Baillout = Further Capitalist Oligarchy? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 09-30-2008, 09:42 AM

I've heard the CRA argument and the facts might suggest otherwise.

...most subprime loans were made by lenders that aren’t subject to the CRA.

....something like 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject to federal regulation and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations as a result of deregulation.

...given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans.
-----Added 30/9/2008 at 02 : 00 : 19-----
McCain's 2005-06 Fannie/Freddie bill? The one written for the most part by the Fannie/Freddie lobbyist who is now his campaign director and whose firm received $hundreds of thousands in lobbying fees from Fannie/Freddie?

It wasnt blocked by the Democrats...it never got out of committee in the Republican controlled Senate.

samcol · 09-30-2008, 11:24 AM

I'm still baffled that there were people who actually supported this...

roachboy · 09-30-2008, 11:53 AM

one of the interpretations that you are starting to see floating about is that the defeat yesterday was a kind of "popular revolt"---which is absurd on the face of it---an article in the always-questionable "time" magazine argues that this is the case, and that it is a culmination of the undermining of credibility in the political system as a whole as a result, in significant measure of 8 long years of the bush people and another 20 of free-marketeer idiocy as the dominant lingua franca. most of us have been fucked by "globalizing capitalism"----but in america land of the free blah blah blah, there seems to be no way for this kind of dissent to register at all.

let's say that time and others in the major media who are speaking in terms of what should be a legitimation crisis for the regime as a whole are correct.

if it's true, then the best move would be for the government to resign en masse and call for new elections across the board at the earliest possible date.

Necrosis · 09-30-2008, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I've heard the CRA argument and the facts might suggest otherwise.

...most subprime loans were made by lenders that aren’t subject to the CRA.

....something like 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject to federal regulation and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations as a result of deregulation.

Which presumably is why Republicans were attempting to increase regulation of the industry. Do you not intend to address the support voiced by Barney Frank and Charles Schumer for the disastrous policies of Fannie and Freddie?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

McCain's 2005-06 Fannie/Freddie bill? The one written for the most part by the Fannie/Freddie lobbyist who is now his campaign director and whose firm received of thousands in lobbying fees from Fannie/Freddie?

If receiving more than $100,000 from Fannie or Freddie indicates a problem, the Democrats are going to need a new presidential candidate, because Obama falls into that category. So does Chris Dodd. And yet, one of the people circled below wants to lay the entire blame at the feet of the Republicans.

OpenSecrets | Update: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers - Capital Eye

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

It wasnt blocked by the Democrats...it never got out of committee in the Republican controlled Senate.

It most certainly DID get out of committee, in spite of the united (as in unanimous) opposition to it by the Democrats on the committee.

The Republicans saw such a united Democratic front on the floor that they never brought it to a vote.

Edit: I am still unable to find the "control" of the Senate which is so frequently referenced. A reference to a bill that passed over the united objection of every, or even most Democrats during that period would be helpful.

Charlatan · 09-30-2008, 05:52 PM

I don't think deregulation (or its opposite) is the domain of either party. Neoliberalism is an ideology, not a party.

roachboy · 09-30-2008, 06:34 PM

exactly, charlatan. there are different levels of talking in this thread, as in alot of them, which work past each other. if i write "neoliberalism" i refer to an ideology that encompasses both of the right wings of the single party state that it the united states. fundamentally, i do not care about divisions between republicans and democrats because to my way of seeing things, they're minimal. i support obama in this election not because i think he's actually much different from a moderate republican, but rather because he **appears** to be different from a moderate republican, and in that appearance lay the possibility of a momentary break in the trajectory of implosion that the bush people have solidified, but which is just as much the result of reagan, bush 1 and clinton's slight opposition to the same logic--which set up the bush2 reaction (in the strongest possible sense of the term reaction, and with all forms of the word reaction in play)...i do not particularly care about whether republicans or democrats are responsible for the breakdown of such agreement as there was about the first Big Rescue Plan involving the creation of the Magical Debt Absorption Machine--but tactically speaking, it seems pretty clear that it was the right of the republican party that played the role of wedge that resulted in the breakdown of the agreement. and it is of no particular consequence to me whether you can lay a given legisilative action at the feet of nixon or carter or reagan--to my mind, they're all steps along the way to a consolidation of a debilitatingly stupid ideological monoculture.

the problem is the monoculture itself.

there is no meaningful political diversity in mainstream politics in the united states--so far as i am concerned, the american live in a soft authoritarian system that exchanges positions amongst factions of more-or-less the same idiot thing every 4 years--the quirk is that positions fight amongst themselves across the language of "democracy"--but the sad fact of the matter is that the american system is not democratic, that is was set up in opposition to democracy--the system claims for itself the term when in fact it is not oeprational in any way--the american system prefers a type of "stability" that is entirely out of phase with the speed at which the capitalist order for which it stands operates--and it is showing itself structurally and ideologically incapable of managing even the system that it set into motion.

