Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
It's times like this where I wonder which fat cat is pocketing all that waste and not returning a lot back to the system.Keevan_Colton wrote:I'm about to go get something to eat, but just a quick reminder.
The US spends more GOVERNMENT money on healthcare than any other nation on the planet PER CAPITA, already! This isnt counting the private costs from people paying insurance etc.
You dont need to increase taxes you just need to cut health care profits.
The Bureau of Economic Accounts has releasedSirNitram wrote:Rebounded from the recession? Evidence please. Hell, I'd like evidence we'd finally found the actual bottom; the other dozen 'bottom calls' have all turned out wrong.
Enclosed in there as well are a number of key indicators of an impending economic growth cycle, including most notably that inventories have shrunk which means that production will soon increase to meet demand that can no longer be met by existing stock. Furthermore America's exports are now growing at a faster rate than china. There's more out there, including a couple articles recently in the Financial Times, the Economist and one (I think) in the WSJ but more is really only icing on the cake.Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.9 percent in the second quarter of 2008
(that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to advance estimates released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 0.9 percent.
Care to offer any proof that they will fail catastrophically?Seriously. Subprime is just ending. Alt-A is already starting to crash. You know, all those stated-income loans, interest only loans, rates adjust loans. Or are you going to babble they won't fail catastrophically?
You can't seriously think the Liar Loans are going to work, can you? Indeed, Stated Income HELOC's are dischargable, according to a judge's ruling, so they might simply evaporate if that gets widespread.Straha wrote:Care to offer any proof that they will fail catastrophically?Seriously. Subprime is just ending. Alt-A is already starting to crash. You know, all those stated-income loans, interest only loans, rates adjust loans. Or are you going to babble they won't fail catastrophically?
And of course there's the NYT which bluntly states that while Subprime might be cresting and ending, the Alt-A.. Those loans where you don't have to prove your income? ..Are about to hit. LinkParsing mortgages
Part of that weak economic outlook can clearly be attributed to mortgages. In a surprisingly short conference call with analysts, Dimon suggested that losses in JP Morgan’s prime mortgage book could triple in the foreseeable future as the credit mess moves out of subprime and into Alt-A and jumbo loans.
“Prime looks terrible,” he told analysts on the call. “And we’re sorry, and there’s nothing else we can say.”
Insurance companies (malpractice in particular) and lawyers.Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:It's times like this where I wonder which fat cat is pocketing all that waste and not returning a lot back to the system.
The big effect that mortgages had on the economy before was not directly because of an increase in foreclosure, but only indirect through the sudden loss of valuation on derivatives and the resulting loss of liquidity. In other words, what made the economy splutter wasn't mortgages failing, it was because banks could no longer place a value on the derivatives their income streams were bundled in, and with that loss of valuation interbank lending ground to a standstill because of a loss of collateral. This loss of liquidity is what did the economy in. That's why, for instance, Bear Sterns went under even though it had more than enough assets to pay off all its liabilities, it wasn't how much they had, it was how much they had on hand which wasn't much and (in banking) doesn't need to be much except in extenuating circumstances.SirNitram wrote:You can't seriously think the Liar Loans are going to work, can you? Indeed, Stated Income HELOC's are dischargable, according to a judge's ruling, so they might simply evaporate if that gets widespread.Straha wrote:Care to offer any proof that they will fail catastrophically?Seriously. Subprime is just ending. Alt-A is already starting to crash. You know, all those stated-income loans, interest only loans, rates adjust loans. Or are you going to babble they won't fail catastrophically?
Seeing as how you offered no evidence to the contrary, concession accepted on the U.S. no longer being in recession. Now as for whether or not it will enter a recession in the future...Now, overall Recession..
