Money Changes Everything

Elton John and Cyndi Lauper in the same day. Just grand.

Cyndi didn't write it. It's a cover. See wiki.

This is f--king great, AMC.

Thanks bunches; I'd like Justin Fox's take on it, too.

s_z...you're only encouraging queen potty mouth!

What do you think is going to happen with the democratic party? Will the Clintons destroy it if they dont get their way?

The regulatory issue is not difficult to comprehend, Ana. A culture of dishonesty has taken root in America's financial institutions. I know that a Time-Warner-Moloch employee may have difficulty grasping what institutional dishonesty means, but it does exist and it has pernicious consequences when billions of dollars are involved.

The remedy is a stiff dose of regulation and enforcement. This is not sweet-tasting medicine, and will not secure large political contributions for Obama from the hedge fund boys or Wall Street. That is why Obama doesn't want to get specific.

Obama adviser Daniel Tarullo, in response to a question from an AP reporter. The reporter noted that Obama's much-ballyhooed speech on the economy today didn't contain any specific proposals.

No Tarullo didn't need to get too specific on Obama's speech, the big man did that ALL by himself on CNBC. The "Messiah" to the sheep of the faithful flock butchered economics 101 and what is left of his ill-fated candidacy.

Let's review, shall we??

Obama: "Well I'd start off with raising the capital gains tax to put more money into the general fund to pay off the national debt...how much would you raise the tax Sen Obama?? 'Oh just to about 25%, but I don't THINK I would go over 28% that Bill Clinton had in his administration". BRILLIANT!!
The economic guru of the Democratic-elect doesn't even have a clue that Clinton DECREASED the capitol gains tax at the very beginning of his administration which was the spur that caused a rebound of the ecomomy after Bush I.

Now we have an economic slump we are weathering, and the BRILLIANT Mr. Obama with his ever so cleaver idea of RAISING OUR TAXES EVEN HIGHER believes this will allow us to "fund our entitlements and give us the opportunity to keep increasing the minimum wage to keep up with inflation".

Why don't we take an economic slump and turn it into a full-fledged DEPRESSION you totally incompetent SOCIALIST??

Editor of the Harvard Law Review, what a joke. God bless us all, if this joke of a presidential candidate makes it into the White House. His crash and burn economics will put all middle class people on the poverty rolls, and THEN Mr Obama, who will pay for all your entitlement programs???

It's 6 o'clock, do you know where your Rustydog is?

From the Department of Credit Where Credit is Due:
Selective Justice in Alabama?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1668220,00.html

Good job, though I think you guys were basically shamed into doing it, now can you guys get Zagorin or someone to find out everything you can about Efraim E. Diveroli?

Hey, Ana, you have got to watch the trailer for "Recession." It features your favorite BBQ chef.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4OOCReeLWo

AMC - You wrote: "What was really striking, however, was Tarullo's response: He conceeded that the speech was short on policy proposals. And that that was the point!"

Tarullo is correct in this particular matter and on the broader point of policy proposals made during a campaign. It is foolish to think that a candidate running for the top slot in the Executive Branch should come fully prepared with what we want to see from the Legislative Branch. By the time any particular idea leaves the Congress it has been worked over by so many different people that a guarantee of a list of specifics is ridiculous.

In fact, the reason that we demand anything at all from our presidential candidates is to make sure that they are familiar with the process of generating policy proposals. From whom did they seek advice - scholars, industry members, lobbyists? How many different contigencies were addressed? What potential hazards or benefits do they expect? By proving that the candidate can manage a staff well enough to produce a policy proposal that withstands reasonable scrutiny the candidate is proving their ability to run an organized administration.

People who try to hold a candidate to his/her policy specifics are just looking for reasons to gripe about that candidate in the future.

"Now we have an economic slump we are weathering, and the BRILLIANT Mr. Obama with his ever so cleaver idea of RAISING OUR TAXES EVEN HIGHER"

Congrats, Rusty. This must mean you have been quite successful, income-wise. At least, I'm assuming that you belong to the top 1% of income earners since you said raise "our" taxes. My taxes, and 99% of all Americans', will not be going up. In fact, some of our taxes will be decreased...

