Friday, March 16, 2012

On Democratic Presidents/Candidates and Whether or Not They Got "IT"

Harry S. Truman - yes.............JFK - yes.............Al Smith - yes, yes, and triple yes.............Bill Clinton - ultimately yes.............Paul Tsongas - yes.............LBJ - uncertain.............Jimmy Carter - uncertain.............FDR - no.............Ted Kennedy - no.............Woodrow Wilson - no.............Barack Obama - doubtful so far.............I define "IT" as the realization that bad-mouthing, over-regulating, and overtaxing businesses has a deleterious effect on the economy.

18 comments:

Grung_e_Gene said...

It's It!
What is It?
It's It?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

A tad Clintonian, I admit.

w-dervish said...

Grung_e_Gene asks what "it" is... "it", according to Will, is obviously conservative economic principals. That being the case, I'd say, in regards to those Will says didn't get it... I give them kudos for not getting "it".

Except President Obama... his track record so far is too much "getting it".

w-dervish said...

CBO: Total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of profits earned from activities within the U.S. in fiscal 2011, which ended Sept. 30, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's the lowest level since at least 1972. And well below the 25.6% companies paid on average from 1987 to 2008. [end statment from the CBO]

That business is over-regulated and overtaxed is a Republican talking point with no basis in reality. But, at least when it comes to economic policy, Will gullibly buys into the Republican talking points (as usual).

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

FDR raised the top income tax rates on individuals to 94% and instituted a non-distributed profits tax on corporations. That, me-bucko, is clearly NOT getting it.......As for the current situation, I have no problem with the government closing loopholes to raise more revenues. Why in the hell would I be against that?......And the economy IS over-regulated. Each year the state and federal governments add THOUSANDS of new regulations to the economy. And you know who gets hurt by that, wd? Smaller businesses and start-ups who can't afford the compliance and high-priced lawyers - they're the ones who end up getting hurt. I mean, my God, you can't even start a frigging lemonade stand these days without some knuckle-headed cop or official breathing down your ass.

Truth 101 said...

So you would rather allow the reasons for regulation, you know Will, dishonesty business practices. Endangering employees and consumers, etc. to go on rather than regulate them.

This is a pretty sad post Will. You're better than this dude.

dmarks said...

WD said: "according to Will, is obviously conservative economic principals"

I wonder when it became a "conservative" principle to avoid economic policies which seek to wipe out businesses and force them to fire people. It used to be that liberals agreed on this too.

"That business is over-regulated and overtaxed is a Republican talking point with no basis in reality."

Actually this is overwhelmingly indisputable. A fact, not a talking point. People who have no idea what is going on meddling in things (overregulation) and greed (overtaxation) have a rather destructive effect.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: I wonder when it became a "conservative" principle to avoid economic policies which seek to wipe out businesses and force them to fire people. It used to be that liberals agreed on this too.

I wonder why you quoted me, but then wrote something that has nothing to do with what you quoted. Weird. Liberals DO agree that those economic policies should be avoided.

But Liberals also believe a lack of policies that enable gigantic corporations to cause a housing bubble and crash the economy should be avoided. I wonder why Conservatives view policies that prevent such things as bad? (And this is why they oppose Dodd-Frank).

Obviously they must care more about rich people making money over consumers getting injured or screwed over.

That must be the "destructive effect" dmarks refers to... "destructive" to rich corporations making huge sums of money without having to worry about acting ethically.

dmarks said...

WD said: "But Liberals also believe a lack of policies that enable gigantic corporations to cause a housing bubble and crash the economy should be avoided"

Actually, this specific policy was created by a liberal, Andrew Cuomo, for a liberal Democratic Presidential administration. Over the years the problem kept getting worse and people tried to fix it, but Barney Frank and other liberal democrats blocked reform and mocked the very idea that there might ever be a problem with it.

After all, without government agencies to back up the debt, the bubble and crash would have never happened. A perfect example of government regulation causing a catastrophe that would not have happened at all if it had been left to the free market.

"And this is why they oppose Dodd-Frank"

They oppose Dodd-Frank because it includes a provision to give more massive handouts to banks.

"That must be the "destructive effect" dmarks refers to... "destructive" to rich corporations making huge sums of money without having to worry about acting ethically."

That is a perfect description of the TARP and related handouts. Which were opposed by most conservative Republicans, and supported by most liberal Democrats. These policies gave banks a massive reward for acting badly.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Truth, I'm not against ALL regulations. I WANT the tuna inspected. I WANT the oil-wells inspected. Etc., etc.. I just think that there's a whole hell of a lot overkill. Like in New York City, for instance. It takes thousands and thousands of dollars just to license a taxi-cab business. And it's the frigging hard-working minority folks who are hurt because of this because they can't afford the bullshit and the red-tape. Enough already!

dmarks said...

"It takes thousands and thousands of dollars just to license a taxi-cab business."

Yes, just greed, and nothing more. Regulation and plundering that has absolutely nothing to do with safety, consumer protection, or anything like that.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: ...without government agencies to back up the debt, the bubble and crash would have never happened.

Fannie and Freddieweren't responsible for the bubble. The CRA wasn't responsible. Your assertion is simply false.

Also, Andrew Cuomo wasn't responsible. Barney Frank wasn't responsible. It was conservative deregulation.

Dodd-Frank doesn't "include a provision to give more massive handouts to banks". That's complete nonsense.

In regards to "rewarding the banks for behaving badly"... WTF are you talking about? You keep insisting the banks were forced/pressured to make bad loans. Are you saying they "behaved badly" by not resisting making those bad loans strongly enough?

You can't have it both ways dmarks... blame F&F and also say the banks "behaved badly. Pick one.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, I think that the deregulation argument has totally been oversold. a) Investment banks such as Lehman Brothers and Bears Stearns were at the center of the financial crisis and they would have been able to make the same bad investments had the Gramm-Leaech-Bliley Act never even passed. b) Yes, the SEC did change it's rules relative to an investment bank's debt to net-capital ratios (2004). But an analysis of these companies' ratios have indicated that in many instances they were actually HIGHER prior to 2004. c) Spending on financial regulation and the number of pages in the regulation codes were both at an all-time high during the eight years of the Bush administration (the SEC budget, for example, more than doubled!). d) The Commodities Futures Modernization Act, while it did allow for the emergence of credit swaps and other such "instruments", it didn't in any way create the original risk to happen - you know, the actual toxic loans themselves. e) It was actually the FED (a, HELLO, government entity!!) that (more than likely) created the environment for the housing bubble in the first instance; first by artificially lowering interest rates and secondly by maintaining them at such low levels (causing increased demand for housing and, hence, more debt). f) It was also the FED (under the auspices of a very bad actor by the name of Alan Greenspan) which helped to create what was essentially a "bailout culture"/"too big to fail" mentality. Fannie and Freddie, Countrywide, Lehman Brothers, etc., etc. - they ALL frigging knew that the taxpayer would more than likely come to their rescue. They knew it and, so, they just flat-out didn't care. I blame Greenspan, Bernanke, Paulsen, Geithner and the FED a hell of a lot more than I do deregulation.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

As for Fannie and Freddie, they contributed to the collapse in that they lowered the standards on the loans that they were buying up (BY THE TRILLIONS) AND, because of the fact that they were buying up and bundling these toxic loans, this freed up the banks to give out even more toxic loans. It was a vicious frigging cycle, for Christ.............And this is the whole problem with the Wall Street greed argument. Wall Street has always been greedy! Something clearly happened in the mid-90s which allowed home-ownership to go from a 30 year steady rate of 63% to damn near close to 70% in less than a decade. I would argue that it was government policy via the FED and the Congress that more than likely distorted the market as badly as it got.

dmarks said...

Will said: "As for Fannie and Freddie, they contributed to the collapse in that they lowered the standards on the loans that they were buying up (BY THE TRILLIONS"

How do you think things would have been if there were no Fannie and Freddie at all? An alternate reality in which banks hardly ever made bad loans because there weren't government agencies interfering in the free market and strongly encouraging banks to behave irresponsibly?

Do you think we'd have been better off?

"Wall Street has always been greedy!"

But it is hard to really do a lot of damage with greed until you get bad government regulations to maximize the negative impact of it.

dmarks said...

WD: Everything you said? The opposite is true. Will and I have well documented it. Starting from the concrete history of how Andrew Cuomo really did start this.

As for that conclusion: "You can't have it both ways dmarks... blame F&F and also say the banks "behaved badly. Pick one."

I pick both. It is closely related. Because F&F policies, their intervention in the free market, their imposing of regulation, caused the banks to behave very badly. They rewarded and encouraged bad behavior.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Absolutely, dmarks. By buying up (and ultimately bundling) this garbage, it freed the banks to make even more risky loans. Couple that with the bailout culture that Greenspan, Paulsen, Bernanke, and Geithner were creating and there really and truly was a perfect storm.............Just to be fair, though, I still blame the FED and its interest rate policies more so than I do Fannie and Freddie. It was that, I think, that really distorted the housing market and created the bubble.

dmarks said...

The Fed itself is a major intrusion by the ruling elites into the free market, so in it you have another example of government meddling having caused this mess.