Fannie and Freddie infuriate me to no end. They will survive, Paulson and Bernake have ensured that, and there will be no economic damage beyond that hitting the federal budget, but the congressional handling of the bailout is beyond absurd. Former Fed Governor Lawrence Lindsey wrote a much better article on what's going wrong there. What makes it worse is that amongst the main reasons why the GSEs are getting such a deal is that they, unlike any other federal group, can lobby congress. And considering how much money they have going through their pockets, they can afford to lobby it very well.GSE's are finding their foreign capital yanked, so they could crash hard and need a bailout... Link
Europe has a history of going into market downturn about six months to a year after America, being hit much harder and then taking a lot longer to get out and into good times. Some of America's better economic times (I.E. Parts of the late nineties) were in the middle of a European recession. Fond as I am of Europe (and, as I've expressed in venting before, I'd like to move there) their economy tends to be very fragile and countries like Italy and France can go into recession when someone sneezes too hard (hyperbole, but not much of it.) As such, when taken in historical context Europe's woes leave me utterly unconcerned for the American economy.European markets are still contracting, inflation now wiping out growth and the overall economy dropping by .02%.. link
See above. While certainly the red ink the banks will be accruing isn't going to help the economy, the damage is localized and everything has been done to make sure it will not hit the rest of the economy. Unless you work in the finance business odds are life is going to get better soon. There have been plenty of times in history (even recent history) where the banking sector has been having trouble while the rest of the economy rumbled ahead. And the Fed, ECB and UK have made sure that this will be one of those times.JP Morgan's Dimen had this to say..
And of course there's the NYT which bluntly states that while Subprime might be cresting and ending, the Alt-A.. Those loans where you don't have to prove your income? ..Are about to hit. LinkParsing mortgages
Part of that weak economic outlook can clearly be attributed to mortgages. In a surprisingly short conference call with analysts, Dimon suggested that losses in JP Morgan’s prime mortgage book could triple in the foreseeable future as the credit mess moves out of subprime and into Alt-A and jumbo loans.
“Prime looks terrible,” he told analysts on the call. “And we’re sorry, and there’s nothing else we can say.”
Nice strawman there with the cost of living.Just like how, This should be ignored, because it's just talking about wages vs. cost of living. I mean, that's just silly liberal nonsense, right?
It's only the middle class. Who has to absorb this tax increase you are in support of.
I have a question: Why do you believe banks can now weather the new debts coming, when they showed they had not adequetely capitalized already, when the market was ripe for such?Straha wrote:The big effect that mortgages had on the economy before was not directly because of an increase in foreclosure, but only indirect through the sudden loss of valuation on derivatives and the resulting loss of liquidity. In other words, what made the economy splutter wasn't mortgages failing, it was because banks could no longer place a value on the derivatives their income streams were bundled in, and with that loss of valuation interbank lending ground to a standstill because of a loss of collateral. This loss of liquidity is what did the economy in. That's why, for instance, Bear Sterns went under even though it had more than enough assets to pay off all its liabilities, it wasn't how much they had, it was how much they had on hand which wasn't much and (in banking) doesn't need to be much except in extenuating circumstances.
Question: Why do you not crow about this drunken spending as you do against deficit spending?After the credit crunch, though, the Fed and the ECB did everything they could to increase liquidity, and it's worked. A lot of the really sketchy derivatives have been swapped out of the bank's inventory and replaced by the fed with Treasury Bonds which are guaranteed to keep being paid (in the next ten years anyway.) There's a fair bit more that the Fed's done here but the long and short of it is that short of a complete and catastrophic collapse in all sectors of the economy (and as I just pointed out in my last post, the signs are pointing the opposite way) any future mortgage hiccups will generally be absorbed by the fed and the banks' balance sheets (which are well padded to take it.)
Accepted by whom? And are you using the hyper-pendatic definition of recession, where the economy can be a wreck but not a recession because of some numbers that only benefit a few percent?Seeing as how you offered no evidence to the contrary, concession accepted on the U.S. no longer being in recession. Now as for whether or not it will enter a recession in the future...Now, overall Recession..
