Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, November 20, 2017

Stan Callendar: If it's enacted, the GOP tax cut now working its way through Congress will be the start of a decades-long economic policy disaster unlike any other that has occurred in American history. There's no economic justification whatsoever for a tax cut at this time. U.S. GDP is growing, unemployment is close to 4 percent (below what is commonly considered "full employment"), corporate profits are at record levels and stock markets are soaring. It makes no sense to add any federal government-induced stimulus to all this private sector-caused economic activity, let alone a tax cut as big as this one.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

This is actually the ideal time for Washington to be doing the opposite. But by damning the economic torpedoes and moving full-speed ahead, House and Senate Republicans and the Trump White House are setting up the U.S. for the modern-day analog of the inflation-producing guns-and-butter economic policy of the Vietnam era. The GOP tax bill will increase the federal deficit by $2 trillion or more over the next decade (the official estimates of $1.5 trillion hide the real amount with a witches brew of gimmicks and outright lies) that, unless all the rules have changed, is virtually certain to result in inflation and much higher interest rates than would otherwise occur.

The GOP's insanity is compounded by its moving ahead without having any idea of what this policy will actually do to the economy. The debates in the Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees and on the House floor all took place before the Congressional Budget Office's analysis and, if it really exists, the constantly-promised-but-never-seen report from the Treasury on the economics of this tax bill.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article:

"Meanwhile, Congress has ignored other estimates like this one from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School showing that the tax bill won't do what the GOP is promising.

In other words, the GOP tax bill may be enacted without anyone who votes for it having any understanding of the damage it could do to the economy. They have wishes, hopes and prayers but in reality nothing beyond the economic equivalent of pagan superstition."

IOW, voodoo economics.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-20 01:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The GOP don't care.

They don't care that it cost the middle class more in taxes.

They don't care that it will trigger sequestration cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

They don't care that it won't create jobs in America.

They only care that their source of cash from the 1% be protected.

They are scum.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2017-11-20 04:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

What was the title of that thread last week? Pass the tax cut or don't ever call me again. That about sums up the position of uber wealthy backers of the GOP. And the GOP is bending over like bitches in heat to make it happen.

#3 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-20 07:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

There's no economic justification whatsoever for a tax cut at this time. U.S. GDP is growing, unemployment is close to 4 percent (below what is commonly considered "full employment"), corporate profits are at record levels and stock markets are soaring. It makes no sense to add any federal government-induced stimulus to all this private sector-caused economic activity, let alone a tax cut as big as this one.

Where are the fiscal conservatives to bitch about this?

#4 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-11-20 08:07 PM | Reply

Both Bush and Obama doubled the national debt during their two terms in office.
There was never economic sanity in Washington.

#5 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-20 08:21 PM | Reply

Where are the fiscal conservatives to bitch about this?

#4 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF

I think an overhaul of the tax code is way overdue. I don't think tax revenues should be cut considering current deficits, debt and the looming unfunded liabilities that will bankrupt this country if they aren't addressed in a substantial way.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 08:22 PM | Reply

I think an overhaul of the tax code is way overdue. I don't think tax revenues should be cut considering current deficits, debt and the looming unfunded liabilities that will bankrupt this country if they aren't addressed in a substantial way.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ

Then you should be voting democrat.

These repubs aren't going to overhaul the tax code, they're just going to steal from the poor and give to the rich, and blow up the deficit LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO.

#7 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 08:29 PM | Reply

I don't think tax revenues should be cut considering current deficits, debt and the looming unfunded liabilities that will bankrupt this country if they aren't addressed in a substantial way.
#6 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

National bankruptcy or something like it was never more certain. Not this decade. But certain.

By now it should be obvious they have no intention of reigning in their spending. To stay in power, they have to spend more every year. There is no other option.

#8 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-20 08:30 PM | Reply

#8 | POSTED BY RAY

100% agree.

I think an overhaul of the tax code is way overdue. I don't think tax revenues should be cut considering current deficits, debt and the looming unfunded liabilities that will bankrupt this country if they aren't addressed in a substantial way.
#6 | Posted by JeffJ
----
Then you should be voting democrat.
These repubs aren't going to overhaul the tax code, they're just going to steal from the poor and give to the rich, and blow up the deficit LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO.
#7 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

As if the Democrats are any better.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 08:33 PM | Reply

As if the Democrats are any better.
#9 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

LOL! To Sqeak, those are fighting words.

#10 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-20 08:37 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Ray,

I oppose the notion that both parties are exactly the same.

Having said that, when it comes to being fiscally responsible both parties are pretty much equally reckless.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 08:38 PM | Reply

I oppose the notion that both parties are exactly the same.

Yes that too. Here's his response when I said that.

"Are you saying clinton would have allowed hunters to bring elephant carcasses into the country again like trump did?
Are you saying clinton would have worked to fight clean energy and promote coal like trump is?
You're an idiot. And a baby."

I'm thinking to myself, is this guy writing from a padded cell?

#12 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-20 08:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jeff - I first thought you were reffering to Sqeak.

I oppose the notion that both parties are exactly the same.

About as different as Catholics and Protestants. Different ways of worshipping the same god.
The State grows, no matter which party is in power.

BTW, libertarianism to me is a personal philosophy. It could never become a popular political philosophy.

#13 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-20 08:51 PM | Reply

As if the Democrats are any better.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ

WHATABOUTISM as always.

And yes they are:
www.theatlantic.com
"Republican presidents have added far more to federal debt levels than Democrats, as a percent of GDP. But Obama's joined Reagan, the Bushes and Ford in the debt-raising camp."

Any other ways you'd like to prove your ignorance today?

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 09:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The GOP is fiscally reckless.

"Unfunded Mandate" might as well be the mantra of the GOP.

Repealing Obamacare is fiscally reckless, even.

And then there's the unfunded War of Choice in Iraq. Negatively Funded by a wartime tax rebate, as a matter of fact.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-20 09:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

BTW, libertarianism to me is a personal philosophy. It could never become a popular political philosophy.

#13 | Posted by Ray

That's because it's for intellectual babies who need to think there are simple solutions to complex problems.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 09:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

As if the Democrats are any better.
#9 | Posted by JeffJ
WHATABOUTISM as always.
And yes they are:
www.theatlantic.com
"Republican presidents have added far more to federal debt levels than Democrats, as a percent of GDP. But Obama's joined Reagan, the Bushes and Ford in the debt-raising camp."
Any other ways you'd like to prove your ignorance today?

#14 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Funny you use the word "ignorance" and then tie debt/spending solely to POTUS. And you absolutely ignore unfunded liabilities which are a far bigger problem than the current debt-to-GDP ratio.

Which branch of government controls the purse-strings?

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 09:06 PM | Reply

BTW, libertarianism to me is a personal philosophy. It could never become a popular political philosophy.
#13 | Posted by Ray
That's because it's for intellectual babies who need to think there are simple solutions to complex problems.

#16 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

The fiscal problems facing this country are more cultural in nature than political.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 09:07 PM | Reply

#16 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

All I can do is laugh at you.

#19 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-20 09:08 PM | Reply

"The fiscal problems facing this country are more cultural in nature than political."

^
Is this a prelude to "Nothing Can Be Done?"

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-20 09:11 PM | Reply

Plenty can be done. We just disagree about what will produce the best results.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 09:12 PM | Reply

The fiscal problems facing this country are more cultural in nature than political.

I would argue biological. Humans are at the top of the predatory food chain. We still kill for power.

#22 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-20 09:15 PM | Reply

All I can do is laugh at you.

#19 | Posted by Ray

That's because you're too stupid to argue with an adult. Your flimsy theories crumble like wet toilet paper when confronted with facts.

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 09:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"you absolutely ignore unfunded liabilities which are a far bigger problem than the current debt-to-GDP ratio. "

Which is exactly where GWB screwed up. Instead of taking the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to pay off the debt and shore up unfunded liabilities in SS & Medicare, he & Cheney gave two rounds of income tax cuts to the wealthiest, and left behind debt explosions and a melted down economy.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 09:16 PM | Reply

I think the disagreement is more like, you simply don't want to pay for things, regardless of the results.

Like you want to repeal Obamacare because its passage offended you. Not for any fiscal reason whatsoever, because repealing Obamacare would be a fiscal disaster. But you don't care, your ideology trumps your fiscal priorities.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-20 09:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Which branch of government controls the purse-strings?

#17 | Posted by JeffJ

The branch that always says we can't afford anything for the middle class and poor, then makes it rain for the rich.

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 09:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Is this a prelude to "Nothing Can Be Done?"
#20 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

The same people causing the problems are the same ones making them worse. Nothing would be the best option. But that won't happen.

#27 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-20 09:19 PM | Reply

That's because you're too stupid to argue with an adult. Your flimsy theories crumble like wet toilet paper when confronted with facts.
#23 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

What theories? I'm on the sidelines watching you people sel-destruct. So far, the hole just gets deeper.

#28 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-20 09:22 PM | Reply

"I think an overhaul of the tax code is way overdue."

What parts do you feel should be changed, and how?

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 09:23 PM | Reply

"you absolutely ignore unfunded liabilities which are a far bigger problem than the current debt-to-GDP ratio. "
---
Which is exactly where GWB screwed up. Instead of taking the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to pay off the debt and shore up unfunded liabilities in SS & Medicare, he & Cheney gave two rounds of income tax cuts to the wealthiest, and left behind debt explosions and a melted down economy.

#24 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Completely agree. To be fair, when have Democrats pushed for shoring up unfunded liabilities? When the GOP retook the House in '10 and passed a budget that would have somewhat addressed the elephant in the room, Democrats produced ads depicting Paul Ryan of literally pushing a wheel-chair-bound elderly woman over a cliff. It's a bipartisan abdication of responsibility.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 09:24 PM | Reply

"To be fair, when have Democrats pushed for shoring up unfunded liabilities?"

When President Cheney wanted to raid the store. Twice.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 09:25 PM | Reply

What theories? I'm on the sidelines watching you people sel-destruct. So far, the hole just gets deeper.

#28 | Posted by Ray

Your only theory - the one that says repubs and dems are the same thing.

I can provide you a thousand examples where they're NOT the same, yet it doesn't change your theory.

You know what to call someone who sticks by a theory despite plenty of contrary evidence?

AN IDIOT.

#32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 09:30 PM | Reply

"To be fair, when have Democrats pushed for shoring up unfunded liabilities?"
----
When President Cheney wanted to raid the store. Twice.

#31 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Again, agreed. If you want to argue that the fiscal irresponsibility is worse with Republicans - go ahead. But in the process please don't act like Democrats are fiscally-responsible. They are not.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 09:33 PM | Reply

Your only theory - the one that says repubs and dems are the same thing.
#32 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Again, their differences are over which direction to expand government. It's still the same government.

AN IDIOT.

It takes an IQ of 50 to say that in caps.

#34 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-20 09:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"please don't act like Democrats are fiscally-responsible. They are not."

Dems didn't vote for the sea change Captain Dubya chose, twice. It was the Rs who voted to reset the fiscal sights of America from Surplusville to Debtsylvania.

#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 09:50 PM | Reply

Dems didn't vote for the sea change Captain Dubya chose, twice. It was the Rs who voted to reset the fiscal sights of America from Surplusville to Debtsylvania.

#35 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Again, agreed. But you didn't actually refute #33.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 09:59 PM | Reply

Dems had the same level of control from '08 - '10. Please point out how they were fiscally-responsible during this timeframe.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 10:00 PM | Reply

Again, their differences are over which direction to expand government. It's still the same government.

AN IDIOT.

It takes an IQ of 50 to say that in caps.

#34 | Posted by Ray

So you're saying that a government that wants to help the sick and protect the planet is THE SAME as a government who wants to help the rich and destroy the planet, because BOTH ARE GOVERNMENTS?

Every argument you make makes you look dumber.

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 10:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#37

Dems are not the ones claiming to be sole arbiters of fiscal righteousness.

#39 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-11-20 10:04 PM | Reply

"Dems had the same level of control from '08 - '10."

First, it was a few months, when Dems actually had a majority.

Next, it wasn't '08, since they weren't seated until '09.

Finally, do you happen to remember WTF was going on in '09? The dumpster fire Dubya left behind, with a half-million jobs disappearing every month? Are you actually suggesting THAT was the time Dems should have been more fiscally responsible???

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 10:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#37
Dems are not the ones claiming to be sole arbiters of fiscal righteousness.

#39 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Agreed. And I think the case can be made that the GOP is more fiscally-reckless than Dems. Heck, I can make that case. That doesn't make the Dems fiscally-responsible. They are demonstrably fiscally-irresponsible.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 10:08 PM | Reply

"They are demonstrably fiscally-irresponsible."

Except they would've continued to pay off the debt under President Gore. Captain Cheney and President Gilligan had different ideas.

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 10:11 PM | Reply

"Dems are not the ones claiming to be sole arbiters of fiscal righteousness."

The next time a Republican utters the word "deficit", he should be punched in the mouth.

(Boaz told me that was okay.)

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 10:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

First, it was a few months, when Dems actually had a majority.
Next, it wasn't '08, since they weren't seated until '09.
Finally, do you happen to remember WTF was going on in '09? The dumpster fire Dubya left behind, with a half-million jobs disappearing every month? Are you actually suggesting THAT was the time Dems should have been more fiscally responsible???

#40 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I wasn't expecting a balanced budget immediately after the crash. But you can't distill things down to a microscopic period when it's an issue that goes back several decades (MUST factor in unfunded liabilities and treasury-promises, debt-servicing, zero interest rates, etc) and both parties and both branches of government created this problem. Hell, the genesis of the financial crash of '08 was a Clinton-initiative in '99 www.nytimes.com

For you to lay 100% of the blame (if that is what you are doing) for all of this country's problems at the feet of the GOP you'd have to be able to tie said problems to the GOP having near-total control during that time period and that is clearly NOT the case.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 10:14 PM | Reply

So you're saying that a government that wants to help the sick and protect the planet is THE SAME as a government who wants to help the rich and destroy the planet, because BOTH ARE GOVERNMENTS?

Last I checked, there is only one US federal government. You know, the one in Washington DC. The one where the rich get richer and the middle class gets poorer. Good intentions count for nothing when everything social engineers like you touch turns to ----.

Every argument you make makes you look dumber.

Coming from you, that's a compliment.

#45 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-20 10:15 PM | Reply

"They are demonstrably fiscally-irresponsible."
Except they would've continued to pay off the debt under President Gore. Captain Cheney and President Gilligan had different ideas.

