0
0

President Bush is our new hero


 invite response                
2008 May 7, 4:17am   45,067 views  203 comments

by Peter P   ➕follow (2)   💰tip   ignore  

Our Hero!

President Bush disagrees with the bailout plan:

The president said he would veto the Democrats' broad housing rescue plan, saying it would reward speculators and lenders. Bush also called on Congress to renew tax cuts that will expire, and to pass legislation renewing the government's authority to listen in on conversations of suspected terrorists.

http://tinyurl.com/5924j9

Let's be real. The Iraq War might have been mismanaged, but Bush seems to be capable of making sensible decisions in tax and housing.

- Peter P

#politics

Comments 1 - 40 of 203       Last »     Search these comments

1   Duke   2008 May 7, 4:49am  

I believe the bill as put forth by Democrats was always a red-herring designed to give the Democrat party the ability to say, "We tried to help in housing and the meanie Republican President said no."

I fully agree it was a poor bill as written. And Iam also sick of the gamesmenship where phony bills are put out just to give sound bites later.

Congress, DO YOUR JOB. If you want to help housing, do it in a rational fair way.

2   Patrick   2008 May 7, 5:10am  

I really hate it when Bush makes sense. Perhaps it's not so easy to say he's with us or against us. ;-)

Not that anyone should forgive his warmongering, or his attacks on our privacy and personal freedom, but at least on housing, he seems to be right.

3   EBGuy   2008 May 7, 5:13am  

Speaking of heroic action, looks like the TAF auction had a bid-to-cover of over 1.29. If you offer it, they will come.

Regarding the Frank bill, this does not look good (from Bloomberg):
Under the House plan, states would repair foreclosed homes and find residents to fill vacancies that lawmakers say erode the value of neighboring properties. Funds would be allocated based on a state's percentage of foreclosures, with the hardest- hit states, such as Ohio and Nevada, benefiting most.

The legislation ``would create an additional incentive for more lenders to foreclose rather than attempt a workout with distressed homeowners,'' the OMB said.

4   Peter P   2008 May 7, 5:14am  

Yeah, Iraq is very upsetting. :(

We cannot count on a politician to do the "right" thing. However, they may just "happen" to agree with our positions.

5   Duke   2008 May 7, 5:16am  

My biggest complaint(s) are:

1. Cronyism. It is clear Mr. Bush places fantastically incompetent people in elevated positions of power. Brown as FEMA director? What was that?

2. Policey by fiat. Having a good idea (or getting good ideas from those around you) is never the hard part at Mr Bush's level - its selling the idea. Building consesus. Getting buy-in.

6   Peter P   2008 May 7, 5:17am  

True or false:

If you gross 100K to 10M a year, Republicans will serve you better.

7   Peter P   2008 May 7, 5:18am  

Cronyism.

It is called humanity.

8   OO   2008 May 7, 5:23am  

I thought TAF pretty much accepted all crap, what are the .29 crap that they refuse to accpet?

9   OO   2008 May 7, 5:27am  

Having a good idea from those around Bush? Hahaha.

Birds of a feather flock together, what do you expect from the company of a super-moron?

10   BayAreaIdiot   2008 May 7, 5:45am  

We got into this mess on the existing rules (and the lack of regulation enforcement). Let's get out of it the same way - nobody needs self appointed government saviors. If they wanted to help they should' ve stepped in several years ago. Now all they can do is more damage. Mr B is (inevitably?) doing enough of that already.

So in that sense a veto is a good thing iff he actually pays attention to anything else that could lead to a bailout and stops that too. Who knows what the alternative Republican plan is? So I will refrain from calling him a "no bailout" hero just yet. It takes more than a veto threat...

11   HARM   2008 May 7, 5:48am  

Have to agree that Bush has been far better ideologically on the bubble aftermath (no bailouts, letting the market self-correct), but can't say I embrace all his other policies with open arms.

By "tax cuts", we're basically talking about the so-called "Death Tax" (which used to apply only to estates north of $2 million, or $4 million for married couples), and the capital gains tax rate. In both cases, we're talking about something that disproportionately benefits the top 5-10% (who own most of the country's assets), and rewards passive income from securities & inherited wealth over EARNED income from REAL WORK (wages). 'Scuse me, but I'd rather see tax cuts that benefit people who work vs. the idle rich, landed gentry, and Trustafarians.

As to whether the Patriot Act is really more about "the government’s authority to listen in on conversations of suspected terrorists" or, "the government’s authority to listen in on conversations of political opponents", I'll leave that one open for debate.

12   HARM   2008 May 7, 5:51am  

Oh, and let's not forget that an extreme hands-off, all regulation = bad, laissez-faire style of governance is what helped the bubble grow to immense proportions in the first place. Can't blame Shrub entirely for that, though. The ball started rolling long before he got into office.

13   sa   2008 May 7, 6:21am  

In the big scheme of things, I would take a housing bailout instead of Iraq. Housing bailout isn't going to fix the problem, just a temporary band aid.

14   Peter P   2008 May 7, 6:22am  

I would let History judge a war.

In the big scheme of things, we know nothing.

15   Peter P   2008 May 7, 6:27am  

HARM, Bush also reduced income tax rates for middle class workers. He also reduced the marriage penalty.

Reducing long-term capital gains tax rate helps to stabilize the markets because investors are incentivized into holding assets longer.

16   HARM   2008 May 7, 6:27am  

History just called and told me Iraq sucks.

17   Peter P   2008 May 7, 6:28am  

HARM, I will wait for that on History Channel in a few decades. ;)

(I definitely agree that Iraq is horrible.)

18   HARM   2008 May 7, 6:31am  

@Peter P,

I can get behind reduced middle-income taxes, elimination of the "marriage penalty" and a reasonably low long-term capital gains tax rate*. I am open to flat tax proposals as well.

*(Though "how low" we should go vs. payroll tax rates and what constitutes "long-term" are items open for debate.)

19   HARM   2008 May 7, 6:33am  

By the way, how do you like your new thread graphic ;-) ?

20   Peter P   2008 May 7, 6:33am  

Oh, and let’s not forget that an extreme hands-off, all regulation = bad, laissez-faire style of governance is what helped the bubble grow to immense proportions in the first place.

I argue that it is the expectation of policy intervention that fueled the bubble. If people knew they would be allowed to fail, they would act with much prudence.

21   Peter P   2008 May 7, 6:35am  

Nice graphics. :)

22   sa   2008 May 7, 6:37am  

I am not arguing whether Iraq war serves us better or not when it comes in history channel, I was referring to his justification for war.

23   Peter P   2008 May 7, 6:41am  

Again, if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.

24   HARM   2008 May 7, 6:42am  

I believe our definitions of "regulation" are not the same. I see it as meaning "policing industry in a way that discourages monopolies, coercion, fraud and other forms of systemic abuse, while encouraging fair competition that benefits consumers, taxpayers and small business owners alike."

Industry bailouts are not "regulation" by my definition.
Socializing Wall Street losses (Treasury swaps) is not "regulation" by my definition.
Underwriting risky mortgage securities with taxpayer $$ is not "regulation" by my definition.
Preferential tax credits and tax deductions that mainly target speculators and crooks ("any 2 will do", MID for 2nd, 3rd houses, 1099, etc.) are not "regulation" by my definition.

25   sa   2008 May 7, 6:45am  

I would let History judge a war

We can talk about history only if we can get out of it. McCain wants to be there another 100 years. Too bad, we can't be around.

26   HARM   2008 May 7, 6:45am  

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
--Inigo Montoya, "Princess Bride"

27   Peter P   2008 May 7, 6:45am  

HARM, by your definition, I agree that some regulations are necessary for the integrity of the free market.

28   EBGuy   2008 May 7, 6:46am  

I thought TAF pretty much accepted all crap, what are the .29 crap that they refuse to accpet?
The .29 just means that the auction was oversubscribed (only had $75 billion to offer and they had $96 billion in propositions). TAF actually has the same requirements for collateral as the discount window (but is open to all member banks). The TSLF is the facility that has been liberalizing the instruments which can be swapped for Treasuries.

Notes from the three dot lounge: The high school was surrounded by police cars this morning but everyone was going about their business, so I assume they were "protecting" students from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents that had picked up a Berkeley family around 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday (not at school)... The local newspaper had a big ad by Berkeley Bowl advertising, guess what, buffalo meat... And on the RE front, our building had a broker tour this morning. Brokers were seen wandering the building clutching bottles of wine (an incentive to get them in the door). Lots of vacancies -- I'd say desperation may be seting in.

29   Peter P   2008 May 7, 6:52am  

HARM, "regulation" also carries the meaning of controlling and averting failures.

30   HARM   2008 May 7, 7:01am  

@Peter P,

Although I'm sure it means that for some, I personally don't subscribe to that P.O.V. However, I *do* see some instances where "controlling and averting losses" for the completely blameless/economic bystanders is a good idea.

Case in point: FDIC/NCUA bank insurance for depositors. If the bank or S&L president is making shady deals behind the scenes with his crooked cronies, why should depositors have to suffer for it? This was why both were instituted following the bank failures of the Great Depression.

As for the people who willingly and knowingly entered into shady deals with eyes-wide-open and/or committed fraud on their mortgage documents...

F**k 'em.

31   Peter P   2008 May 7, 7:22am  

The housing market might have bottomed:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/135724

32   DennisN   2008 May 7, 7:33am  

In both cases, we’re talking about something that disproportionately benefits the top 5-10% (who own most of the country’s assets), and rewards passive income from securities & inherited wealth over EARNED income from REAL WORK (wages).

Yes, but what about people who have retired after a long time of hard work who plan to live off the income from their savings? Right now you don't even make the rate of inflation on savings. Why should "negative income" be taxed at all? At least when a person gets a paycheck it's worth the dollar value that same week - it by definition is not-inflated.

In re Iraq. I think Bush's heart was in the right place. BUT his real mistake was trying to do Iraq "on the cheap". He tried to borrow some funds and do it all with minimal troops pulled in from the reserves. He thought if he "hid" the effort that nobody would notice and object.

He should have done this: declared a national emergency, brought back the DRAFT, and slapped everyone else with a 10% tax surcharge for the duration. We should have gone in with 2 million men and just squashed the insurgency like a bug.

33   Peter P   2008 May 7, 7:40am  

Maybe not even 2 million men. Perhaps a "surge" in the beginning could have worked. But hindsight is always 20/20.

34   HARM   2008 May 7, 7:44am  

Right now you don’t even make the rate of inflation on savings. Why should “negative income” be taxed at all? At least when a person gets a paycheck it’s worth the dollar value that same week - it by definition is not-inflated.

Good point. As long as capital gains are taxed in NOMINAL terms and not adjusted for inflation (however it gets measured), it's quite possible to *lose* purchasing power on conservative investments over the long run, and still be taxed on your nonexistent "gains". Yet another thing to thank Congress and the IRS for, G'bless em.

35   BayAreaIdiot   2008 May 7, 7:49am  

from that hideous piece of advertisement masquarading as journalism that Peter P linked to:

Lereah does think that the House bill co-sponsored by Barney Frank—which was recently passed by the House Financial Services Committee and now awaits a full House vote, is the right idea. Frank's bill would serve to modernize the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) by increasing loan limits in high-cost areas like California and New York, authorizing zero-down and low-down payment loans for more homebuyers, and generally improving access to mortgages for lower-income folks who have faced bigger hurdles to a home loan since the credit crunch began last fall.

Just in case anyone out there had any doubts about whether or not this bill is a good idea....an endorsement from Lereah sure nails it for me!

36   Peter P   2008 May 7, 7:52am  

The bill will be vetoed anyway.

37   BayAreaIdiot   2008 May 7, 8:07am  

Could be he'll veto it. Could be it'll come back under a different name and he wont veto. Who's to say with him?

38   thenuttyneutron   2008 May 7, 8:09am  

The arguments about regulation are getting old. We all have wants that we won't ever see.

*I think we should have adopted the "no regulation" months ago.

*I want the FED to raise the interest rates so high that it kills inflation.

*I want the people who loaned their money out to allow this speculation to get the collateral for the loans they made when the loans go bad.

Kick the people out of the homes they can't afford and make them rent. I have never seen anything in writing stating that it is a right for people to own a home.

The banks have proven that they can't run themselves without supervision. I don't think it is right that our banking system is being held hostage by the irresponsible banks to the threat of a system wide collapse. Because they are now using the gubermint's money to paper over their sins, they have made it my business on how they run themselves. Regulate them and prosecute the people who were involved in fraud. This crap the FED has done will work in saving many banks that should have failed. They are allowing them to buy time to absorb the losses, inflate the money supply, and get a very large spread on the money being lent vs barrowed.

39   Peter P   2008 May 7, 8:10am  

Bush's economy policies tend to be quite sensible. Let's have faith.

(I like his tax rebate program much more than the one that got passed.)

40   BayAreaIdiot   2008 May 7, 8:27am  

Looks like nutty's wishes are being granted (although indirectly)

http://tinyurl.com/5cn63v

Comments 1 - 40 of 203       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions