Drew Dowdell

if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.... in alaska... that I was for before I was against.... you can see Russia from it....mind the lipstick.

There is a difference between a one time rebate and on going tax cuts. The same top 1% have broken all records on wealth retained. They are paying more taxes because they are so much more wealthy relative to the lower classes. Yet another Rich get Richer, Poor get poorer. Sure, you can mince words. Gramm was not the cause.... Gramm's bill <along with the S&L stuff> was the cause. There isn't just one cause though. You're right, completely irrelevant.

Oh neat! Something else Gramm had his fingers in. I'll be happy for an economic upturn either way... and I'll assess the evidence when the time comes. I feel certain, however, that McCain's plan as it currently stands will not help the economy. The economy will likely bottom out this december-january and then bounce along the bottom for the following 12 months regardless of who is in office.... where it goes after that is anyone's guess.

1. It initially passed the senate on party lines. When it did pass both houses after Dems added a bunch of protections, it was Veto proof. Clinton couldn't have vetoed it even if he wanted to. 2. Would you say the same thing if say... Angelo Mozilo were Obama's Chairman of the FHA? 3. I was referring to the tax cuts just post 9-11, not the rebates in May of 2008. The May 2008 rebate was too minuscule to matter. So redo your assessment.

We're having a Long Island Ice Tea drinking party.... everytime McCain tells a lie I have to take a drink.... . man I'm going to be wasted. </joking....sorta>

Well I don't have a specific percentage in mind because I don't have a legion of economists working for me. Mostly I'm concerned with lowering the taxes on the tax brackets that spend the most as a collective. The net difference would have to be made up by those higher up the scale. I would likely want 50% as the highest ceiling for any tax on anyone, but lower than that if budget allows. Money always flows upward anyway.

BTW.... Pick the elitist!

So McCain wanted to bring back regulation 4 years after Gramm-Leach? I'm not pinning the blame on McCain... the blame lies with Gramm.... however, Gramm is McCain's economic policy adviser. Has the stimulus packages worked? No. Retail is down. Auto industry is down. Housing is down. The stimulus went to the people who didn't need it. You're a wealthy business man. You just got your post 9-11 tax cuts. Why would you use your tax cut to hire more people when you can't actually sell more product? Lease yourself a new company S-class and write the extra cost off your taxes. Country first..... but it doesn't say which country. Germany perhaps?

Supposedly, most people spent their rebate on gasoline, household bills, and porn.....but in my case, I'm talking about an ongoing reduction in taxes for the middle class.

I think you need to go a bit further back in history. That Bloomberg article is political hackery that ignores financial history prior to 2001. NONE of this would have been possible without the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act.

I know you're against any government handouts of any form, but where I'm going with this is, if the government is going to hand out $700,000,000,000 to keep the economy going. It would be better off handing it to the middle class. That money would "create" a demand that would trickle up through the economy. People could pay their mortgages. Investment banks wouldn't need bailing out.

Absolutely, positively, completely, utterly incorrect. 1st the cancer was well established and metastasized by 2005. 2nd McCain proposing regulation on Fannie and Freddie at that point is like him suggesting a new lock on the chicken coupe after he let the foxes in to have dinner. 3rd Fannie and Freddie aren't the cause, merely the symptom.

Interesting... What is more interesting is McCain's top donor list v. Obama's top donor list. McCain Obama You'd think those left wing institutions, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley would all be worried about Obama's tax plan turning the U.S. into a welfare state and aborting their babies.....

The "rightest" had the last 8 years to screw up our country like it's never been screwed before. Now it's our turn! </simulated Bush quote> Obama has demonstrated more than once the thoughtfulness and temperament I require of a President. He DOES BLINK! He is NOT "Shoot first, don't ask questions, and resist any congressional inquiry that would ask questions by invoking executive privilege."

I think this thread has served it's purpose. We don't need a debate on the merits of other members.

There are different kinds of short sales and I wish the article mentioned which kind. ...... and no, it's not a good thing if it's *all* short sales...

But they get free health care, cheap transportation, some of the best education <11th grade here doesn't even count for credit there), etc etc etc. Right now, the "demand side" countries with the exception of Britain, are fairing much better than the supply siders. edit: Unionization without some domestic protections will just lead to more offshoring.

Of course we want the same thing. We want prosperity and the ability to grow beyond ourselves. We want a healthy populace and fair taxes. What I disagree with is the idea that we need to continue to shovel money to the wealthy in order to get there. 80 years of this and we have financial crisis after crisis. Know who has the most stable economies? Those pinko, tree-huggin, socialist Dutch and Scandinavian countries. We have massive wealth disparity and it's getting worse. If we continue at this rate, in 10 years the wealthy will get another tax cut and in the same bill the rest of us will be offered cake. Japan has a VERY progressive tax system, their CEOs make a 10th of what ours do... yet that tiny little country is kicking our ass economically! What I don't understand is why the conservatives can't seem to grasp the reverse of the theories they propose. If you spend money to make the middle classes wealthier, then they'll have money to purchase things. The middle class are the bulk of the purchasing power who buy computers (Dell, HP, Microsoft), new cars, (GM, Chrysler, Ford), food (Purdue, Sysco), and pay their mortgages on time (Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Wells Fargo, any bank EVAR). So, Paris Hilton may have to have only two Bentley Continental GTs instead of 3, but if that makes the occupancy rate at Hilton Hotel increase by 10%, doesn't that work out better for her in the long run? You espouse "supply side" so vehemently, but if the "demand" isn't there, all the supply in the world isn't going to help you. If you create a "demand", prices will increase until more supply follows.

I'm the same way as you. I am very allergic to most anti-biotics so I refuse to take them unless I'm being carted to the ER. I don't want the few that I'm not allergic to lose their effectiveness.

Did you just advocate taxing the rich more to aid the poor? *hugs* I'm so proud of you! You're growing up so fast! *wipes away a tear* I think you missed my point though. McCain's idea of dissuading companies from offering health care is shifting the burden away from the companies and onto the employees. It removes the advantage of buying in bulk and makes it more difficult for those with the tendency to be ill to get insurance. This is yet another Rich get Richer and Poor get Poorer scheme and nothing more. Just stick it up there with McCain's S&L credentials, Banking deregulation, and the Enron Loophole. Edit: And after seeing all of these HUGE institution belly up to the trough to feed more after stealing so many people's life savings.... How bad could universal healthcare really be? I mean, we're now NEVER EVER going to kill this debt. We will have to pay $1.00 per second for the next 300 years* just to cover the principle on the amount borrowed today. *not making that up.

I'm not sure you are following me. Sometimes the fraud was committed by the borrower via "Stated Income" or more rudely, "Liar Loans". Sometimes the fraud was committed by the brokers who switched out paper work or even went so far as to use Photoshop to move someone's signature to a document they never even saw. Sometimes the borrower and brokers worked together to commit the fraud. Re: NAFTA... again Dodgefan's quote comes into play here. But even still, non-manufacturing jobs have had stagnant wages. Re in bold: Initially, yes it would cost more to the taxpayer. However, the Federal government is the single largest healthcare payer in the nation right now. Just adding Walmart employees alone would create a LARGE downward pressure on healthcare rates. Re in italics: Be careful of unintended consequences. McCain's policy might look good on the surface, but look 15 years down the road when NO employers offer healthcare to their employees anymore. I know you're all Nelson Capitalist Rockefeller and all, but that is a MASSIVE shift of burden from the wealthy to the non-wealthy. Considering we're already suffering substantially from Rich getting Richer and Poor getting Poorer, it might not be such a good idea to accelerate that trend.

Correct. He is just opening up the healthcare program offered to federal employees to everyone. You'll still need to pay to play unless you are the most destitute out there.... which basically is happening already anyway.

If you're going to do Socialism, at least give the money to the poor people. To quote Dodgefan, "It's not so much that I care about what you're doing, it's the stupid way you're doing it." Actually, there were a lot of people who were duped by mortgage brokers and real estate agents. There were papers slipped in at the last minute and signatures that "magically" jumped from document to document. That isn't to say there weren't dumb consumers.... but fraud in the industry was rampant. This is the deregulation I was speaking to earlier. Mortgage brokers sold bad loans to people who were fraudulently representing their income to the banks. The banks would then package up a group of these mortgages into financial funds and sell the fund to some other institution. At this point, the visibility of who the mortgages are written to disappears. These funds would get traded around to other institutions, portioned out, repackaged with others, and resold. The funds were then rated as AAA by the financial ratings agencies....because these securities are backed by real estate and real estate never goes down in value.... "they aren't making more land" <insert cheesy salesman laugh here>. Now if you're a bank and you KNOW you're going to package these mortgages up and sell them to some poor schmuck who walks by, what do you care if the mortgage was based on fraud? Now you get a new job and start filling out the 401k paperwork and see this highly rated fund that's backed with real estate. Sounds like a good thing to bank your retirement on...right? Well, lots of people did. Government and Corporate were in it together. We probably wouldn't be where we are if there hadn't been a concerted effort <NAFTA> to keep the wages of the middle and lower classes down. I'm not saying this was a cause, but the situation wouldn't be nearly as dire had wages kept up with inflation.

Oh no.... as a kid I went by Andy... by my very late teens, I was Andrew... and for the past 10 years or so, I've been Drew. I am now ineligible for elected office?

Just imagine for a moment if it were the black candidate in this election, rather than the white candidate, who was born in Central America, was an indifferent churchgoer, had graduated near the bottom of his university class, had dumped his first wife, had regularly displayed an explosive and profane temper, and had referred to the Pakistani-Iraqi border ...