i won't get started about the enormous exploitative joke that is "globalizing capitalism" and its idiot twin "free trade" because it'd go on too long and i'm already sure that few are reading now. but the simple fact is that the problems that the american-dominated (to this point) capitalist system is facing are a demonstration of the fact that the ideology which enabled that system to develop has been outstripped by the system itself, and that unless it can adapt, and adapt quickly, to a different world than it has allowed itself to see for the past decade, but which in the empricial world it has created in significant measure, that the united states is in a situation the result of which will be irrelevance.

obama to me represents a bump in the trajectory that otherwise--and with mc-cain--is inevitable.
personally, i would prefer the bump.
because i live here too, and so does my family, and so do alot of people whom i love, and it would be a a shame to see people that i love suffer because the system as a whole, backed with the docile consent of people who like to like what they are told they like to like in the way they are told to like it, are too mired in their own idiot investments to see that the only way out of this farce is a different one than they are used to thinking about.

i guess this does kinda piss me off.
i should learn to watch sports.

Charlatan · 09-30-2008, 06:45 PM

Obama's main economic advisers are from the Chicago School (the cradle of neoliberalism). I am not so sure that Obama is the man you are looking for...

roachboy · 09-30-2008, 06:48 PM

like i said, comrade, he *appears* to be different.

but maybe i'm too optimistic.

if you read the whole of that last post, though, you'll probably not think that.

dc_dux · 09-30-2008, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrosis

Which presumably is why Republicans were attempting to increase regulation of the industry. Do you not intend to address the support voiced by Barney Frank and Charles Schumer for the disastrous policies of Fannie and Freddie?

The Republicans were not attempting to increase regulation of the industry. The 05 bill that you keep referencing provided a bit more oversight of Freddie and Fannie but had nothing to do with re-regulating banking and investment practices that resulted from earlier deregulation.

And yes support of Fannie and Freddie was across the board.

Quote:

If receiving more than $100,000 from Fannie or Freddie indicates a problem, the Democrats are going to need a new presidential candidate, because Obama falls into that category. So does Chris Dodd. And yet, one of the people circled below wants to lay the entire blame at the feet of the Republicans.

Yep...the influence of money is also across the board. One small differences is that the Dems money is more from individuals and the Repubs more from PACs

Quote:

It most certainly DID get out of committee, in spite of the united (as in unanimous) opposition to it by the Democrats on the committee.

The Republicans saw such a united Democratic front on the floor that they never brought it to a vote.

Edit: I am still unable to find the "control" of the Senate which is so frequently referenced. A reference to a bill that passed over the united objection of every, or even most Democrats during that period would be helpful.

Nope...I dont think it did....and w/o looking at the Record, it is reasonable to assume that of the opposition on the committee was from borth sides of the aisle or it would have been reported out.

But you know there was unanimous Democratic opposition on the committee, how? do you have the committee vote?

Status:
Occurred: Introduced Jan 26, 2005

Last Action: Jul 28, 2005: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)

i dont know where you got the idea that "the Republicans saw such a united Democratic front on the floor that they never brought it to a vote". The logic defies me. Remember, this was when the Republicans had a 55-45 majority in the Senate.

I also think, but dont know for certain, that McCain could have stuck his name on the bill as a co-sponsor after it was DOA in the Banking Committee. He was not an original sponsor.

Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. SUNUNU, and Mrs. DOLE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Afairs

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=s109-190

It is curious that when the same bill was introduced again in 2007, McCain is not a co-sponsor. Was is because he was in "campaign" mode by that time?

aceventura3 · 10-01-2008, 01:48 PM

Just for the record it was under the Clinton administration when Fannie and Freddie were allowed to get into the "sub-prime" market big time. Fannie and Freddie were also allowed ridiculously high leverage ratios, 2.5%. Meaning for every dollar of debt, they only needed $.025 in cash. By 2007 Fannie and Freddie accounted for $6 trillion of the total $12 trillion dollars in US market exposure. All it took was a 2.5% drop in the value of their assets for them to become technically insolvent. We have know they were insolvent a long time. The reality is that a certain percent of the loans were based on inflated appraisals or loan to value ratios 100% or higher, which means their leverage was in fact higher. Those who tried to address the issue could not, due to politics. Fannie and Freddie drove the market and lead the excess. People who suggest private sector banking deregulation is at the root cause of this mess are misinformed or are misleading.