There's a scholarly accounting journal published by the University of Chicago that also features the accountant's original poetry. (Not a joke.)

This must mean you have been quite successful, income-wise. At least, I'm assuming that you belong to the top 1% of income earners since you said raise "our" taxes. My taxes, and 99% of all Americans', will not be going up. In fact, some of our taxes will be decreased...

Sorry to disappoint mpizzle, BUT 50% of Americans have their money held in stocks, at least the 50% that have any money right now, welfare recipients not counted. Your capital gains tax is going up a whopping 100% with Mr Obama, the Messiahs, economic strategy.

Try again sunshine.

I understand Tarullo's point about this not really being the time for specific economic policy proposals. But shouldn't Obama's proposals for changing the regulatory systems be a little more specific? He seems to be calling for a complete overhaul of these systems, which is clearly necessary, but that won't be easy. Nearly everyone who isn't a rich Republican knows it has to be done, but figuring out how to do it is a lot more complicated.

It may be reasonable for Obama to not offer specific "this many billions of dollars to generate this many jobs" proposals at this time. But I do think he should be more specific about what kind of changes he wants to make to the regulatory systems, and how exactly he is going to make that happen, including during the transition period.

That said, the economic policy proposals need to be specific enough to keep consumer confidence at a reasonable level. People need to feel that they have a minimum amount of economic security.

Also, raising capital gains taxes is a great idea. Middle-class people who own stocks usually hold it in their 401K's, so capital gains taxes are not much of an issue for them. And if Republicans don't want to raise tax revenues, they should be pushing for a withdrawal from Iraq. War is expensive.

Pay off the national debt? But how will all the creditors eat, when they're not earning that interest they're working so hard for?

Streamlining and modernizing regulation of financial institutions is an important point of emphasis because it correctly diagnoses the problem. The thing that is killing the economy is unchecked corruption. That corruption is working itself out in some very complex ways, but at the heart of it, the Bush administration has simply let the fox into the hen house. Oh, and paid for their war of choice with their Bank of China Platinum Card.

everyone points to the economy under Bill Clinton -- well there were many reasons that was a good economic period but under Bill Clinton Capital Gains taxes were 28%

Now they are 15% - maybe Obama understands a transformative economic change is needed --

Rustydog,
I too used to be a "me first", keep taxes low, pull yourself up by the bootstraps type. I have since come to realize that not everyone had or has the advantages that I had growing up. My question for you is the same question I had asked of me before my awakening: Why do you hate poor people so much?

"Try again sunshine."

With pleasure. You seem to like to cheery pick stats, so allow me to debunk your argument with some stats: http://www.cbpp.org/1-30-06tax2.htm.

First, only 30% of households own stocks that are actually taxable. So right there, 70% of Americans will NOT see their taxes increase under Sen. Obama. Here are some other stats on those stock holders:

-Only 17 percent of households in the bottom 60 percent of the income spectrum own stock in taxable accounts. In contrast, 73 percent of the households in the top 10 percent of the income spectrum own stock in taxable accounts. Among those at the very top of the income spectrum — the top one percent — 84 percent own stock in taxable accounts.

-Further, among those households that own taxable stock, the average holding is much larger for those at the top of the income spectrum than for those with more modest means. For households in the bottom 60 percent of the population that have any taxable stock, the average value of the holding is about $52,000 (in 2001 dollars). The average value is nearly $2 million for those in the top one percent of households.

-Because taxable stock holdings are both smaller and less common for the bottom 60 percent of households, this group owns only 9(!!) percent of all taxable stock. The top 10 percent owns 70(!!) percent of all taxable stock. The top one percent owns 29 percent of all taxable stock.

Yep, that capital gains tax increase sure is going to hit the average American hard! You know, there is a reason why only rich people make an issue out of that tax....

Matt

damn, that should be cherry, not cheery. I have never known stats to be jubilant...

Kudos to Time:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004374.php

Will the presidential candidates and the republican runner talk about ongoing programs which are attacking innocent people?
http://www.gangstalkingworld.com/

This international program which is heavily based in the United States is running wild and violating everything that free and democratic countries stand for. This program smacks of racism, discrimination, anti-rigths, torture, suppression of free thinking, theft of intellectual property, .....
And while doing this it is reinforcing the 'sheep following the sheep' mentality while the power brokers continue to keep the world hostage to their own motives.

Have things gotten any better for this genius attempt to control people, which the US Military participates in? How is the US economy these days and the arena of international relations? Oil isnt going down in price, jobs are happening, slave to foreign nations producing goods, and an empty bank account. Time to do a reality check!

Matt aka mpizzle

Don't you know this is JUST the beginning of Obama's attack to your paycheck and financial holdings?

Do you own a house Matt?? I guess you don't think that the capital gains is also not fair game in Obamanomics? Let's see how shall he make that fair too? Oh yea....no one that owns a home, really won't give a rats A$$.

In order to fund his 5 TRILLION dollar dream for America, you WILL be paying HALF of your wages in taxes.

But, as CDServais in an earlier comment to me so eloquently put it...
I too used to be a "me first", keep taxes low, pull yourself up by the bootstraps type. I have since come to realize that not everyone had or has the advantages that I had growing up. My question for you is the same question I had asked of me before my awakening: Why do you hate poor people so much?

I do not know why for the life of me, Andrea Mitchell dug up old tapes or writings on Rev. Wright 10 days after the fact, when she did not do the First Reporting on Hillary's Bosnia Fabrication, although she was on the trip with her, and only reported on this after it became public knowledge that there was no sniper fire and after Hillary had told this tall tale, 3 times. So why is Andrea so compelled to keep bringing up Rev. Wright, when we are electing a President, not a Reverened! Is she a Hillary surrogate instead of an unbiased reporter? Makes you wonder. Hillary states she would not meet with her enimies, yet she met with Richard Mellon Scaife, her arch enemy who accused her and Bill of murders and conducted a witch hunt against her during their White House Years. Did Andrea report on that? And, then there is speculation that Hillary might have exagerrated her story about Chelsea's jog near the Twin Towers on 9-11. Has anyone took a look at the video done by Date Line to see what Hillary really said, not the transcript put out by Media Matters but the actual video? Where is the reporting on that? Then there is exaggeration about Nafta, Ireland and there are more to come, the unraveling of Hillary. In her desire to make Barack look unelectable, it looks like, instead, the Chickens are Coming Home to Roost!

That's pretty funny, rustydog. So you think Obama is gonna get rid of the couple's 500,000 dollar exclusion on their homes? End the tax free rollover?

As for the speech excerpts I've seen, these are actually quite good. Two central points--that if you can get money at the Fed window, you have to adhere to capital reserve requirements like banks do.

That IS the central problem in the financial system. Everybody was very deeply leveraged--didn't have enough capital to cover losses.

As for what that means, these two cartoon versions have been very helpful to me in explaining to people what went on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/03/14/GR2008031401451.html

http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&skipauth=true&pli=1

R-Dog: In order to fund his 5 TRILLION dollar dream for America, you WILL be paying HALF of your wages in taxes.

And do tell, is paying 3 trillion to build Iraq a worthwhile use of American tax $?

jayackroyd says: That's pretty funny, rustydog. So you think Obama is gonna get rid of the couple's 500,000 dollar exclusion on their homes? End the tax free rollover?

...Absolutely he will. If he has truly thought it through, and plans to implement such an economic package, there is no doubt in my mind. Otherwise it is totally meaningless, and all his Just Words is simply that to get himself elected.

OregonJC: So far I haven't read anything that even comes close to that figure as a cost, and you are assuming that the oil deep in Iraqi soil will not provide funding for themselves I suppose in your theory? I suppose we rebuild Iraq, and then just leave with no consideration for the sacrificies we have given to the Iraqi people? But yes, if I had to choose having a safer middle east over someone's pipe dream of more tax and spend entitlement programs, I choose the safer middle east. Iran WILL have the nuclear option in a matter of a year or two, 5 tops. Keep your friends and loved ones near to you, but your enemies by your side.

hahahahaha

Re: OregonJC's figure, it comes from Joseph Stiglitz. It's probably low, understating the costs of caring for severely injured vets.

and that's it for troll-feeding for this month.

Rusty is a classic case of how far a Bush true-believer can run on fumes in the tank.

He thinks things are working out nicely in Iraq and the trillions we have pissed into the sand are a good investment. Rusty should watch the video of smoke hanging over our embassy in Baghdad to see how well his investment is performing.

Rusty also believes that cutting taxes for the wealthy and reducing government subsides for everyone else, while deregulating the Wall Street casino, is working very well. Rusty should watch Bernanke sweat while he desperately tries to avoid a total collapse of America's financial system.

The Kool Aid brewed and ingested by "movement conservatives" since Reagan is an incredibly toxic brew. Those who ingest it become compeletely hallucinatory and capable of viewing disaster as good progress. Have another glass of Kool Aid Rusty. It tastes great!

HH:
You are good at calling out from the school-yard as I have said before like a 3rd grader. Grow up. Just because the "Great Messiah" isn't all that he is turning out to be with his poor judgement and JUST WORDS speeches, the "liberal left-wing extremist" such as yourself have no basis to fall back on.

I bet it is difficult for you to come up with anything original and influencial, when your Buddy Boy Barak only has the skill to plagerize from others.

You keep the kool-aid, and give some to your other playground pals.

I bet it is difficult for you to come up with anything original and influencial, when your Buddy Boy Barak only has the skill to plagerize from others.

Obama is a very competent thinker and writer, Rusty. Did you not admire his speech on race? He wrote that himself. How much speechwriting do you think McCain does?

Of course, being editor of the Harvard Law Review is a stronger indication of intellectual ability and self-discipline than graduating at the bottom of the class of the Naval Academy (894 out of 899), but McCain has certainly improved since then. He probably knows the difference between Sunnis and Shias by now.

It's never too late to learn, Rusty. Why don't you read up on the Delian league and what it did for Athens. McCain wants to pursue a similar scheme with his League of Democracies.

re Justin Fox's comment. Obama didn't say he was for "principles-based regulation," nor did Tarullo say he was. Obama said he was laying out principles *for* regulation, and Tarullo added that the process for working out the rules would be deliberative. Neither commented on whether they prefer "rules-based" or "principles-based" regulation.

jayackroyd says: That's pretty funny, rustydog. So you think Obama is gonna get rid of the couple's 500,000 dollar exclusion on their homes? End the tax free rollover?

Rusty's response:
...Absolutely he will. If he has truly thought it through, and plans to implement such an economic package, there is no doubt in my mind.

I know this thread is a little old, but I just want to point out that Rusty has moved from statistics to support his argument to simply asserting his own biased perceptions of Sen. Obama's platform. I suspect that this shift is typical when stubborn individuals can't find the data to back up their arguments and then, rather than ceding the argument, choose to rely on schemas, stereotypes, and assumptions to keep on fighting.

This back-and-forth provides a perfect example. Obama has never even hinted that he plans to end tax credits for homeowners. Frankly, he doesn't need to; he's paid for his programs already through his other policy suggestions. But that does not matter because Rusty "knows" what he's really up to. How did he find out? from the Oracle at Delphi? Fact is, Rusty is letting his own biases of the "liberal bogeyman" affect his logic; his assertions are no longer based on fact, just on the conservative stereotypes of a liberal.

Rusty, do you realize how bad it sounds when the only argument you can counter with is "because i know...."?

Principle based regulation and specific based regulation has been the subject of discussion prior the speech Obama gave yesterday. I remember watching Warren Buffet, GE CEO and Treasurey Secretary discussing it couple of months ago on CSPAN

Putting out specificity cannot solve the problem today but laying out the principle of negotiation will go a long way to address the problem in financial market. Every body is going to come to the table with an open mind and we'll all iron it out. We don’t want an irrational law but a reasonable regulation that meet the challenges of 21st century.

I give Obama 2 thumbs up for setting up the agenda. I’d rather see him set the agenda than have lobbyist set it.