#42 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You have NO way of proving that. None. I could make similar claims had Romney won in '12.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 10:16 PM | Reply

"For you to lay 100% of the blame (if that is what you are doing) for all of this country's problems at the feet of the GOP "

Rs had the chance to, at the very least, address the problem, thanks to the economy Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress handed them.

Instead, they chose tax cuts.

Rs, not Ds. Which is why the cuts had to sunset ten years later. Remember that?

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 10:17 PM | Reply

"Dems are not the ones claiming to be sole arbiters of fiscal righteousness."
-----
The next time a Republican utters the word "deficit", he should be punched in the mouth.
(Boaz told me that was okay.)

#43 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I'll tell you what - next time a Republican utters "deficit" I'll put him (if it's a chick you're out of luck) in a full-nelson so you can light him up.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 10:18 PM | Reply

"You have NO way of proving that"

Why TF would Gore have radically changed course from something that was working so well?

"I could make similar claims had Romney won in '12."

Romney wouldn't have the same economy, or the same options as Gore. Large surpluses give more wiggle room than large deficits.

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 10:20 PM | Reply

Rs had the chance to, at the very least, address the problem, thanks to the economy Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress handed them.
Instead, they chose tax cuts.
Rs, not Ds. Which is why the cuts had to sunset ten years later. Remember that?

#47 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Of course I remember that.

The elephant in the room is unfunded liabilities. Bush addressed it and then pushed an incredibly irresponsible manner of addressing it that was 2 decades too late. Since then, Democrats have been steadfastly opposed to ANY proposal that even remotely addresses spending, and that includes introducing means testing future recipients (which is something Democrats normally profess to support).

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 10:25 PM | Reply

"I'll tell you what - next time a Republican utters "deficit""

Wasn't that Paul Ryan's big complaint?

"The debt and the deficit is just getting out of control, and the administration is still pumping through billions upon trillions of new spending. That does not grow the economy."~PR

I guess it does when he's the one exploding the deficit.

"...the president at least gave us a budget and that shows you a mountain of red ink, a debt crisis, more debt and the end of the American dream." ~PR

That was several trillion dollars ago. And now Ryan wants more debt.

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 10:27 PM | Reply


Close italics. Sorry.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 10:28 PM | Reply

Why TF would Gore have radically changed course from something that was working so well?

Blackmail by the massage therapist he sexually-assaulted?

Why did Bush "radically change course" from something that was working so well?

Nothing is static. You cannot simply proclaim how things would have been with Gore as POTUS as if it's fact.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 10:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Bush addressed it"

NO HE DIDN'T.

If you're suggesting that stupid privatization scheme, Dubya was forced near the end of that debacle of a promotional tour to admit his change didn't even address the problem.

Those of us who know basic math also knew it would exacerbate the problem.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 10:31 PM | Reply

"Why did Bush "radically change course" from something that was working so well?"

Cheney wanted the money. Do I really have to explain this to you???

"You cannot simply proclaim how things would have been with Gore as POTUS as if it's fact."

I can guarantee you there would NOT have been two massive income tax cuts aimed at the wealthiest.

Let's recap, shall we?
1. The economy was steaming right along. 2. Rs handed out massive income tax cuts. 3. Rs handed out massive income tax cuts, again. 4. The administration forbade states to enact ANY strict lending rules 5. Melt down the economy, with millions of lost jobs within just a few months.
crooksandliars.com

IOW, specific actions were taken which affected the economy. Rs took those actions, over the objections of Ds.

You do the math.

#55 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 10:39 PM | Reply

Those of us who know basic math also knew it would exacerbate the problem.

#54 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Right.

Perhaps you didn't see this:

The elephant in the room is unfunded liabilities. Bush addressed it and then pushed an incredibly irresponsible manner of addressing it that was 2 decades too late.

That's precisely what I was referring to. I completely agree that his push for partial privatization would have exacerbated the fiscal problems because it was 2+ decades too late. My point was, he at least somewhat acknowledged the problem of unfunded liabilities. Democrats demagogue anyone on the right who points to the mathematical-impossibility of the fiscal trajectory of our unfunded liabilities.

My point is, you can argue against so-called GOP "solutions" all-day-long but they aren't the ones pretending that our unfunded liabilities don't exist.

Just so you know - it's OK to acknowledge Dem wrongdoing even in the light of what you perceive to be far-worse GOP wrongdoing.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 10:40 PM | Reply

can guarantee you there would NOT have been two massive income tax cuts aimed at the wealthiest.
Let's recap, shall we?
1. The economy was steaming right along. 2. Rs handed out massive income tax cuts. 3. Rs handed out massive income tax cuts, again. 4. The administration forbade states to enact ANY strict lending rules 5. Melt down the economy, with millions of lost jobs within just a few months.
crooksandliars.com
IOW, specific actions were taken which affected the economy. Rs took those actions, over the objections of Ds.
You do the math.

#55 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Oh. So the '08 financial meltdown is now completely the fault of the GOP?