$700 million is about 5.8% of the total US mortgage market, a drop in the bucket.

ottopilot · 10-01-2008, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Just for the record it was under the Clinton administration when Fannie and Freddie were allowed to get into the "sub-prime" market big time. Fannie and Freddie were also allowed ridiculously high leverage ratios, 2.5%. Meaning for every dollar of debt, they only needed $.025 in cash. By 2007 Fannie and Freddie accounted for $6 trillion of the total $12 trillion dollars in US market exposure. All it took was a 2.5% drop in the value of their assets for them to become technically insolvent. We have know they were insolvent a long time. The reality is that a certain percent of the loans were based on inflated appraisals or loan to value ratios 100% or higher, which means their leverage was in fact higher. Those who tried to address the issue could not, due to politics. Fannie and Freddie drove the market and lead the excess. People who suggest private sector banking deregulation is at the root cause of this mess are misinformed or are misleading.

$700 million is about 5.8% of the total US mortgage market, a drop in the bucket.

thank you.

Charlatan · 10-01-2008, 04:43 PM

Again... pointing fingers at either party is counter-productive. What we really need to do is address the ideology behind the thinking that deregulates and makes the market *more* laissez-faire. Neoliberalism is a scourge of *both* the Democrats and Republicans.

From where I am sitting, this looks like a play to keep the more left leaning Democrats (who are increasingly likely to win this coming election) from implementing the worst of their policies (and by worst I mean those policies that will have a negative impact on the economic system the neoliberals have brought about). There is nothing like a crisis to bring about new calls for "fiscal responsibility," "austerity," "cuts in public funding," and "privatization."

If you look back, you will see that there was a big shift in Bill Clinton's policies on the campaign trail and what he implemented a few months later once he took office. I suspect the same will occur with Obama if he wins. The leader of *any* country only has so much power. Those who control the economy are the real power brokers.

And no... it's not a conspiracy. It is an ideology. There is a big difference.

roachboy · 10-01-2008, 04:54 PM

sooner or later, folk will figure out this ideology thing, i think. not yet, apparently.

pan6467 · 10-01-2008, 07:14 PM

So will student loans be next?

I believe they are run similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and I know for the past 10+ years there has been talk on how many cannot repay because wages are not enough for people to pay.

Could we see another bailout for the industry if they start looking at the losses from the student loans also?

tisonlyi · 10-01-2008, 07:16 PM

Look, all of this crap is ENTIRELY based on a 'capitalist' system that knows, without doubt, that if its entity is in trouble it will, most likely, be bailed out in one form or another.

Markets are fine, so long as risk is REAL.

The only thing that this bailout will do is delay the inevitable meltdown, by months.

EDIT:

Oh, please, let me just add, as asides, that I've just been discussing the candidates with a Republican girl from Chicago (we got into the discussion because i unthinkingly asserted that she must be voting for Obama) who, after telling me that McCain knows what is right for America (*cough*) took another toke on the joint I passed over.

The hysterical laugher she provoked caused her to leave the bar.

The almost violent inability to accept reality that is palpable next to any US-ian i've been near in the last ten years is EXACTLY the reason why no reasonable action will be taken in the face of this crisis, there'll be no end to the culture of debt and there'll be carnage in America and the rest of the world while Pax Americana dies.

Sorry.

(I might be a tad extreme here, I've just fought off a couple of muggers - after walking through a heartbreaking market of people selling their heirlooms to pay off debts. I stopped to ask. I'm not joking.)

By the way, the joint i passed her had not been raised to my lips, nor inhailed. Just makes me sleepy.

Necrosis · 10-01-2008, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Again... pointing fingers at either party is counter-productive. What we really need to do is address the ideology behind the thinking that deregulates and makes the market *more* laissez-faire. Neoliberalism is a scourge of *both* the Democrats and Republicans.

If I recall, this was my point. I felt that Nancy Pelosi was being very counterproductive, which was no surprise. That word sums up her entire career.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

From where I am sitting, this looks like a play to keep the more left leaning Democrats (who are increasingly likely to win this coming election) from implementing the worst of their policies (and by worst I mean those policies that will have a negative impact on the economic system the neoliberals have brought about). There is nothing like a crisis to bring about new calls for "fiscal responsibility," "austerity," "cuts in public funding," and "privatization."

I'm still confused as to whom you mean by "neoliberals." Obama? Franklin Raines?
(See video below)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

If you look back, you will see that there was a big shift in Bill Clinton's policies on the campaign trail and what he implemented a few months later once he took office. I suspect the same will occur with Obama if he wins. The leader of *any* country only has so much power. Those who control the economy are the real power brokers.

And no... it's not a conspiracy. It is an ideology. There is a big difference.

Yes, I remember Bill Clinton campaigning on a middle-class tax cut, and magically converting it into a tax increase once he was elected. Considering that Obama is still promising a tax cut for 95% of Americans, nay, a tax CREDIT for some of them, it is safe to assume he is lying. Any other interpretation would mean he is not the brilliant man he is portrayed to be. Unfortunately, a great many naive twenty-somethings can't see through these lies, and they are happily anticipating their tax cuts.

The video is below. I wish they hadn't added the plea at the end, but it definitely shows why the Republicans couldn't get regulatory reform, and it shows the kind of man Obama chose for his economic advisor.

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?swf...s=1&fs=1&hl=en
-----Added 2/10/2008 at 02 : 38 : 30-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

And yes support of Fannie and Freddie was across the board.

If the board was composed entirely of Democrats, you are correct.

Quote:

Yep...the influence of money is also across the board. One small differences is that the Dems money is more from individuals and the Repubs more from PACs

Another difference is that in only four years, Obama collected more money than anyone except Chris Dodd. More even than John Kerry.

Quote:

Nope...I dont think it did....and w/o looking at the Record, it is reasonable to assume that of the opposition on the committee was from borth sides of the aisle or it would have been reported out.

But you know there was unanimous Democratic opposition on the committee, how? do you have the committee vote?

Status:
Occurred: Introduced Jan 26, 2005

Last Action: Jul 28, 2005: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)

i dont know where you got the idea that "the Republicans saw such a united Democratic front on the floor that they never brought it to a vote". The logic defies me. Remember, this was when the Republicans had a 55-45 majority in the Senate.

The bill did made it out of the committee on July 28th 2005.

It was "reported on" (which means it passed through the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs committee) to the Senate's Republican conference chair - at the time Rick Santorum - who never placed it or moved on the agenda for a floor vote. Because they did not have the 60 votes required for cloture, he and the Republican leadership let it die.

Quote:

I also think, but dont know for certain, that McCain could have stuck his name on the bill as a co-sponsor after it was DOA in the Banking Committee. He was not an original sponsor.

That statement has popped up from time to time. Actually, he signed onto it after about a year of the Dems stalling it in committee. As is pointed out above, it was never DOA.

He also said the following:

Quote:

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Maie and Freddie Mac ... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market ... the GSE's need to be reformed without delay.

Senator John McCain
5-25-2006

dc_dux · 10-02-2008, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrosis

The bill did made it out of the committee on July 28th 2005.

It was "reported on" (which means it passed through the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs committee) to the Senate's Republican conference chair - at the time Rick Santorum - who never placed it or moved on the agenda for a floor vote. Because they did not have the 60 votes required for cloture, he and the Republican leadership let it die.

That statement has popped up from time to time. Actually, he signed onto it after about a year of the Dems stalling it in committee. As is pointed out above, it was never DOA.

No...the bill was ordered to be reported out on July 28,2005...with an amendment in the nature of substitute. It was never reported out (do you see a check in the box - Reported by Committee ?)...perhaps because the Repub chair didnt like the substitute amendment....I really dont know

And the rest...about Santorum and cloture... is simply your revisionist history....since you have no idea how the vote broke out in the committee or what it might have been if it ever was brought to the floor. (unless you have source information that I am not aware of...Congressional Record?)

But it hardly matters anymore.

The Senate passeed a bailout bill last night by a 74-25 vote, with a few new sweeteners - tax cuts for business, increase in level of FDIC insurance, and some pork (including $$ for Alaskan fisheries) to get a few more Republican votes in the House.

ottopilot · 10-02-2008, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tisonlyi

Oh, please, let me just add, as asides, that I've just been discussing the candidates with a Republican girl from Chicago (we got into the discussion because i unthinkingly asserted that she must be voting for Obama) who, after telling me that McCain knows what is right for America (*cough*) took another toke on the joint I passed over.

The hysterical laugher she provoked caused her to leave the bar.

The almost violent inability to accept reality that is palpable next to any US-ian i've been near in the last ten years is EXACTLY the reason why no reasonable action will be taken in the face of this crisis, there'll be no end to the culture of debt and there'll be carnage in America and the rest of the world while Pax Americana dies.

Sorry.

Is the moral of the story that you need to get out more?

So living in a microcosm of an ideological echo-chamber, such as you describe, must lead to condescending intolerance and treating ideological outsiders poorly? I suspect that you could easily find yourself a scenario where your viewpoints would be found laughable.