The problem with them is socialized risk and privatized profit, which is pretty much textbook moral hazard.Fannie and Freddie infuriate me to no end. They will survive, Paulson and Bernake have ensured that, and there will be no economic damage beyond that hitting the federal budget, but the congressional handling of the bailout is beyond absurd. Former Fed Governor Lawrence Lindsey wrote a much better article on what's going wrong there. What makes it worse is that amongst the main reasons why the GSEs are getting such a deal is that they, unlike any other federal group, can lobby congress. And considering how much money they have going through their pockets, they can afford to lobby it very well.GSE's are finding their foreign capital yanked, so they could crash hard and need a bailout... Link
Then why are you in favor of the plan which includes a larger reduction in tax revenue? I do not find it honest to cherry-pick which parts of McCain's plan you like. I will listen to any argument on how it is somehow honest, but don't expect instant agreement.That being said, there is no threat to a short term economic hit from this. What the treasury department has essentially done is write them a blank check to keep Fannie and Freddie from going under. This means that everything that goes wrong with them will go to the national debt, while everything that goes right goes to their stockholders. The sheer absurdity of this is astounding, but only underscores my point that with the national finances the way they are the next president cannot afford to cut taxes even more. The U.S. has to start paying off its deficit, and if it doesn't immediately it will go completely bust, and that's much worse for the economy than anything else listed here.
You do realize that economies are interlinked to a point where a notable downturn in the other first world markets will still have it's effects here, right...?Europe has a history of going into market downturn about six months to a year after America, being hit much harder and then taking a lot longer to get out and into good times. Some of America's better economic times (I.E. Parts of the late nineties) were in the middle of a European recession. Fond as I am of Europe (and, as I've expressed in venting before, I'd like to move there) their economy tends to be very fragile and countries like Italy and France can go into recession when someone sneezes too hard (hyperbole, but not much of it.) As such, when taken in historical context Europe's woes leave me utterly unconcerned for the American economy.European markets are still contracting, inflation now wiping out growth and the overall economy dropping by .02%.. link
Define 'Rest of the economy'. Because it's not going to the working classes, which, incidentally, are the group you have cherry-picked to bear the financial burden.See above. While certainly the red ink the banks will be accruing isn't going to help the economy, the damage is localized and everything has been done to make sure it will not hit the rest of the economy. Unless you work in the finance business odds are life is going to get better soon. There have been plenty of times in history (even recent history) where the banking sector has been having trouble while the rest of the economy rumbled ahead. And the Fed, ECB and UK have made sure that this will be one of those times.JP Morgan's Dimen had this to say..
And of course there's the NYT which bluntly states that while Subprime might be cresting and ending, the Alt-A.. Those loans where you don't have to prove your income? ..Are about to hit. LinkParsing mortgages
Part of that weak economic outlook can clearly be attributed to mortgages. In a surprisingly short conference call with analysts, Dimon suggested that losses in JP Morgan’s prime mortgage book could triple in the foreseeable future as the credit mess moves out of subprime and into Alt-A and jumbo loans.
“Prime looks terrible,” he told analysts on the call. “And we’re sorry, and there’s nothing else we can say.”
I still cannot wrap my head around this. You are talking about the extreme damage to the economy deficit spending will incur, but wave off cash infusions, moral hazard, liquidity concerns from the next round of foreclosures, wages of the foundation of the economy not keeping up with inflation of expenses... How? What logical pattern allows this?Nice strawman there with the cost of living.Just like how, This should be ignored, because it's just talking about wages vs. cost of living. I mean, that's just silly liberal nonsense, right?
It's only the middle class. Who has to absorb this tax increase you are in support of.
Have you actually read Obama's tax plan? You know, where he's destroying tax cuts for the rich? Or is that glossed over because you're hyperventilating at the cost of a real fix to the healthcare crisis?As for who pays for it, frankly, the ideal way to increase taxes would be to roll back a lot of the upper class tax cuts that have been going on since Reagen, but nobody has the guts to do that. My issue isn't with who pays as for ensuring it is paid.
