrepreneurs.

Streamline the process so healthcare can keep up with research, thereby lowering healthcare costs and providing healthier outcomes for everyone. Then start with the next regulatory agency until all have been updated.

6. Drill for America's domestic energy and use the royalties on federal lands to retire the debt and/or fund needed infrastructure repair instead of raising taxes. An estimated $2 trillion of royalties and other fees could be raised by drilling on non-environmentally sensitive lands, and this would reduce US reliance on foreign oil while breaking the financial back of many terrorist networks.

Growth is the solution to nearly every social, economic, and financial problem in America, and we aren't getting enough of it. This is a plan that puts US competitiveness first and brings middle-class jobs back to America. We are eager to see which candidates – in either party – embrace this prosperity agenda.

Can't argue with any of that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

On top of a 15% income tax. That adds up to what percentage of income?

Do you realize that you just said a 15% transfer tax plus a 15% income tax is a 30% income tax?

What is the equivalent rate on income?

Is a 7 percent sales tax plus a 20 percent income tax a 27% income tax?

I'm more interested in the sum of a 15% transfer tax and a 15% corporate income tax.

But you are ignoring the reduction of the employer's cost share of payroll taxes, and all the payroll taxes of the employees.

But you are ignoring the reduction of the employer's cost share of payroll taxes, and all the payroll taxes of the employees.


Not at all. After we agree on the newer, total corporate tax rate, we can discuss the benefit of the payroll tax shift.