Sorry about your getting mugged by such desperate souls. Where did this occur?

aceventura3 · 10-02-2008, 07:09 AM

Obama and Democrats often refer to "deregulation" as the root cause of this crisis and most of our current economic problems and that this "deregulation" was driven by the current administration. It is convenient that they are never specific, because no one can honestly evaluate the claim. So, I ask here - what regulations are they talking about? What regulations were not being enforced?

roachboy · 10-02-2008, 07:50 AM

so let's see if this helps reconcile in some way the parallel conversations in here:
neoliberalism encompasses both republicans and moderate democrats--you know, like the dlc and the clinton administration--moderates. i know, i know the right has expended alot of effort trying to portray these folk as "leftists" but that's mostly a distraction. meaningless except in the imaginary grid-space of conservatives. it has had functions, they're obvious if you think about them, but they bore me now. neoliberalism is that "market" oriented ideology around which a movement took shape across the 1970s that connected back (thanks to the workings of the hoover institution i think, personally) to populist conservatism of the 1920s and to hoover as a way of situating itself in opposition to fordism, to the new deal---in other words, to the last socially viable form of capitalism (you wouldn't think this was the case if you focused on the opposition to the vietnam war and civil rights movement etc.---but if you look at the bigger picture, it's true)....the conditions of possibility for the ascendance of this ideology were put into place under nixon...thatcher/reagan are the key transitional figures--the making-explicit of a much longer and internal process of implosion of the left was its opportunity,,,the systematic blurring of information and ideology its main device for dissemination--and it has been the way things are thought and operate at the level of the dominant order in the united states since the reagan period.

that means reagan, bush 1, clinton, bush2.
that means republican republican democrat republican,
that means the center democrats AND the republican administrations were responsible for this politically.
so there's no point in this petty he said/she said of locating this or that action in this or that administration since the reagan period IF you see what's coming apart here as neoliberalism itself.

seems to me that folk can't get their heads around what's happening so they pretend it's something that fits into their frame of reference---but it's the frame of reference that IS the problem and that is coming undone as we write.

another way---the dominant order consists of different factions that rotate every 4 years. the conflict over the presidency is a conflict over which patronage networks will have privileged access to resources by alliances with the political faction that runs the show. but SOMETIMES there are periods of mutation. we are entering one of them. mutation throws alot of cards in the air. neoliberalism as the naturalized ideology of the pastr 30 years is particularly ill-suited to mutation.
that is one of a hundred reasons why it is coming apart at the seams, and very quickly.

Cynthetiq · 10-02-2008, 08:12 PM

Quote:

View: Spoonful of pork may help bitter economic pill go down
Source: CNN
posted with the TFP thread generator

Spoonful of pork may help bitter economic pill go down
Spoonful of pork may help bitter economic pill go down
Story Highlights
Senate's financial rescue plan includes incentives that may attract votes

Proposal would exempt a specific kind of arrow from excise tax

Rum from Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands would get tax break

Filmmakers would get a $478 million in incentives to produce movies in U.S.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate's financial rescue plan may have a better chance of passage because it's padded with pork that may be tasty enough to get reluctant House members to bite.

Most of the $110 billion in additions, such as a tax credit for research and development and an increase in insurance for bank accounts, would have broad economic impact.

The benefits of others, though, may not be so evident to most taxpayers.

For example, the proposal includes an excise tax exemption for a very specific type of arrow used by child archers. View details of the incentives »

According to Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group, current law places an excise tax of 39 cents on the first sale by the manufacturer, producer or importer of any shaft of a type used to produce certain types of arrows. Watch where's the pork? »

"This proposal would exempt from the excise tax any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means to enhance the spine of the shaft used in the manufacture of an arrow that measures 5/16 of an inch or less and is unsuited for use with a bow with a peak draw weight of 30 pounds or more," Ellis wrote.

The estimated cost of the proposal is $2 million over 10 years, he wrote. Follow the progress of the $700 billion bailout plan »

Oregon Sens. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, and Gordon Smith, a Republican, were the initial sponsors of the arrow provision. According to Bloomberg News, the earmark provision would be worth $200,000 a year to Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon.

A Wyden aide said the Oregon senator did not ask that the provision be added to bailout package, but that doesn't fly with Ellis.

"The bottom line is, this is benefiting a very few manufacturers, and I think most Americans who are either concerned about the bailout package or concerned about the economy are going to be wondering why a provision benefiting wooden arrow manufacturers is catching a ride on the package," Ellis said.

The Taxpayers for Common Sense also reports that the proposal includes such mouthwatering morsels as these:

Creation of a seven-year cost recovery period for construction of a motorsports racetrack: Track owners currently follow a seven-year depreciation schedule and write each year's depreciation off their taxes. The IRS wanted to increase the depreciation timetable to 15 years, which would mean the track owner's depreciation would be cut in half. The measure in the keeps the seven-year depreciation schedule for two years and would cost taxpayers $100 million.

A refund of excise taxes to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands for rum: A $13.50 per gallon excise tax is placed on rum imported into the United States. The measure extends to December 31, 2009, a refund of $13.25 per gallon tax back to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, which are both U.S. territories. The refund has been in place since the early '90s. The measure would cost taxpayers $192 million.