So why are you not screaming at McCain for his 'Drill drill drill to prosperity', his 'Four more wars', his continued economic tax cuts for the rich, and his proposal to help the economic weight of the healthcare crisis worsen?Something you seem to be missing here is how bad the economic damage will be if the rampant deficit spending goes on. As I have made the point repeatedly in this thread there is no question that, unless the U.S. government starts paying off its debt and stops deficit spending, the U.S. Government will no longer be able to raise money to deficit spend with. Which means that everything that the federal government does, from top to bottom, stops because there is no longer the money to pay for it. I will oppose any candidate (and Obama and McCain both fit here) who are happy to spend money to help institute a short term fix for some problems now, only to destroy everything in eight to ten years. Because the economic damage that the collapse of the federal government would cause would make the all the current crises, be they mortgages, healthcare, Iraq, etc. all seem like molehills next to Everest.
It's a solvency problem, not liquidity. Those derivatives had completely bogus valuations, and when the crunch came it was discovered that they weren't worth the paper they were printed on. Those derivatives, which IMO are worth pennies on the dollar at best, stayed on the banks' assets sheets at full value, which is why BSC assets appeared to be greater than their liabilities. Mark them to what they're actually worth and oops, BSC is insolvent.Straha wrote:The big effect that mortgages had on the economy before was not directly because of an increase in foreclosure, but only indirect through the sudden loss of valuation on derivatives and the resulting loss of liquidity. In other words, what made the economy splutter wasn't mortgages failing, it was because banks could no longer place a value on the derivatives their income streams were bundled in, and with that loss of valuation interbank lending ground to a standstill because of a loss of collateral. This loss of liquidity is what did the economy in. That's why, for instance, Bear Sterns went under even though it had more than enough assets to pay off all its liabilities, it wasn't how much they had, it was how much they had on hand which wasn't much and (in banking) doesn't need to be much except in extenuating circumstances.
You've got to be kidding me. Please, explain to me then why the non-borrowed reserves of US banks currently stand at -$123 billion. That's a negative by the way, meaning in addition to not meeting their reserve requirements, they also owe the Fed $123 billion. If the system is liquid, then why aren't the banks lending to each other, and why would the Fed have to add another $150 billion TAF loan every month? If it's liquid, why is this necessary?After the credit crunch, though, the Fed and the ECB did everything they could to increase liquidity, and it's worked.
The Fed has blown through more than half of its assets and is down to around $15 billion in short term treasuries. It has around $400 billion left in long-term T-bills and other assets, and if it sells those to finance further loans for the banks the yield on those T-bills will ramp significantly. That will cause a market dislocation and kill the housing & finance sectors as mortgage rates follow the yield curve of long term treasuries. As for the banks' balance sheets, I trust them about as much as Enron's. Their "assets" are marked to some fictitious model and they're still not serious about marking down said assets. 3 words: Level 3 assets. 3 more: Mark to fairytale.A lot of the really sketchy derivatives have been swapped out of the bank's inventory and replaced by the fed with Treasury Bonds which are guaranteed to keep being paid (in the next ten years anyway.) There's a fair bit more that the Fed's done here but the long and short of it is that short of a complete and catastrophic collapse in all sectors of the economy (and as I just pointed out in my last post, the signs are pointing the opposite way) any future mortgage hiccups will generally be absorbed by the fed and the banks' balance sheets (which are well padded to take it.)
The credit default spread on US government debt doubled on the day the Fannie & Freddie bailout bill passed. Let that sink in for a while, and ponder its implications.Fannie and Freddie infuriate me to no end. They will survive, Paulson and Bernake have ensured that, and there will be no economic damage beyond that hitting the federal budget, but the congressional handling of the bailout is beyond absurd.
<snip>
The U.S. has to start paying off its deficit, and if it doesn't immediately it will go completely bust, and that's much worse for the economy than anything else listed here.
Localized? Contained? How stupid are you? Seriously. Maybe you haven't seen the sales numbers from the auto industry, they're all down 5-30%. Even Toyota is down 28%, and several manufacturers have had to eliminate their leasing programs which is going to drop those numbers even more. Their supporting manufacturers are also in dire straits, they're all laying off workers or going belly up. Maybe you haven't noticed that the airline industry is toast, and shares of many companies are now trading in the single digits. The airplane manufacturers will soon be in trouble as the cancellations roll in. Casinos and other developments are being cancelled in Las Vegas, what does that tell you? Homebuilders and commercial developers are going bankrupt, and those that are left are bleeding red ink. Retailers are getting murdered, guess you didn't know that either. Oh yeah, and student loans are being cancelled in droves, that's going to work wonders for education.See above. While certainly the red ink the banks will be accruing isn't going to help the economy, the damage is localized and everything has been done to make sure it will not hit the rest of the economy. Unless you work in the finance business odds are life is going to get better soon. There have been plenty of times in history (even recent history) where the banking sector has been having trouble while the rest of the economy rumbled ahead. And the Fed, ECB and UK have made sure that this will be one of those times.
Because the question was never whether or not they had enough capital to cover their risks. The question was a lack of liquidity, that is capital on hand. The Fed, ECB and Bank of England have ensured that there will always be enough liquidity in the system in the future, and as such the banks will be able to weather the coming storm, just as they would have been able to weather the last one if liquidity hadn't dried up.SirNitram wrote: I have a question: Why do you believe banks can now weather the new debts coming, when they showed they had not adequetely capitalized already, when the market was ripe for such?
I don't like it, but the pain is well worth the cost. And it's not drunken spending, these swaps leave the central banks with large numbers of A+ grade bonds which will mostly pay off. It's a calculated loss designed to be well worth the cost.Question: Why do you not crow about this drunken spending as you do against deficit spending?
Recession has a set definition, just as the unemployment rate does, as does cost of living, as does inflation etc. etc. etc. When you use the term it has a specific meaning and if it's not what you mean to say then don't use the term. It's not my fault I know what the word means and you don't.Accepted by whom? And are you using the hyper-pendatic definition of recession, where the economy can be a wreck but not a recession because of some numbers that only benefit a few percent?
There'd be no problem with it if it were handled with any measure of sanity. But, alas, it's not. Because congress is populated by lobbyist beholden morons. C'est la vie.The problem with them is socialized risk and privatized profit, which is pretty much textbook moral hazard.
A. How many times have I said that I prefer Obama's plan to McCain's in all aspects but this?Then why are you in favor of the plan which includes a larger reduction in tax revenue? I do not find it honest to cherry-pick which parts of McCain's plan you like. I will listen to any argument on how it is somehow honest, but don't expect instant agreement.
Our economies have been interlinked tightly for decades. But, like I said, examined in a historical context their downturn, while annoying, will not seriously effect the American economy. This is doubly so because of the recent 'decoupling' of the developing world from the first world, which means that if there's an economic downturn in Europe America can pick up trade from them.You do realize that economies are interlinked to a point where a notable downturn in the other first world markets will still have it's effects here, right...?
A. As I said in the post, I'd much prefer for the upper income bracket tax breaks of the past thirty years to be reversed to make money to afford these plans.
Define 'Rest of the economy'. Because it's not going to the working classes, which, incidentally, are the group you have cherry-picked to bear the financial burden.
The cost of living is a strawman because I'm talking about the national economy here. The next president has to make sure to do the best he can that both the national economy and, to pick one group, the middle class prosper. To trade off one for the other is disastrous, just look at what the Shrub has done these past six years to see an example of just such a trade off. I do have significant gripes with the current cost of living problems and the problems facing the middle class, look at my vents in the healthcare thread in HoS for examples. But it's not the issue at hand. Obama's tax plan is.I still cannot wrap my head around this. You are talking about the extreme damage to the economy deficit spending will incur, but wave off cash infusions, moral hazard, liquidity concerns from the next round of foreclosures, wages of the foundation of the economy not keeping up with inflation of expenses... How? What logical pattern allows this?
Re-read the plan by his directors in the OP. To quote directly:Have you actually read Obama's tax plan? You know, where he's destroying tax cuts for the rich? Or is that glossed over because you're hyperventilating at the cost of a real fix to the healthcare crisis?
andThat is why he would repeal a portion of the tax cuts passed in the last eight years for families making over $250,000. But to be clear: He would leave their tax rates at or below where they were in the 1990s.
andThe top two income-tax brackets would return to their 1990s levels of 36% and 39.6% (including the exemption and deduction phase-outs). All other brackets would remain as they are today.
andThe top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986.
andThe tax rate on dividends would also be 20% for families making more than $250,000, rather than returning to the ordinary income rate. This rate would be 39% lower than the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut and would be lower than all but five of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends.
In other words, he's not 'destroying' the Clinton-Bush tax cuts at all. He's enshrining them! At best he's reducing the second set of Bush cuts by a sliver and that's not nearly enough as should be done by the next administration.Overall, in an Obama administration, the top 1% of households -- people with an average income of $1.6 million per year -- would see their average federal income and payroll tax rate increase from 21% today to 24%, less than the 25% these households would have paid under the tax laws of the late 1990s.
I would be, except it's like screaming in the wind. Everyone with a brain cell knows this, and to say something which everyone knows again just for the sake of saying it is a character trait which always annoyed me in other people, so I try not to do it.So why are you not screaming at McCain for his 'Drill drill drill to prosperity', his 'Four more wars', his continued economic tax cuts for the rich, and his proposal to help the economic weight of the healthcare crisis worsen?
Yes. All those CDO's were rated A+ as well. Getting the idea I don't believe that anymore?Straha wrote:Because the question was never whether or not they had enough capital to cover their risks. The question was a lack of liquidity, that is capital on hand. The Fed, ECB and Bank of England have ensured that there will always be enough liquidity in the system in the future, and as such the banks will be able to weather the coming storm, just as they would have been able to weather the last one if liquidity hadn't dried up.SirNitram wrote: I have a question: Why do you believe banks can now weather the new debts coming, when they showed they had not adequetely capitalized already, when the market was ripe for such?
I don't like it, but the pain is well worth the cost. And it's not drunken spending, these swaps leave the central banks with large numbers of A+ grade bonds which will mostly pay off. It's a calculated loss designed to be well worth the cost.Question: Why do you not crow about this drunken spending as you do against deficit spending?
Still ignores the point of ignoring all economic damage, save that imposed by deficit spending, and then only cherry-picking.Recession has a set definition, just as the unemployment rate does, as does cost of living, as does inflation etc. etc. etc. When you use the term it has a specific meaning and if it's not what you mean to say then don't use the term. It's not my fault I know what the word means and you don't.Accepted by whom? And are you using the hyper-pendatic definition of recession, where the economy can be a wreck but not a recession because of some numbers that only benefit a few percent?
I don't care. It's still a fundamentally dishonest thing to seperate this McCain proposal from all else.There'd be no problem with it if it were handled with any measure of sanity. But, alas, it's not. Because congress is populated by lobbyist beholden morons. C'est la vie.The problem with them is socialized risk and privatized profit, which is pretty much textbook moral hazard.
A. How many times have I said that I prefer Obama's plan to McCain's in all aspects but this?Then why are you in favor of the plan which includes a larger reduction in tax revenue? I do not find it honest to cherry-pick which parts of McCain's plan you like. I will listen to any argument on how it is somehow honest, but don't expect instant agreement.
Define McCain's program. It is, in fact, 'Raise taxes on everyone with insurance.' And possibly another demonstration that Health Savings Accounts don't work.B. Consider it like comparing cars, houses, different insurance plans, different mortgage plans, restaurants, etc. There are things about one thing which I prefer over the other or vice versa. In this case I prefer pretty much all of Obama's healthcare plan except for the fact that he doesn't seem to funding the new programs (he isn't, last I checked, gutting the old ones to make way for the new ones,) while McCain's plan to fund his program is something at least. Still crap, but less crappy then spending on the deficit.
C. Let me ask you this. Do you think the Obama tax plan and healthcare plan is actually good, or are you just supporting it because it's not McCain? And if so, why?
Decoupling? Oh lord, someone still buys that. If decoupling worked, there would not now be a global decrease. Actually, screw it, I'll link this. LinkOur economies have been interlinked tightly for decades. But, like I said, examined in a historical context their downturn, while annoying, will not seriously effect the American economy. This is doubly so because of the recent 'decoupling' of the developing world from the first world, which means that if there's an economic downturn in Europe America can pick up trade from them.You do realize that economies are interlinked to a point where a notable downturn in the other first world markets will still have it's effects here, right...?
Then why cherry-pick the plan that rewards them and punishes the middle class?A. As I said in the post, I'd much prefer for the upper income bracket tax breaks of the past thirty years to be reversed to make money to afford these plans.
Define 'Rest of the economy'. Because it's not going to the working classes, which, incidentally, are the group you have cherry-picked to bear the financial burden.
Tautology. Which sectors should I see this recovery in? Hint: Detroit's not, Commercial expansion isn't, retail is getting hit with low consumer confidence...B. Rest of the economy means the rest of the economy. Like I said, the American economy is no longer in a recession but it hasn't picked up speed to say we're in a boom cycle, or even great times. What we are doing is getting better. In the past this has gotten down to the middle class and the working class after the cycle has kicked off.
No, you purposefully cherry-pick his healthcare plan. If you were truly looking at tax-plans, you'd be seeing how McCain's causes more deficit spending, and this was shown to you.The cost of living is a strawman because I'm talking about the national economy here. The next president has to make sure to do the best he can that both the national economy and, to pick one group, the middle class prosper. To trade off one for the other is disastrous, just look at what the Shrub has done these past six years to see an example of just such a trade off. I do have significant gripes with the current cost of living problems and the problems facing the middle class, look at my vents in the healthcare thread in HoS for examples. But it's not the issue at hand. Obama's tax plan is.I still cannot wrap my head around this. You are talking about the extreme damage to the economy deficit spending will incur, but wave off cash infusions, moral hazard, liquidity concerns from the next round of foreclosures, wages of the foundation of the economy not keeping up with inflation of expenses... How? What logical pattern allows this?
If it's about Obama's Tax Plan... From earlier in this very thread...To deal with it very summarily, suppose someone were were to come to you and say "I can make solve all of your problems now at extreme cost eight years from now, want in?" Would you do it? Hopefully your answer is "No." because it'd be like taking one of the sub-prime mortgages, incredibly stupid and not worth whatever the benefits are.
As for the rest, cash infusions and moral hazard are both things which I have strong feelings about. Like I indicated above (and ranted for quite some time about) I am opposed to a number of these programs. As I am opposed to how the federal bailout for mortgages is being handled, and how banks are being handled. But this is off the topic of Barack Obama's tax plan (the subject of the op-ed piece by his directors in the OP), his healthcare plan and his failure to cut spending or raise taxes (both gripes I raised in the OP.) They never came up until you brought them up, and while I'm happy to go into my feelings on them they're not relevant to the main point of this thread.
You, immediately after:OVERALL EFFECT OF TAX, HEALTH CARE PLANS
McCain: According to the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of Washington-based think tanks The Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, McCain's tax and health care plans would reduce federal tax revenues by $4.2 trillion over the 2009-18 period compared with current law, under which the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 and the AMT remains in full force. Compared to a "baseline" scenario that assumes extension of the Bush tax cuts and extension of an indexed AMT "patch," McCain's plan would reduce revenues by $600 billion for the 10-year period. Including interest, the McCain plan would increase the national debt by $5 trillion by 2018.
Obama: Plans would cut tax revenues by $2.8 trillion over the 2009-18 period compared with current law, according to the Tax Policy Center. Compared to the baseline scenario, Obama's plan would increase revenues by $800 billion. Including interest costs, his plan would increase the national debt by $3.4 trillion by 2018.
Is it his healthcare plan, or his tax plan? Make up your mind.I was dealing with only his healthcare plan, not with the rest of his financial policy.
I forgot to address this point. See here, and weep. AAA is trading at 50 cents on the dollar, AA is at a dime on the dollar. In other words, a 50% loss on AAA and 90% loss on AA. The credit default spreads are correspondingly bad.Straha wrote:I don't like it, but the pain is well worth the cost. And it's not drunken spending, these swaps leave the central banks with large numbers of A+ grade bonds which will mostly pay off. It's a calculated loss designed to be well worth the cost.SirNitram wrote:Question: Why do you not crow about this drunken spending as you do against deficit spending?