It's not that simple. Nor is it that tribal. I've read three books on the subject, including one that went to print 6 months before the meltdown occurred. Of the 3, please check out this one:

www.amazon.com

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 10:44 PM | Reply

"I completely agree that his push for partial privatization would have exacerbated the fiscal problems because it was 2+ decades too late."

That's not why it would've exacerbated the problem.

"My point was, he at least somewhat acknowledged the problem of unfunded liabilities."

Saying it exists, and then suggesting doing something to make it worse isn't acknowledging the problem.

"... (Rs) aren't the ones pretending that our unfunded liabilities don't exist."

They are now. And they did when they voted to take the surpluses in income tax cuts.

"Just so you know..t's OK to acknowledge Dem wrongdoing..."

My irony meter is pegging.

"So the '08 financial meltdown is now completely the fault of the GOP? "

Rs built that. The Dubya tax cuts were still in full swing. Ds couldn't, and didn't, pass a financial bill, since the Rs broke the filibuster record in less than half the time. Remember that?

"It's not that simple."

I can point to specific votes, and specific actions. Did you read the link, where Dubya's administration invoked an arcane law to prevent states from tightening lending restrictions? Which Democrat do you blame for that?

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 10:53 PM | Reply

From my link, above:

In 2004, the Office of the Currency Comptroller, an obscure regulatory agency tasked with ensuring the fiscal soundness of America's banks, invoked an 1863 law to give itself the power to override state laws against predatory lending. The OCC told states they could not enforce predatory-lending laws, and all banks would be subject only to less-strict federal laws. States that had stricter regulations on issuing mortgages were found to have fewer foreclosures.

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 10:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I completely agree that his push for partial privatization would have exacerbated the fiscal problems because it was 2+ decades too late."
----
That's not why it would've exacerbated the problem.

Sure it is. The Boomers are a population bulge. Had a partial privatization scheme been enacted when they were young enough that participation, way back then, would have resulted in a ratio of lost contributions relative to reduced payouts...but given the pyramid structure of SS, the changes Bush was pushing would have only exacerbated the funding issues without a corresponding reduction of benefit payouts.

My point was, he at least somewhat acknowledged the problem of unfunded liabilities."
Saying it exists, and then suggesting doing something to make it worse isn't acknowledging the problem.

Does it even exist? Democrats almost universally so "no". Where are you on this?

"Just so you know..t's OK to acknowledge Dem wrongdoing..."
----
My irony meter is pegging.

Funny you say that. I have been criticizing Republicans left and right and have been agreeing with every criticism you've levied against them. Yet, every criticism of Dems, no matter how measured and tepid, have been met with deflections, ZERO acknowledgement on your part, and even a straw man with your "irony meter" comment.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 11:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#59 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

AGAIN, for the umpteenth time, great point.

I've provided a couple of links of my own. You have yet to address them.

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 11:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Actually, it was only one link.

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 11:14 PM | Reply

The fact that billy clinton deregulated the banks of course had nothing, nothing I tell yah to do with with the economic crash of 08

#63 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-11-20 11:46 PM | Reply

"Actually, it was only one link."

To a book I could buy on Amazon.

How about if you explain the Cliff Notes: How Dubya and the Rs so brilliantly turned full employment and surpluses as far as the eye could see into the economy Dubya handed off. I can point to two tax cuts, voted on by the Rs, which completely altered our fiscal sights. I can also point to an active choice by the Bush administration in 2004 to prevent states from being reasonable.

What is your economic theory? Please concentrate on how the Dems were at fault.

BTW, referencing Barney Frank's loud backing of Fannie/Freddy is out, since Frank was being misled at that point, along with everyone else.

#64 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 11:57 PM | Reply

"The fact that billy clinton deregulated the banks of course had nothing, nothing I tell yah to do with with the economic crash of 08"

If murder wasn't illegal I guess it wouldn't be wrong.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 12:08 AM | Reply

""The fact that billy clinton deregulated the banks of course had nothing, nothing I tell yah to do with with the economic crash of 08""

If it was so bad, why didn't Rs do something about it when they controlled Congress and the White House? And why does everyone avoid addressing the Bush Administration's 2004 invocation of an 1863 law, so they could forbid states to tighten lending standards???

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-21 12:13 AM | Reply

""The fact that billy clinton deregulated the banks of course had nothing, nothing I tell yah to do with with the economic crash of 08""

Bill Clinton just happened to sign the Republican bill but he was not one of the driving forces pushing for it.

"Sure it is. The Boomers are a population bulge. Had a partial privatization scheme been enacted when they were young enough that participation, way back then, would have resulted in a ratio of lost contributions relative to reduced payouts...but given the pyramid structure of SS, the changes Bush was pushing would have only exacerbated the funding issues without a corresponding reduction of benefit payouts. "

We dealt with that when Reagan was President, we doubled SS taxes on ourselves to pay for our retirements, then George W. Bush got elected and slashed income taxes while at the same time starting an endless war. So they have used debt to fund wars to the point, as planned, that now Republicans can claim that we can't fund SS. It was a scheme to steal the money, Bush admitted as much while still Gov. of Texas, he was going to be a "war time President because war time Presidents have more power and he was going to use that power to privatize SS (give it to the big banks)". He failed because Americans do not want SS privatized, they don't want endless stupid wars.

#67 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 06:41 AM | Reply

#64 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

How many different ways do you want me to agree with your articulation of GOP failings?

Nothing you've said have I disagreed with. The only thing you are unwilling to do is acknowledge Dems' culpability. Giving Barney Frank and his crew a pass? Really???

I've pointed you to an excellent, balanced source out of multiple sources. As far as Fannie/Freddy contributed to the '08 meltdown, the GOP failed to rein them in despite multiple efforts to do so. Nothing ever even got out of committee because Dems were 100% lockstep opposed and they had Kit Bond (R) on their side. But, by your metrics, that means the GOP is 100% responsible for Fanny/Freddy being out of control, even though the genesis for that was a Clinton initiative in '99, which I'm guessing you blame Republicans for as well.

If you aren't already familiar with it, here is a good read regarding the origins of the Fannie/Freddy debacle:

www.nytimes.com

According the link I provided to an excellent book on this subject, here's a list of the key political players:

James Johnson - CEO Fannie 91 - 98
Franklin Raines - CEO Fannie '99-'05
David Maxwell - CEO Fannie '81 - '91
Bill Clinton (D)
Barney Frank (D)
Robert Zoellick - CEO Fannie '93-'97
Tom Donilon - Head of government affairs, Fannie '99 - '05
Larry Summers - Deputy Treasury Secretary '95 - '99 Secretary '99 - '01
Richard Bolbrooke
Leland Brendsel - Former chief executive Freddie '87 - '03
Thomas Nides - Executive VP HR Fannie '98-'01
Herb Moses - Community affairs Fannie
R Glenn Hubbard - Columbia Graduate School of Business
Peter ORszag - Council of Economic advisors - '95-'96
Bruce Vento (D)
Bob Bennett (R)
Kit Bond (R)
Stephen Friedman - Former director Fannie
Maxine Waters (D)

They also have a list of doubters and those who pushed back. A list of subprime lenders and their enablers. And they have a list of feckless regulators with the first name listed is Timothy Geitner.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-21 07:18 AM | Reply

And the GOP is bending over like bitches in heat to make it happen.

#3 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-20 07:56 PM | Reply | Flag

The mental gymnastic contortions the GOP is doing to sell this plan to Joe Sixpack is on an epic level.

Tax cuts for private jets? Nah...look here, you get $35 more for five of the ten years.

What? You'll pay $200 more in each of the final five years, wiping out your $35 you got back in the first five? Look... you are getting back $35 in the first five years.

#69 | Posted by 726 at 2017-11-21 08:24 AM | Reply

This tax bill is straight GOP...

It attack teachers.

It attacks education.

It attacks the poor.

It attacks the middle class homeowners.

It attacks students.

It attacks the poor and elderly.

It rewards the ridiculously wealthy.

I hope they all get an incurable case of hemorhoids starting with Chris Collins.

#70 | Posted by 726 at 2017-11-21 08:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

the economy Dubya handed off.

When Dotard gets done, Dumbya will look like an economic genius.

#71 | Posted by 726 at 2017-11-21 08:30 AM | Reply

"he GOP is 100% responsible for Fanny/Freddy being out of control, even though the genesis for that was a Clinton initiative in '99"

Again, if that bad, the GOP had a chance to fix it when they were in control. Instead, they went the other way and FORBADE states from enacting reasonable lending standards.

Democrats' fault, right?

#72 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-21 09:20 AM | Reply

"The only thing you are unwilling to do is acknowledge Dems' culpability. "

Feel free to point out all the Dems who voted for both tax giveaways, and how Dems were responsible for resetting the fiscal sights of USS America.

#73 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-21 09:21 AM | Reply

Jeff's link is to a book written by Steven A. Holmes, very conservative Senator from N. Carolina, now deceased. A hater of Democrats his entire life. In other words, his link is to a pile of crap. My dog's crap is just as valuable of a source of information.

#74 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 09:25 AM | Reply

"When Dotard gets done, Dumbya will look like an economic genius."

I said virtually the same thing when Dubya got appointed by the SC, each successive Republican President tries to out-f**k the average American and Trump is not trying to out-f**k Dubya. Their class "believes" it is owed to them, they "believe" they are just reclaiming what is theirs and, I know, we will have morons here who agree with them but they never take into consideration that the accumulation of great wealth in America is enabled by infrastructure, military protection, the courts, the police, etc. which we all pay for, not just the rich though they benefit from those things far more than we ever can or will.

#75 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 09:29 AM | Reply

Jeff's link is to a book written by Steven A. Holmes

No, it isn't.

The book is co-authored by Josh Rosner and Gretchen Morgenson.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-21 09:52 AM | Reply

Feel free to point out all the Dems who voted for both tax giveaways, and how Dems were responsible for resetting the fiscal sights of USS America.