Income averaging for amounts received in connection with the Exxon Valdez litigation: The measure would allow the plaintiffs who won damages from Exxon Mobile for the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez to average the award over three years rather than treating it as income in a single year. The measure was backed by Alaska Rep. Don Young and would cost taxpayers $49 million.

Secure rural schools and community self-determination program: The program replaces revenue rural communities used to enjoy from the sale of federal forest land. The measure is sponsored by lawmakers from Oregon and Idaho. The program would cost taxpayers $3.3 billion.

Deduction of state and local sales taxes: The measure allows citizens who do not pay state income taxes to deduct the amount of sales tax they pay over a year from their federal income tax for two additional years. States that benefit include Texas, Nevada, Florida, Washington and Wyoming. The measure would cost taxpayers $3.3 billion.

Provisions related to film and television productions: In order to keep movie production in the U.S., production companies would be allowed to deduct the cost of producing the films from their taxes. Rep. Diane Watson, D-California, has been one of the program's biggest supporters. The measure would cost taxpayers $478 million over 10 years.

Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products, wool research fund and wool duty refunds: The measure helps U.S. worsted wool fabric makers and clothing manufacturers. The bill extends provisions through 2014 or 2015 that were originally sponsored by Reps. Louise Slaughter, D-New York, and Melissa Bean, D-Illinois, in 2007. The measure would cost taxpayers $148 million.

Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa: The measure would extend for two years provisions meant to help economic development in the U.S. territory of American Samoa. The measure would cost taxpayers $33 million.

Transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters: The measure would allow employers to provide benefits to employees who commute to work via bicycle, such as help purchasing and maintaining a bicycle. The measure would cost taxpayers $10 million.

I dunno... a lot of pork sandwiches here....

Tully Mars · 10-03-2008, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I dunno... a lot of pork sandwiches here....

Yeah, I'm lost. We're hurting for cash, borrowing money to get by and the answer is more pork?

No wonder Congresses approval ratings are so low.

Necrosis · 10-03-2008, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Yeah, I'm lost. We're hurting for cash, borrowing money to get by and the answer is more pork?

No wonder Congresses approval ratings are so low.

To be more specific:

Democrats obstruct regulation attempts by Republicans, then blame them for "deregulation."

Democrats decide to borrow the economy out of debt. They buy off some (but not all) Republicans by inserting 400 pages into what was originally a 3-page document. Among them was Elijah Cummings, who appeared on the news saying that he supported the bailout because he "received assurances from Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank."

Can't recall the last time I agreed with Kucinich, but I do today. Oh well, at least my wooden arrows and Caribbean Rum are protected.

Tully Mars · 10-03-2008, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrosis

To be more specific:

Democrats obstruct regulation attempts by Republicans, then blame them for "deregulation."

What specific regulations are you talking about. As long as I can remember the GOP has had the mantra of less government and deregulation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrosis

Democrats decide to borrow the economy out of debt. They buy off some (but not all) Republicans by inserting 400 pages into what was originally a 3-page document. Among them was Elijah Cummings, who appeared on the news saying that he supported the bailout because he "received assurances from Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank."

This whole bailout was proposed by the Bush Admin. When did they switch parties?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrosis

Can't recall the last time I agreed with Kucinich, but I do today. Oh well, at least my wooden arrows and Caribbean Rum are protected.

I don't care about this. My arrows are graphite and the rum I like is made in Nicaragua.

09-30-2008, 09:42 AM	#81 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I've heard the CRA argument and the facts might suggest otherwise. ...most subprime loans were made by lenders that aren’t subject to the CRA. ....something like 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject to federal regulation and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations as a result of deregulation. ...given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. -----Added 30/9/2008 at 02 : 00 : 19----- McCain's 2005-06 Fannie/Freddie bill? The one written for the most part by the Fannie/Freddie lobbyist who is now his campaign director and whose firm received $hundreds of thousands in lobbying fees from Fannie/Freddie? It wasnt blocked by the Democrats...it never got out of committee in the Republican controlled Senate. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 09-30-2008 at 10:04 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

09-30-2008, 11:24 AM	#82 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I'm still baffled that there were people who actually supported this... __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

09-30-2008, 11:53 AM	#83 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	one of the interpretations that you are starting to see floating about is that the defeat yesterday was a kind of "popular revolt"---which is absurd on the face of it---an article in the always-questionable "time" magazine argues that this is the case, and that it is a culmination of the undermining of credibility in the political system as a whole as a result, in significant measure of 8 long years of the bush people and another 20 of free-marketeer idiocy as the dominant lingua franca. most of us have been fucked by "globalizing capitalism"----but in america land of the free blah blah blah, there seems to be no way for this kind of dissent to register at all. let's say that time and others in the major media who are speaking in terms of what should be a legitimation crisis for the regime as a whole are correct. if it's true, then the best move would be for the government to resign en masse and call for new elections across the board at the earliest possible date. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-30-2008, 05:52 PM	#85 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I don't think deregulation (or its opposite) is the domain of either party. Neoliberalism is an ideology, not a party. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-30-2008, 06:34 PM	#86 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	exactly, charlatan. there are different levels of talking in this thread, as in alot of them, which work past each other. if i write "neoliberalism" i refer to an ideology that encompasses both of the right wings of the single party state that it the united states. fundamentally, i do not care about divisions between republicans and democrats because to my way of seeing things, they're minimal. i support obama in this election not because i think he's actually much different from a moderate republican, but rather because he appears to be different from a moderate republican, and in that appearance lay the possibility of a momentary break in the trajectory of implosion that the bush people have solidified, but which is just as much the result of reagan, bush 1 and clinton's slight opposition to the same logic--which set up the bush2 reaction (in the strongest possible sense of the term reaction, and with all forms of the word reaction in play)...i do not particularly care about whether republicans or democrats are responsible for the breakdown of such agreement as there was about the first Big Rescue Plan involving the creation of the Magical Debt Absorption Machine--but tactically speaking, it seems pretty clear that it was the right of the republican party that played the role of wedge that resulted in the breakdown of the agreement. and it is of no particular consequence to me whether you can lay a given legisilative action at the feet of nixon or carter or reagan--to my mind, they're all steps along the way to a consolidation of a debilitatingly stupid ideological monoculture. the problem is the monoculture itself. there is no meaningful political diversity in mainstream politics in the united states--so far as i am concerned, the american live in a soft authoritarian system that exchanges positions amongst factions of more-or-less the same idiot thing every 4 years--the quirk is that positions fight amongst themselves across the language of "democracy"--but the sad fact of the matter is that the american system is not democratic, that is was set up in opposition to democracy--the system claims for itself the term when in fact it is not oeprational in any way--the american system prefers a type of "stability" that is entirely out of phase with the speed at which the capitalist order for which it stands operates--and it is showing itself structurally and ideologically incapable of managing even the system that it set into motion. i won't get started about the enormous exploitative joke that is "globalizing capitalism" and its idiot twin "free trade" because it'd go on too long and i'm already sure that few are reading now. but the simple fact is that the problems that the american-dominated (to this point) capitalist system is facing are a demonstration of the fact that the ideology which enabled that system to develop has been outstripped by the system itself, and that unless it can adapt, and adapt quickly, to a different world than it has allowed itself to see for the past decade, but which in the empricial world it has created in significant measure, that the united states is in a situation the result of which will be irrelevance. obama to me represents a bump in the trajectory that otherwise--and with mc-cain--is inevitable. personally, i would prefer the bump. because i live here too, and so does my family, and so do alot of people whom i love, and it would be a a shame to see people that i love suffer because the system as a whole, backed with the docile consent of people who like to like what they are told they like to like in the way they are told to like it, are too mired in their own idiot investments to see that the only way out of this farce is a different one than they are used to thinking about. i guess this does kinda piss me off. i should learn to watch sports. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-30-2008 at 06:37 PM..

09-30-2008, 06:45 PM	#87 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Obama's main economic advisers are from the Chicago School (the cradle of neoliberalism). I am not so sure that Obama is the man you are looking for... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-30-2008, 06:48 PM	#88 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	like i said, comrade, he appears to be different. but maybe i'm too optimistic. if you read the whole of that last post, though, you'll probably not think that. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-01-2008, 01:48 PM	#90 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Just for the record it was under the Clinton administration when Fannie and Freddie were allowed to get into the "sub-prime" market big time. Fannie and Freddie were also allowed ridiculously high leverage ratios, 2.5%. Meaning for every dollar of debt, they only needed $.025 in cash. By 2007 Fannie and Freddie accounted for $6 trillion of the total $12 trillion dollars in US market exposure. All it took was a 2.5% drop in the value of their assets for them to become technically insolvent. We have know they were insolvent a long time. The reality is that a certain percent of the loans were based on inflated appraisals or loan to value ratios 100% or higher, which means their leverage was in fact higher. Those who tried to address the issue could not, due to politics. Fannie and Freddie drove the market and lead the excess. People who suggest private sector banking deregulation is at the root cause of this mess are misinformed or are misleading. $700 million is about 5.8% of the total US mortgage market, a drop in the bucket. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

10-01-2008, 04:43 PM	#92 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Again... pointing fingers at either party is counter-productive. What we really need to do is address the ideology behind the thinking that deregulates and makes the market more laissez-faire. Neoliberalism is a scourge of both the Democrats and Republicans. From where I am sitting, this looks like a play to keep the more left leaning Democrats (who are increasingly likely to win this coming election) from implementing the worst of their policies (and by worst I mean those policies that will have a negative impact on the economic system the neoliberals have brought about). There is nothing like a crisis to bring about new calls for "fiscal responsibility," "austerity," "cuts in public funding," and "privatization." If you look back, you will see that there was a big shift in Bill Clinton's policies on the campaign trail and what he implemented a few months later once he took office. I suspect the same will occur with Obama if he wins. The leader of any country only has so much power. Those who control the economy are the real power brokers. And no... it's not a conspiracy. It is an ideology. There is a big difference. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

10-01-2008, 04:54 PM	#93 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	sooner or later, folk will figure out this ideology thing, i think. not yet, apparently. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-01-2008, 07:14 PM	#94 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	So will student loans be next? I believe they are run similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and I know for the past 10+ years there has been talk on how many cannot repay because wages are not enough for people to pay. Could we see another bailout for the industry if they start looking at the losses from the student loans also? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

10-01-2008, 07:16 PM	#95 (permalink)
tisonlyi Nothing	Look, all of this crap is ENTIRELY based on a 'capitalist' system that knows, without doubt, that if its entity is in trouble it will, most likely, be bailed out in one form or another. Markets are fine, so long as risk is REAL. The only thing that this bailout will do is delay the inevitable meltdown, by months. EDIT: Oh, please, let me just add, as asides, that I've just been discussing the candidates with a Republican girl from Chicago (we got into the discussion because i unthinkingly asserted that she must be voting for Obama) who, after telling me that McCain knows what is right for America (cough) took another toke on the joint I passed over. The hysterical laugher she provoked caused her to leave the bar. The almost violent inability to accept reality that is palpable next to any US-ian i've been near in the last ten years is EXACTLY the reason why no reasonable action will be taken in the face of this crisis, there'll be no end to the culture of debt and there'll be carnage in America and the rest of the world while Pax Americana dies. Sorry. (I might be a tad extreme here, I've just fought off a couple of muggers - after walking through a heartbreaking market of people selling their heirlooms to pay off debts. I stopped to ask. I'm not joking.) By the way, the joint i passed her had not been raised to my lips, nor inhailed. Just makes me sleepy. __________________ "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}-- Last edited by tisonlyi; 10-01-2008 at 07:35 PM..

10-02-2008, 07:09 AM	#99 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Obama and Democrats often refer to "deregulation" as the root cause of this crisis and most of our current economic problems and that this "deregulation" was driven by the current administration. It is convenient that they are never specific, because no one can honestly evaluate the claim. So, I ask here - what regulations are they talking about? What regulations were not being enforced? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

10-02-2008, 07:50 AM	#100 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so let's see if this helps reconcile in some way the parallel conversations in here: neoliberalism encompasses both republicans and moderate democrats--you know, like the dlc and the clinton administration--moderates. i know, i know the right has expended alot of effort trying to portray these folk as "leftists" but that's mostly a distraction. meaningless except in the imaginary grid-space of conservatives. it has had functions, they're obvious if you think about them, but they bore me now. neoliberalism is that "market" oriented ideology around which a movement took shape across the 1970s that connected back (thanks to the workings of the hoover institution i think, personally) to populist conservatism of the 1920s and to hoover as a way of situating itself in opposition to fordism, to the new deal---in other words, to the last socially viable form of capitalism (you wouldn't think this was the case if you focused on the opposition to the vietnam war and civil rights movement etc.---but if you look at the bigger picture, it's true)....the conditions of possibility for the ascendance of this ideology were put into place under nixon...thatcher/reagan are the key transitional figures--the making-explicit of a much longer and internal process of implosion of the left was its opportunity,,,the systematic blurring of information and ideology its main device for dissemination--and it has been the way things are thought and operate at the level of the dominant order in the united states since the reagan period. that means reagan, bush 1, clinton, bush2. that means republican republican democrat republican, that means the center democrats AND the republican administrations were responsible for this politically. so there's no point in this petty he said/she said of locating this or that action in this or that administration since the reagan period IF you see what's coming apart here as neoliberalism itself. seems to me that folk can't get their heads around what's happening so they pretend it's something that fits into their frame of reference---but it's the frame of reference that IS the problem and that is coming undone as we write. another way---the dominant order consists of different factions that rotate every 4 years. the conflict over the presidency is a conflict over which patronage networks will have privileged access to resources by alliances with the political faction that runs the show. but SOMETIMES there are periods of mutation. we are entering one of them. mutation throws alot of cards in the air. neoliberalism as the naturalized ideology of the pastr 30 years is particularly ill-suited to mutation. that is one of a hundred reasons why it is coming apart at the seams, and very quickly. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-02-2008 at 07:53 AM..