patrick.net

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

True or false:

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

Cronyism.

It is called humanity.

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

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?

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...

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.

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.

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.)