patrick.net

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.

I would let History judge a war.

In the big scheme of things, we know nothing.

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.

History just called and told me Iraq sucks.

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

(I definitely agree that Iraq is horrible.)

@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.)

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

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.

Nice graphics. :)

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

@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.

The housing market might have bottomed:

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

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.

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

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.

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!

The bill will be vetoed anyway.

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?

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.

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.)

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

http://tinyurl.com/5cn63v

If we have flat tax and/or FairerTax (my version of FairTax, but with a 3% rate instead of a 23% rate), the world will be so much better.

Tax should be replaced with user fees.

would you then scale those user fees to income/net worth or would they have a flat structure? (same for all)

Absolutely flat.

Same service. Same price.

if I'm driving my 200K car in the hov lane which has a $20 toll fee to go to my $2M/yr job in the city, am I receiving the same service as Miguel, going into the city to cook burritos for $12/h? After all, I lose a lot more if I'm late. My time is more valuable than Miguel's. HOw's that the same service?

If your time is valuable, fly a f*cking helicopter.

you're avoiding the issue.

Same resource. Same service.

You can fit your life around the price structure.

Of course he's opposed to a bailout.

All his cronies sold their investment properties in '06 and have their money in hedge funds that are short MBS'.

kewp,

that is the correct explanation of Bush's decision.

Bush doesn't give a f*ck about Americans, rich or poor, he only cares about his "loyal" friends.

Re: Iraq war, I believe it is Cheney's war in disguise. Cheney is fully aware of the peak oil scenario, in fact, he was talking about it several years before he became the VP. It's just very sad his execution of securing future energy source is very lousy.

We live in an unfree system.

In every unfree system, people don't really own their property - the state can decide to take someone's money away and give it to someone else, all in the name of *common good*.

Democrats and republicans both agree that the unfree system is the right system so one is not much better than the other. They both want to take your property away (as much as they can get away with) and they only disagree on where to give it away.

Do I want a president who takes my hard-earned money by force and gives it to a FHB? No. Would I respect someone else who didn't do that but instead spent my money AND people's lives on needless wars? No.

On the surface, what he says sounds praiseworthy. But remember, he also said in 2000 - "I will have a humble foreign policy. We will be peacemakers and not peacekeepers" and all along, he was planning invading Iraq.

Bush is among the top 3 worst presidents this country has ever had.

Peter P,
This thread only represents what he is saying right now. I've heard him talk the bailout talk before. Obviously someone who advises him reminded him that he is a Republican.