#73 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I have, and you have either ignored it or gave them a complete pass.

#77 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-21 09:54 AM | Reply

Lol, both parties were all in on no-account bailouts for the biggest thieves in human history.

You would have to be crazy to argue that either of them have been responsible financially. They support a constant cycle of corporate theft.

This thread is hilarious.

#78 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-21 10:11 AM | Reply

This thread is hilarious.

#78 | POSTED BY SULLY

I think 'ridiculous' is a more apt descriptor.

#79 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-21 11:07 AM | Reply

"I have, and you have either ignored it or gave them a complete pass."

You gave a list of names, nothing else.

I pointed out specific actions, voted on by specific people who were in power, and who decided to radically alter our fiscal sights.

If you actually have proof where Dems made those decisions, or if you feel two rounds of tax cuts were the doing of the Dems, or the Executive decision to limit states' rights, feel free to make your case. Pointing to names on a hack's list is nothing.

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-21 11:10 AM | Reply

"You would have to be crazy to argue that either of them have been responsible financially. "

I'm not; I'm arguing that one party has been much more irresponsible financially, and the numbers back me up.

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-21 11:11 AM | Reply

#80 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I also pointed you to a NY Times article written in '99. Did you check it out?

I'm surprised you view Gretchen Morgenson as a hack.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-21 11:14 AM | Reply

"Jeff's link is to a book written by Steven A. Holmes
No, it isn't.
The book is co-authored by Josh Rosner and Gretchen Morgenson."

I should have said article in Jeff's link:

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMESSEPT. 30, 1999

www.nytimes.com

#83 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 11:15 AM | Reply

"This thread is hilarious.

#78 | POSTED BY SULLY
I think 'ridiculous' is a more apt descriptor."

Once again, The Party of Responsibility takes none of their responsibility.

But Sully, by all means, feel free to take up the cause: explain how the economy Dubya inherited, vs the economy he handed off, was the fault of the Dems. Make sure you allow for the fact no Dem-written financial bill was passed during Dubya's administration.

#84 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-21 11:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I also pointed you to a NY Times article written in '99. Did you check it out?"

That's the article I was talking about, and it was a pre-warning about sub-prime lending but from the perspective that it would be "dangerous" to make loans to black and hispanics though after the collapse the evidence showed that there were far more whites who defaulted.

#85 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 11:16 AM | Reply

"a NY Times article written in '99."

Rs had total control after that.

Again, if they thought it was so bad, they could've done something about it. Instead, they went the exact opposite way, forbidding states to enact their own lending guidelines.

Dems' fault, right?

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-21 11:18 AM | Reply

Can't we just send our Thoughts and Prayers to the 1% and corporations? That should be enough, right?

#87 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-21 11:47 AM | Reply

"When the GOP retook the House in '10 and passed a budget that would have somewhat addressed the elephant in the room, Democrats produced ads depicting Paul Ryan of literally pushing a wheel-chair-bound elderly woman over a cliff."

Are you actually unaware that Ryan's "fix" required massive cuts to Medicare spending, or do you not understand that's the whole critique of the ad?

You never mentioned why you want Obamacare repealed from a fiscal perspective. So how about you go ahead and discuss the fiscal impact of the repeal you so desperately crave?

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 12:12 PM | Reply

""When the GOP retook the House in '10 and passed a budget that would have somewhat addressed the elephant in the room, Democrats produced ads depicting Paul Ryan of literally pushing a wheel-chair-bound elderly woman over a cliff."

The only thing misleading about that ad was that it was only on elderly woman, it should have shown millions of elderly women, men, children being pushed off a cliff with Paul Ryan standing there laughing with an Ayn Rand novel in his hand.

#89 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 12:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Lol, both parties were all in on no-account bailouts for the biggest thieves in human history.'

Yeah. Turns out we actually need a functional banking system.

Sometimes when both parties agree on things it's because it actually makes sense. Unless you're just another Ray, and you don't seem quite that full of yourself.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 12:18 PM | Reply

The GOP is like an Uber driver. They think they're making money because they are too stupid to understand depreciation. In the same way, the GOP would like to rape the middle class for profit in the short term, unaware of the detriment they'll cause to the economy in the long run.

#91 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-21 12:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Too funny as there has not been any economic sanity for decades in Washington as evidenced by our massive national debt.

#92 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-11-21 12:41 PM | Reply

#84 why do I need to explain anything to you, let alone adopt some straw position you assigned me?

What I said is correct. Both parties are horribly irresponsible. I gave you the ultimate example. I'll not waste a minute arguing over which is worse when neither is acceptable.

#93 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-21 12:45 PM | Reply

#90 of course the biggest idiot here is going to make a disingenuous argument in favor if the biggest screw job in history.

Your comment only holds water if no account bailouts were the only option - which we all know to be untrue.

There is no excuse for bailing out and allowing the crimes to go unpunished. In fact, it only guarantees that it all happens again.

Fixing the banking system would have involved prosecutions, Goofus.

#94 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-21 12:50 PM | Reply

#90 of course the biggest idiot here...

Idiot?

I thought you said he was the most fundamentally dishonest person here.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-21 12:55 PM | Reply

Idiot?

I thought you said he was the most fundamentally dishonest person here.

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-21 12:55 PM | Reply

You can be an idiot and dishonest at the same time. There are prisons full of em.

#96 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-21 12:57 PM | Reply

#95 - defending giving billions to thieves earned him a promotion

#97 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-21 01:29 PM | Reply

Jeff's link is to a book written by Steven A. Holmes, very conservative Senator from N. Carolina, now deceased. A hater of Democrats his entire life. In other words, his link is to a pile of crap. My dog's crap is just as valuable of a source of information. - #74 | Posted by Danni at 2017-11-21 09:25 AM

Here we see the old classic: 'If your opinions are different than mine, your information is worth less than dog ----'. No argument of the points, no discussion of the merits of the information, just blind dismissal because he doesn't agree with you.
I applaud your willingness to display your bias, and I certainly understand that you're bubble makes you feel justified in your opinion.

#98 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-21 02:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

your

#99 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-21 02:03 PM | Reply

"What I said is correct. Both parties are horribly irresponsible."

What I said was correct. Allowing the banking system to collapse would have been even more horribly irresponsible.

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 02:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Fixing the banking system would have involved prosecutions, Goofus."

Who said it got fixed?

"I'll not waste a minute arguing over which is worse when neither is acceptable."

You have baseline right wing fiscal illiteracy if you think the bailout was more costly, or even just as bad as letting the global financial system grind to a halt.

Seriously, that's just dumb. It's, like, MadB dumb. He thinks we don't really need a global finance system because hunting and gathering worked for several ice ages and we can just go back to that. I like to think you're not that dumb Sully.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 02:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here we see the old classic: 'If your opinions are different than mine, your information is worth less than dog ----'.
#98 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Here we see the old classic: Avigore projecting.

#102 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-21 04:06 PM | Reply

From the article: " the GOP tax bill may be enacted without anyone who votes for it having any understanding of the damage it could do to the economy. They have wishes, hopes and prayers but in reality nothing beyond the economic equivalent of pagan superstition."

Understanding is a simple at looking at what happened to Kansas when a similar bill was passed. Total -------- disaster. Republicans were forced to reverse many of the tax cuts provision in order just to operate their schools and other basic services.

www.nytimes.com

insanity, yup.

#103 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-21 04:23 PM | Reply

#101 - You are apparently failing to comprehend a simple criticism. I did not criticize bail outs as an absolute.

Even if bailouts had to be done, they didn't have to be done in a way that not only forgives but rewards theft. Your pretentious to the contrary are not true and if you believe them, you are an imbecile.

I hope that clears up my position for you.

#104 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-21 05:02 PM | Reply

"I did not criticize bail outs as an absolute."

Just my support of them... But not your support of them. Got it.

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 05:35 PM | Reply

It's clear as a bell Silly.
It's not the bailouts.
It's me.

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 05:36 PM | Reply

Re #105 why are you such a bad liar?

I criticized bailing out the banks while rewarding the thieves. And I criticized you for making excuses for rewarding theft via these bailouts.

If the bailout had been done in a way that punished the thieves that would be less if a problem.

But you choose to make excuses for rewarding thievery like a fool. So own it.

There is nothing unfair or inconsistent in anything I've said despite your dishonest attempts to pretend otherwise.

#107 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-22 11:11 AM | Reply

I'd really like to thank this author for finally providing a great template for all political opinion posts. Every opinion piece should follow this same exact format and just replace with buzzwords that the side they are on agrees/disagrees with. This one is my favorite:

"In other words, the GOP tax bill may be enacted without anyone who votes for it having any understanding of the damage it could do to the economy."

If you change "GOP" to either "GOP" or "Democrat", you now have the same thing that has been said about EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF MAJOR LEGISLATION presented in the last few decades. Both parties squawk so much that they can't hear the other party squawking about the same exact thing. Very sad for America.

#108 | Posted by humtake at 2017-11-22 12:35 PM | Reply

#108 but you support the GOP tax bill.

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-22 12:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"In other words, the GOP tax bill may be enacted without anyone who votes for it having any understanding of the damage it could do to the economy."

That sentence was proceeded by these two paragraphs:

The GOP's insanity is compounded by its moving ahead without having any idea of what this policy will actually do to the economy. The debates in the Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees and on the House floor all took place before the Congressional Budget Office's analysis and, if it really exists, the constantly-promised-but-never-seen report from the Treasury on the economics of this tax bill.

Meanwhile, Congress has ignored other estimates like this one from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School showing that the tax bill won't do what the GOP is promising.

#110 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-22 12:48 PM | Reply

Meanwhile, Congress has ignored other estimates like this one from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School showing that the tax bill won't do what the GOP is promising.
#110 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Those other estimates don't include Paul Ryan's Magical Fantasy Growth Numbers™

#111 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-22 01:45 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort