25 Comments Add your own

• 1. snuss  |  October 31st, 2008 at 12:49 pm

  I’d be more concerned with how Obama and his supporters treat those who don’t support him. Like the illegal government inquiries into Joe the plumber’s background, or that three reporters, for newspapers that DIDN’T endorse Obama, are being kicked off the Obama press plane. Or the Florida TV station that is being denied any Obama-related interviews, because they didn’t like the interview of Sen. Biden.
  Makes you wonder what will happen to those who oppose B.H.O., if he does win, doesn’t it? Big Brother is a Socialist?

• 2. bannernews  |  October 31st, 2008 at 12:55 pm

  I’m sure the Bush administration is using illegal wiretaps to find out.

• 3. snuss  |  October 31st, 2008 at 1:04 pm

  Only if Obama is calling someone out of the country, maybe the half-brother who is living in a dirt-floored hovel in Kenya. Didn’t Barack spout some platitude about being “his brother’s keeper”, during his infomercial? He’s not doing a very good job of that, is he?

  Oh, I’d still be worried about his plan to punish the “rich”, by raising capital gains taxes, since it is a financial reality that such an action has two significant effects:
  1. It depresses business growth.
  2. It significantly decreases tax revenues.

  Neither are going to help improve our current economic level.

  BTW, is B.H.O. spreading the wealth to those making less than $250,000, $200,000, or $150,000? That number keeps getting lower and lower.

• 4. Billybeermonicagar  |  October 31st, 2008 at 1:30 pm

  I think the spread the wealth thing has not worked out for Republicans. Those lazy dems are sure making tracks with it though!

• 5. Drew Williams  |  October 31st, 2008 at 2:08 pm

  Snuss - Actually, according to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Those That Make less than $120,000 Get a Tax Cut.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G88ebXY2uaI

  like you said…keeps getting lower and lower….

• 6. Jon  |  October 31st, 2008 at 2:23 pm

  Billy…Nice…I’m sure the hardworking folks from across our country (you know, the union folks, farmers, etc. etc. etc), who vote democratic, appreciate the “lazy dems” reference. Just one more reason to disdain you republicans. You guys are so out of touch!

• 7. Mike Carroll  |  October 31st, 2008 at 2:46 pm

  I think I’ll spread a bit of the wealth around myself tonight. If a child comes to my door trick or treating tonight and they have too much candy for their own good (I shall make this decision unilaterally by the way), I will confiscate that which I deem to be beyond their fair share to be distributed to other trick or treaters who have less. I will explain to those from whom I take candy that, although they have no doubt worked hard to accumulate said candy, fairness dictates that they share with those who have not worked as hard.
  I think this will go over well.

• 8. Jon  |  October 31st, 2008 at 2:57 pm

  Mike…that is a brilliant analogy! Did you use it in your economics dissertation? I thought the issue was the tax burden on the middle class. Your irrational fear of this proposal makes me think you may want to lock the doors and turn off the lights tonight…there will be spooks and goblins outside and they could get you.

• 9. Mike Carroll  |  October 31st, 2008 at 3:11 pm

  Jon-actually, my dissertation is on Hauser’s Law. Let me warn you before you check it out that it is extremely disturbing, one might say frightening, for all of you “progressives”.

• 10. Jon  |  October 31st, 2008 at 3:16 pm

  Thanks for the warning…but I don’t frighten easily. (well…maybe four years of McCain / Palin would frighten me).

• 11. echo4charlie  |  October 31st, 2008 at 3:55 pm

  Amid all of the “McCainiac” references, and accused “Right-Wing Fear Mongering”, here is an interesting article to read:

  Erica Jong Tells Italians Obama Loss ‘Will Spark the Second American Civil War. Blood Will Run in the Streets’
  by Jason Horowitz | October 30, 2008

  http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/erica-jong-tells-italians-obama-loss-will-spark-second-american-civil-war-blood-will-r

  What, exactly is her irrational fear about? Is she saying that she and her friends (Hanoi) Jane Fonda, Naomi Wolf, Susan Cheever, Michael Chabon and Ken Follett are going to bring combat to America’s streets, should Obama lose the election? Are they going to lock, load, and lead the charge?

  She (Erica Jong) says:

  “If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it’s not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets.”

  She also says:

  “Bush has transformed America into a police state, from torture to the imprisonment of reporters, to the Patriot Act.”

  Talk about paranoia, and “drinking the Kool-Aid”. What flavor is she drinking? Jonestown?

  On another note, Albert Einstein once said, “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”

  Keeping that comment in mind, think about this:

  Iran narrowly missed out on a bid for a seat on the UN security council (which Japan took). Apparently, it didn’t matter that Iran has an abysmal human rights record, that it serves as a major source of funding and arms for Hamas and Hizballah, or that it has hosted a conference for Holocaust deniers. Nor did it trouble the Muslim and non-aligned nations that voted to elect Iran to the council that its president has called for the destruction of a fellow U.N. member state (Israel).

  Speaking before the U.N. General Assembly on September 23, the Iranian president made many, many offensive, and to be honest, frightening, remarks. Among them was the odious canard that “a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists” control the financial and political centers in Europe and the United States. He also disputed the legitimacy of the State of Israel, referring to it as “a cesspool.”

  And, what was the reaction of the assembled delegates after thirty minutes of vile, unadulterated anti-Semitism? More than just a few applauded, sending an explicit message of approval to a man whose views are antithetical to the very values expressed in the U.N. Charter (world peace, tolerance, respect for human rights, and human dignity).

  An international community ready to confront Iran would look and feel a lot different than that, in my book. We should witness not applause, but a walkout staged by a majority of the diplomats when Ahmadinejad speaks in such manner at the U.N. And, again, I stress, Obama is going sit down, with no preconditions, and break through this muddle of incontinent thought talking peace and hugs to this guy?

  What an absurd irony that Iran, who has “thumbed its nose” at the International Atomic Energy Agency in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, could even be considered for membership on the very body that has imposed sanctions on it for those violations (?). And, as I inquired before, Obama is going to talk to them, and rationalize them into sanctions obedience? Or, talk them back off of the ledge?

  The Syrian regime has clearly indicated its preference for Obama. Buthaina Shaaban, an adviser to President Bashar al-Assad, has written: “The change suggested by Obama is essential not only for the U.S. but for the entire human family.”

  Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi called Obama “a Muslim” and said: “All the people in the Arab and Muslim world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcome him and prayed for his success” .

  Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said this year: “We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election.” Remember, they are funded and armed by Iran.

  Hezbollah’s second in command, Sheik Naim al-Kassim, urged Americans to vote for Obama as a step toward peace with Islam. Pro-Hezbollah columnist Amal Saad-Ghorayeb said there is “no doubt Arabs should welcome an Obama presidency.” Remember, they, too, are funded and armed by Iran.

  In Saudi Arabia, commentator Hussein Shobokshi wrote that an Obama presidency “would mark an important moral transformation in the superpower and is a healthy indicator of the long-awaited improvement in the international arena.”

  It has also been noted that Obama has close ties to several Palestinian radicals, including Columbia University Prof. Rashid Khalidi, former communications director for the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and another Palestinian political activist, the late Edward Said. What these ties are, we don’t know. Obama won’t say.

  Even more frightningly, the “Arab street” also favors Obama. Recent surveys found that he is the preferred US presidential candidate of Egyptians, Jordanians, Moroccans, Algerians, Syrians, Saudi Arabians, and the residents of The United Arab Emirates.

  That’s certainly some support base……………………..

• 12. Milton Waddams  |  October 31st, 2008 at 4:29 pm

  Mike: After reading your post, I did a little looking into Hauser’s law. I have a few questions for you…

  During the period it looks at 1950-forward, top marginal rates declined, what happened to the lower brackets and how might this have affected revenue collection?

  What would happen if the loopholes that make evasion of taxes by the wealthy possible were closed? Would revenues taken in still stay flat?

  Why does the graph compare top rates of INCOME tax to total tax revenue as % of GDP? How much of a role are payroll taxes playing and why aren’t they mentioned?

  While I do not have an extensive background in Economics (16 hours in college), I do have a good background in statistics and science. I am troubled by the graphing technique used in the Wainwright graph I found for Hauser’s law. Hopefully, Hauser’s law isn’t based on what the graph looks like. The lower line LOOKS pretty flat, but why is a line with a apparent data range of +/- 5% being depicted on a 0-100 scale? It makes the likely statistically significant variation very difficult to see. I say likely statistically significant, because I wasn’t able to find any data on Hauser’s law, only that troubling graph and descriptions of what the graph means.

  I look forward to your response.

• 13. Mike Carroll  |  October 31st, 2008 at 5:23 pm

  Milton-I’m not an economist but I have studied economics. I will give you my somewhat simplistic interpretation of Hauser’s Law which,btw, has not been refuted by anyone of serious credentials.
  The evidence shows, and 58 years is a significant database, that tax revenues average ,within a very small variable, 19.5% of GDP regardless of the marginal tax rates in effect at the time. What this means is that the way to grow tax revenue is not through playing around with top marginal tax rates in an attempt to soak the so called rich. The rich find legal ways to shelter income to avoid high rates of taxation. See that famous Democrat, Warren Buffett.
  The way to grow tax revenue is to grow the economy and have low marginal tax rates. It does seem counter intuitive but think of it this way-20% of 2 dollars is more than 30% of 1 dollar.That’s why the rich have paid a larger share of total tax revenue as a result of the Bush tax cuts than at any time in history.What Obama proposes will have the opposite effect of that which is intended.

• 14. Pat Cunningham  |  October 31st, 2008 at 5:54 pm

  Mike: I’m going to use whatever influence I have with Obama to get you appointed to his council of economic advisers. If there’s any dough in it, I’ll expect my customary commission.

• 15. Craig Knauss  |  October 31st, 2008 at 6:03 pm

  Mike,

  Wow, there must have been some significant changes in the last 30 years or so. When I was taking my government finance econ course, we were analyzing data from the Brookings Institute. The Institute found, back then, that the upper 10% of the personal income distribution had about 90% of the aggregate income, but it was the middle 50% of the distribution that paid about 85% of the income taxes. In other words, 90% of the income resulted in less than 15% of the tax revenue. And when Reagan was pushing his tax cuts for the wealthy, who supposedly were paying 55% of their income in taxes, the GAO determined that the average taxpayer in the upper bracket was really only paying about 28%. But you claim that all that has been fixed. Unfortuantely, I still don’t earn $250,000 per year, so I can’t tell you if it has or not. But I don’t see too many doctors or lawyers selling pencils on street corners.

• 16. Mike Carroll  |  October 31st, 2008 at 7:51 pm

  Check the numbers Craig-I’m not making them up.
  An endorsement from Pat-By God, I’ll send a check now or perhaps tomorrow.

  Do I hear 250.
  Do I hear 200.
  Do I hear 150.
  120-going once, going twice………….

• 17. Billybeermonicagar  |  November 1st, 2008 at 7:44 am

  Craig, you would be amazed by the number of doctors and lawyers that make less than $250,000. By the way, I need a few pencils. Where do you live?

• 18. swamprat  |  November 1st, 2008 at 8:18 am

  McCainiacs believe in giving 770 billion to big banks so they can give out big bonuses and buy other banks. They believe in using taxpayer money to bail out homeowners who should not have gotten loans. They believe it’s OK for Palin to run a socialist state and give thousands to its citizens so the rest of us can pay $4 a gal. for gas.
  GWB’s stimulis package would also fit the description of redistribution of wealth.

• 19. Billybeermonicagar  |  November 1st, 2008 at 8:29 am

  Didn’t the dems vote overwhelmingly for the bailout? Barney Frank and his band of ‘mary warriors’ demanded loans for those that could not afford to pay them back. His boyfriend took millions in bonus money from a GSE. Swamp, you know both parties have as much blame as us citizens do. We keep putting the same bums, dem or repub, in office.

• 20. snuss  |  November 1st, 2008 at 9:27 am

  BTW, Chris Dodd is FINALLY under investigation for his “sweetheart” loan deals.

  Feds probe Countrywide’s ‘VIP’ program
  Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:03 AM ET
  Filed Under: Politics

  By Lisa Myers & Amna Nawaz, NBC News

  The wide-ranging criminal investigation into wrongdoing at Countrywide - once the nation’s largest mortgage originator - now includes serious scrutiny of a loan program that provided special mortgage deals to the well-connected and powerful, including two U.S. senators.

  NBC News has learned that Robert Feinberg - a former Countrywide loan officer who handled what were known as the “VIP” mortgages - spent six hours last Thursday with a six-person team from the Justice Department. The team included prosecutors from the Public Integrity section, which handles investigations of possible public corruption.

  “The Justice Department is making very serious inquiry into any possible wrongdoing that may involve (former Countrywide CEO) Angelo Mozilo, other Countrywide employees, Sen. Chris Dodd, Sen. Kent Conrad, (former Fannie Mae CEO) Franklin Raines or other public officials,” said Feinberg’s lawyer, Anthony Salerno. “Robert has always cooperated thoroughly with authorities and is strictly a witness in their investigation.”

  ‘Friends of Angelo’s’
  Salerno said the prosecutors and FBI agents seemed focused on whether the preferential treatment given to VIP customers was part of an effort by Countrywide to buy influence - as well as on the conduct of each public official who received a mortgage from Countrywide.

  Feinberg says that Countrywide’s clients in this program were known by a nickname.

  “We called them F.O.A.’s,” Feinberg told NBC News, “which were Friends of Angelo’s.”

  “Angelo” is Countrywide’s then-CEO, Angelo Mozilo, who once called an ordinary borrower’s plea for help on his mortgage payments, “disgusting.”

  But Mozilo seemed to have a different attitude toward people of influence. In fact, Feinberg says part of his job was to hammer home to the VIP clients that they were getting special deals.

  “You spoke in a manner that was different than you spoke with a regular customer,” said Feinberg. “‘Your loan has been specially priced by Angelo.’ ‘You’re getting special discounts because you’re in the VIP loan department.”

  So what would a “Friend of Angelo” get that an average customer would not? According to Feinberg, the possible benefits ran the gamut.

  “They got a discount on the interest rate,” said Feinberg. “They got discounts on their fees. They got a free floatdown option before closing.”

  In one instance of a “Friends of Angelo” deal, Mozilo sent an e-mail to Feinberg ordering him to “Take off one point” on a loan to Sen. Conrad. That one point equaled a savings of $10,700 in fees.

  Feinberg’s client list also runs the gamut. Among those benefitting from the VIP program were four former Cabinet members spanning Democratic and Republican administrations: Henry Cisneros, Richard Holbrooke, Alphonso Jackson, and Donna Shalala. Two former CEO’s of Fannie Mae, James Johnson and Franklin Raines, heads of the government-sponsored entity which bought Countrywide’s mortgages - also received VIP mortgages from Countrywide.

  All have denied impropriety and declined to elaborate to NBC News. Some say they had no idea they were getting favorable rates or any sort of discount.

  But Feinberg insists part of his job was to make clear to VIP’s they were receiving special treatment.

  “There were many, many taglines we used to let them know their level of importance to make sure that they understand where they’re located,” said Feinberg. “And nine times out of ten, once you mention ‘VIP’ the person’s gonna ask you ‘what am i getting for being in this VIP department?’ Or ‘what am I getting because I know Angelo?’ Or ‘I talked to Angelo and he said I’m getting this.’”

  Senator Conrad says he never asked for, expected, nor was aware of any special treatment from Countrywide, and only found out about the discount after it had been reported in the press. He released and posted to his website all his mortgage documents, and donated all the money he saved to Habitat for Humanity.

  Senator Dodd says he thought the VIP program just meant better customer service, and that he received market terms that he could have received from other lenders. The senator said in a press conference on the matter that if anyone had suggested at the time that he was receiving some kind of financial benefit on the loans because of his position, he would have terminated the relationship immediately.

  Both Conrad and Dodd say they never sought any favors, and are cooperating with the Senate Ethics Committee investigation.

  Feinberg says he’s not aware of any discounts linked to favors, but he did see e-mails noting the potential value of the relationships to Countrywide’s political and business interests. The e-mails noted one particular client was “of importance to Countrywide.” Another encouraged a discount, noting “they are incredibly important to us.” Yet another asked that the loan officer, “make an exception” in Countrywide’s lending rules, “due to the fact that the borrower is a Senator.”

  Daniel Golden investigated the program for Condé Nast’s Portfolio magazine.

  “There was a great variety of people who got special deals,” said Golden. “Many of them were figures in Congress or government or business partners of Countrywide - all of whom were in a position to help Countrywide in one way or another.”

  To Golden, the company’s intention was clear.

  “The purpose for Countrywide was to ingratiate itself with the people in Washington who might be able to help the company down the road,” said Golden.

  But was any of it illegal? Legal experts say prosecutors will be looking into whether Countrywide was trying to buy influence, and into whether public officials were taking improper gifts, or gifts they should have disclosed.

  Source: http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/30/1613877.aspx

• 21. swamprat  |  November 1st, 2008 at 11:18 am

  I have known about Angelo’s tricks longer than either of you. Now here’s the facts.
  1. The banks forced a repeal of Glass-Stegal in 1999 with a veto proof bill.
  2. Then in 2004, after reaching the limits on loan amounts, Hank Paulson forced a change in the regulations. He was CEO of Goldman at the time.
  3. Paulson pocketed $500 million from that deregulation.
  4. In 2006 he was nominated as treasury secretary by GWB.
  5. When those very same banks faced bankruptcy,this year, (Paulson and Bush) basically put a gun to congress and demanded a bailout. He and Bush said if those banks failed it would be a disaster. The Democrats were suckered into believing it. The Republicans were clued in and stepped aside.
  6. Now those banks are not using the money as they were supposed to but for bonuses and buying other banks.
  7. The bailout of the homeowners is coming about now under Sheila Bair, a Bush appointee. McCain is also proposing a $3 billion bailout.
  8 As to the politcians doing wrong( if proven) they should all be punished. Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke included). They have been lying through this whole process and it could very well lead to the destruction of the U.S. financial system.

• 22. Pat Cunningham  |  November 1st, 2008 at 11:31 am

  While you folks argue among yourselves about economics and what-not, the fact remains that the McCain-Palin campaign crap about socialism and spreading the wealth is going over like the proverbial pregnant pole-vaulter, which was the point of this post to begin with. It was a stupid political strategy from the outset, as was the Joe the Plumber gambit. The McCain campaign gang couldn’t effectively organize a two-car funeral. They’re the worst I’ve seen in my nearly 50 years in politics.

• 23. swamprat  |  November 1st, 2008 at 11:59 am

  Pat. That is my point also. They shouldn’t be pointing fingers when they are guilty of the same crap.

• 24. Billybeermonicagar  |  November 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm

  Swamp admits the dems did wrong also? What next, McCain gets his vote?

• 25. Echo4Charlie  |  November 2nd, 2008 at 4:23 pm

  Two days left. What’s important to each of us will determine our vote. Obama seems to have all but one nail left to pund into McCain’s campaign casket………………but, it ain’t over ’till it’s over.

  I have a feeling that we won’t know for sure who our next President will be until next weekend, or so. It just seems to work out that way, anymore. It just isn’t as simple as it used to be. This should be a cut and dried situation (Presidential elections), but things always get muddled, mudied, confused and complicated.

  Neither is my first choice, but, we have to back whomever wins the election.

  One of the bigger questions; Who are the Clintons voting for?

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed