Is The Pence Plan The McCain Bailout Plan?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:32:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Yglesias. CAP reviews the Wall Street bailout plan John McCain seems to be championing, or at least using it to put the kibosh on the Dodd/Frank/Dem Plan. CAP's Michael Ettinger writes:

The late-arriving proposal from a group of arch-conservative Congressional Republicans for dealing with the financial crisis is a disaster on two fronts. First, right now the credit markets worldwide are close to collapse . . . Congressional leaders were right in not passing the administration’s flawed bailout proposal precipitously, as the Center for American Progress discussed here.

More...

But the responsible parties in Congress were moving the administration towards compromise, and it appeared that legislation that includes meaningfully addressing the underlying problem of home and asset values was very close. The last minute proposal by the defecting Republicans has, however, essentially put the discussion back to square one. That is a huge problem.

That squashing of the deal was the work of one John McCain. And for what? For this:

[T]he new proposal would be absolutely, totally and completely ineffective. Details are scarce at this point, but if reports are to be believed, its central components are:

1. Tax cuts for the rich and corporations (surprise!)
2. Insurance for mortgage-backed securities
3. Deregulation (sound familiar?)

John McCain is an incompetent, irresponsible, craven fool. Country first my ass.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< The First Ten Minutes | Pre-Debate Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Is The Pence Plan The McCain Bailout Plan? | 80 comments (80 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Just spit it out (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by oldpro on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:46:17 PM EST

and say what you mean...this beating around the bush has got to stop!

Oh man (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:52:05 PM EST

the Pence plan is financially illiterate, it makes no sense whatsoever. We're going to encourage private investors to buy up impaired securities by waiving the capital-gains tax?!?

In political terms, I hope and pray that McCain clings to this idiotic piece of right-wing claptrap with a death grip. The only reason I'd prefer any other outcome is that I seriously don't think we can afford for this deal to be delayed much longer.

In your opinion, what, if any, is the (none / 0) (#10)
by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:04:31 PM EST

effect of JP Morgan being was able to and deciding to help the FDIC with WaMo? Does JP Morgan jumping in undercut at all the theory Congress must act decisively and ASAP and by spending bazillions of $$?


No (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by robrecht on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:30:59 PM EST

It was definitely a good thing that JPM was able to buy WaMu at basement bargain prices when OTS shut 'em down. Otherwise, it would have cost the FDIC $20-30B of the $45B left in their fund after IndyMac. That doesn't leave much of a comfort margin and it's a drop in the bucket compared to $700B so Warren Buffett's $5B and JPM's $2B don't even begin to address the magnitude of the bail-out, which is staggering, not to mention the fact that both Buffett and JPM are, in fact, betting on the bail-out.


JP Morgan cannot (none / 0) (#20)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:21:00 PM EST

buy up the entire U.S. financial system. And in any case, unless we want the entire financial system in the hands of half a dozen giant corporations (too big to fail, anyone?), the small and medium-sized ones need a way to get out of the box they're in.

We need to be thinking of ways to break up these giant monsters down the road, not making more of them.


Another couple of weeks. . . (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:28:15 PM EST

JP Morgan cannot buy up the entire U.S. financial system.

and my seven year-old will be able to buy up the entire US financial system with her allowance.


: Ouch! (none / 0) (#31)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:30:27 PM EST

And all of our houses into the bargain.

: Wachovia goes under, (none / 0) (#32)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:30:43 PM EST

and we might all be billionares. . .

I don't think so (none / 0) (#35)
by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:35:14 PM EST

From what I heard, JP Morgan got a total fire-sale price for the assets of WaMu, a deal that only happened because the regulators forced it to. In the absence of major governmental intervention, I don't know if WaMu would have done a deal at all... they might have figured they'd get a better result in bankruptcy.


: They definitely would not. have done a deal. (none / 0) (#44)
by robrecht on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:53:53 PM EST

If fact, JPM did approach them earlier this year and Paulson told them they should have accepted their offer. Instead they were stupid and arrogant and they (and their investors and creditors) are now paying the price.

I'm wondering that, too (none / 0) (#50)
by MoveThatBus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:11:40 PM EST

If JP Morgan got $300B in assets when they purchased WaMU for $2B, we can see how they benefit. But, does that reduce the need for $700B to $398B in the bailout?


: No (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by robrecht on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:17:14 PM EST

JPM is planning on writing off $31B in bad loans. The numbers don't correspond and JPM is betting on the bail-out.

The Insurance Idea is Even Funnier... (none / 0) (#57)
by santarita on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:29:14 PM EST

Let's see if we can guess how much the insurance premium financial institutions would have to pay and what that would do to their balance sheets.


Insurance is not (none / 0) (#75)
by fercryingoutloud on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:10:26 PM EST

a balance sheet item. It is an income statement item.

And actually insurance is not a bad idea if they could find it. First of all had these securities been insured we would not even be having this 700B discussion today. Secondly going forward if these types of securities were insured in the future this type of thing would not be facing us ever again. And thirdly insurance shifts the cost of the risk to the companies issuing the loans and/or securities and to the insurance companies and not the entire tax payer base.

Not a bad idea really.


: Ex Post Facto Insurance or Guaranties ... (none / 0) (#81)
by santarita on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:45:17 PM EST

are somewhat unusual (Thank Goodness!)
Others have already pointed out the pricing issue.
And I should have used a more inclusive term like "financial statement".

I still think a lot of ... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:52:09 PM EST

people are against the bailout in principle.

Looks like McCain may be trying to grab that block.

What you outline is, of course, stupid. But if he can spin it as protecting tax payers from throwing good money after bad, he might gain something there.

He hasn't gotten many cards left to play.

If the 3wk old WaMu CEO (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by nycstray on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:57:44 PM EST

really walks with millions, it ain't gonna be pretty. If they thought the phone lines were burning up before . . .


Is $20M going to make anyone mad? (none / 0) (#51)
by MoveThatBus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:12:38 PM EST

17 days of work, and a walk-away award from the Board of Directors was $20M.


: Damn straight. (none / 0) (#55)
by robrecht on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:18:49 PM EST

WaMu has been desperate for a while and attracted some equity capital that is now gone. They were stupid and arrogant and lost others people's money.

The public isn't against it (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:24:53 PM EST

in principle, they haven't got a freakin' clue what it actually is because media keeps calling it the "Wall Street bail-out," which is not what it is. The public also hasn't got a clue that the $700 billion isn't an expense, it's an advance, and the actual cost will not only be much lower but we might even make a profit on the deals, depending on how the eventual plan is structured and whether the Congress can GET IT DONE before things get any worse than they already are.


Possibly ... (none / 0) (#34)
by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:31:33 PM EST

but the public is rightly skeptical of a plan such as this. Frankly, no one knows what effect it will have.

But I was addressing the political side of this, not the governing side. And politically there could be some advantage in being against a bailout.

That's all I was saying.


Yes, politically (none / 0) (#36)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:38:15 PM EST

and the Republicans, as usual, are trying to have it both ways-- most of them actually do want it to pass because they're not as dumb as some of them look, but they also want to be able to rail against it, which they can do whether it's successful or not. In their ideal world, the Dems. would pass it without their help, save the world, and then they could complain about it endlessly afterwards and insist that it wasn't really necessary.

When you hear Republicans railing about "protecting Main Street" and they aren't talking about the horror of gay marriage or sex education, watch out.


Actually, the Repubs are going to claim... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by santarita on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:33:38 PM EST

credit for looking out for the taxpayer. The bill that will pass will have some language in there that the Republicans can claim was their invention.

The latest I've heard is that the Dems are willing to put language in that talks about giving Paulson the authority to set up and insurance fund. It won't require that he use that authority however.


Right ... (none / 0) (#40)
by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:48:47 PM EST

but it's not just Republicans who are against or at least skeptical of ANY bailout plan.


In Congress it is, as far as I know (none / 0) (#48)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:01:22 PM EST

I've not heard, at least, a single Dem. congresscritter try to say that something along the lines of the Paulson plan isn't absolutely necessary. They're fighting over details like oversight boards and tranches (yech, what an awful word!), and about what kinds of only semi-related stuff they can add onto the bill.


I meant voters ... (none / 0) (#54)
by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:17:42 PM EST

as you well know.


: No, actually, as you well know (none / 0) (#70)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:02:02 PM EST

I didn't know that because you didn't make that clear, or I simply misunderstood.
Perhaps you enjoy playing gotcha games in comments. I don't, and I don't do it-- as you well know.
You can have an honest exchange of ideas and information, or you can play games like this. Your choice.

I've been hearing a lot of that (none / 0) (#58)
by kredwyn on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:31:28 PM EST

folks at work aren't all that happy about the earlier bailout proposals.

And they aren't conservatives...


: They Are Right to Be Skeptical... (none / 0) (#60)
by santarita on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:36:12 PM EST

the original bill was pretty empty of any protections. I heard on NPR's Marketplace today that the bill started out as 2 1/2 pages, the Dems proposed a bill of 44 pages and the Republican proposal is up to 100+ pages.

I hope the voters are paying attention (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:06:27 PM EST

Interesting that none of the Republican's blinked an eye at dropping a trillion in the Middle East because it was in the "national interest". Now when it really is in the national interest they want to become fiscally responsible.

OT, MSNBC: Kennedy hospitalized (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by robrecht on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:08:42 PM EST

Oh, no. (none / 0) (#65)
by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:43:38 PM EST

Thanks for the tip. Btw, I found out last time what that means in convents across the country, from an elderly relative in one. This means there already are prayer circles hard at work in hundreds of nunneries! So hope that there is power in all those good thoughts, too, aimed at him.


Oh no. J just put up an open thread if you (none / 0) (#66)
by Teresa on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:44:03 PM EST

want to post any news there.


No need (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by robrecht on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:06:58 PM EST

He's now already on his way home. Seizure due to change in medication, now under control.

Thanks to the nuns!


: Not quite that good news. (none / 0) (#83)
by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:48:41 PM EST

I know a bit about seizure disorder, and what I heard was that he had problems with a med that controlled seizures -- many of them have many side effects -- so was taken off it. And then he had the seizure. So it was not caused by the med but more likely by . . . well, there are so many things, as it could be scar tissue from the surgery. (So not necessarily recurrence of the tumor.)
That said, 10 percent of Americans have had or will have a seizure at least once, and at least 2 percent have chronic seizure disorder. It is more common than many people know -- in part because many are not the classic "grand mal" but partial seizures that can come and go quickly. The report was that Kennedy didn't feel well, and that suggests that it may have been a partial, as they can leave people tired and feeling lousy.

Bush wants the $700 bil (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by caseyOR on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:41:25 PM EST

and maybe that needs to happen, I just don't know. But, Bush is going to veto the new stimulus measure (not part of any bailout) because, according to Perino, the extra unemployment benefits won't really help the economy and the WH just doesn't think hungry Americans really need any more help with food stamps and assistance to food banks. Yep, those provisions are the dealbreakers for Bush.

So, tell, me, why should I believe anyone in this administration who says that $700 billion must go through right now or the world will end? If Bush wants a bailout then the Dems d@mn well better include provisions that help real people right now.

: The Dems better not put help for (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by nycstray on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:04:28 PM EST

main street "down the road". Even if they actually do it, do you see them dealing with it before next spring? How many more people will have fallen off the cliff by then? How many more companies will need rescue again?
It's going to be a long cold winter . . .

any bailout (none / 0) (#3)
by Jlvngstn on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:50:04 PM EST

that has tax cuts for the rich is toxic based on the current feeling amongst taxpayers. I hope he does endorse it, that would do "it".

Not looking good (none / 0) (#6)
by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:53:12 PM EST

I was also upset when I read this:

Obama said earlier in the week he hoped Democrats would not press a proposal giving bankruptcy judges the power to ease mortgage terms for homeowners.

The bankruptcy laws need to be part of this.

Democrat's need to stand together on this package because the Republican's will have to go along. If they fail to act and the economy crashes, it'll be a generation before they could even be elected dog catcher.

No, bankruptcy does NOT have to be a part of this (none / 0) (#11)
by steviez314 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:05:46 PM EST

Homes can be foreclosed without the owners filing for bankruptcy.

Once the government owns the mortgage assets, they will have the ability to renegotiate payments with the homeowners without the home owners having to resort to the stigma of bankruptcy, which then brings into play all their assets and debts.

Foreclosure actions are not synonymous with bankruptcy actions.


No, they aren't, but if the Repubs... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:11:26 PM EST

are proposing their ideas, why can't the Democrats actually use their ideas and propose a populist package? People despise, detest and are outraged with the Paulson modified by Frank/Dodd proposal. Do a New, New Deal as a counter proposal to the Pence Plan.


: Funny thing is, most polls are really split pretty (none / 0) (#16)
by steviez314 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:13:30 PM EST

evenly about the Dodd plan.
It's just the blather about "emails running a bazillion to 1 against" stuff that makes the news.

: People are? (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:26:02 PM EST

The funny thing is you NOW admit there is a Frank/Dodd proposal.
You acted as if you had never heard of it before.

Still a problem (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:18:03 PM EST

They may not be synonymous, but they are intertwined

What do we say to the millions that have filed bankruptcy in an effort to save their homes and lives rather than just walk away? They're at least making an effort to survive.


Nancy Pelosi (none / 0) (#28)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:27:13 PM EST

says she will not even bring a bill to the floor unless Republicans agree to support it. Our brave Speaker at work, insisting on political a**-covering before doing what's necessary.

In that case, the bankruptcy provision is just flat out because the Republicans will never agree to it.


Krugman says bipartisan is essential n/t (none / 0) (#38)
by rilkefan on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:43:04 PM EST

Krugman has been making almost (none / 0) (#45)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:57:59 PM EST

no sense on this from the get-go. And in any case, he's utterly clueless about the way politics actually works, as far as I'm concerned.

It only "has to be" bipartisan if political advantage is more important than actually preventing a massive national financial meltdown.

I don't think a second depression is worth it to protect Dem. politicians' political fannies, do you?


: "Krugman is utterly clueless" (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by rilkefan on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:41:18 PM EST

Thanks for the laugh.
Jftr, you entirely fail to understand his position.

: It's all a matter of timing (none / 0) (#71)
by Lou Grinzo on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:02:12 PM EST

The Dems are engaging in a big balancing act. Just because they're delaying and talking with the right wingers today doesn't mean they won't force the issue, if circumstances require it, next week.
The financial system is facing a very grave threat, but it's not so pressing that a bill has to be passed and signed into law today. I would rather see the Frank/Dodd plan get a few minor tweaks if that means a significant portion of the right wingers can hold their nose and vote for it, without too much fear of getting slaughtered in November. (I would prefer to see the wingers compromise, give us a much needed bill, and then get hammered by the voters anyway, of course.)
While I wish we were already past the legislative portion of this mess, I think the leadership is actually handling it pretty well. Barney Frank on Hardball was terrific tonight, as was Charles Schumer on Fast Money (CNBC)--they're getting the right messages out.

Pelosi is right... (none / 0) (#68)
by laila on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:52:18 PM EST

Some 62% of voters last I saw numbers do not support the bail-out if we take the bag on this...Obama goes down and McCain's chess move wins. Democrats will be holding the big spenders bag. This has to be a bi-partisan approval for the bail-out. The house Rep. are playing a game of chicken with the democrats.


Taxes are (none / 0) (#7)
by oldpro on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:56:24 PM EST

the dues you pay if you want to belong to the club and enjoy the benefits.

To me, the anti-tax wackos are freeloaders and parasites and beneath contempt.

Yep, that "plan" sucks. (none / 0) (#9)
by TheRealFrank on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:58:42 PM EST

See also here for some scathing comments by economists.

So, are the Democrats going to propose... (none / 0) (#13)
by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:06:28 PM EST

their plan or continue to modify the horrendous Paulson proposal?

My guess, door number two and no way the Dems will get the Repub votes for either, so what is rationale to go with Bush's plan?

As for Obama - yeah, that is probably the reason the bankruptcy judge proposal was removed from the "agreement" - Obama came out against it.

Umm (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:10:05 PM EST

Have you NOT been paying attention?


But I think ... (none / 0) (#21)
by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:21:08 PM EST

that poster represents where a lot of voters are.

Many will just take the Gertrude Stein approach: A bailout is a bailout is a bailout.

The political calculus here could be different than the governing calculus.


I'm not a politician (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:24:59 PM EST

The level of discourse in MY threads will be raised by my dictatorial ways, one way or another.

That is the way it is going to be. If folks do not like it, they can leave my threads right now.

This makes the millionth time I have said this.


You're not a poltician ... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:43:36 PM EST

but sometimes your shifts from political analysis to advocacy can be jarring.

And this may be why you're not getting the responses you hope for.

The latter type of posts often leaves a political analysis vacuum.


Are they? (none / 0) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:50:12 PM EST

Let me tell you quite frankly, there is not put on regarding my advocacy against John McCain - he is a menace and I detest the man to the core of my being.


I don't doubt it ... (none / 0) (#52)
by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:14:48 PM EST

and, frankly, I only take it on faith that some people like the guy. I've always found him detestable.

But you're aware that there are fewer bloggers who follow their real attitudes from day to day. Most pass it through some filter.


Who is "their" in (none / 0) (#56)
by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:23:42 PM EST

your next-to-last sentence?


: Bloggers (none / 0) (#61)
by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:38:05 PM EST

If you can raise the level of discourse by (none / 0) (#27)
by steviez314 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:27:07 PM EST

dictatorial ways, then maybe YOU should be tutoring poor Sarah Palin :)


I could help her a bunch (none / 0) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:40:00 PM EST

: Now THAT I'd like to see! (none / 0) (#41)
by robrecht on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:50:10 PM EST

Oh, you mean to say that I'm a McCain Puma. (none / 0) (#22)
by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:22:29 PM EST

Hardly, BTD. I detest him and the Republicans and will never vote for them and have stated such on this blog.

So, I'm also "kicked" off your posts because I believe the Democrats should be pushing back against the bad proposals to get what I believe are important, like HOLC or at least a commitment, which I thought you also said was important?

Fine - I always thought we should keep our politicians "feet to the fire" but, oh well, it is your post and you have definitely made the rules.


: I asked you a question (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:23:48 PM EST

Have you NOT been paying attention? Your first comment makes clear to me that you have not been or that you are lying. I give you the benefit of the doubt.

What this really means (none / 0) (#17)
by scribe on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:14:31 PM EST

is that McCain owns all of the coming disaster. Like the man on CNBC said.

Let's not let anyone forget it.

heh (none / 0) (#18)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:15:10 PM EST

hm (none / 0) (#30)
by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:29:31 PM EST

THey couldnt work more oil drilling in there? I'm shocked.

BTD, shouldn't you be getting ready for CSPAN? (none / 0) (#43)
by robrecht on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:51:07 PM EST

I definitely want to hear you use the word "craven."

: I'm ready (none / 0) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:58:47 PM EST

But I doubt at this point they will be using me for the pre-game.

What happened to the Rep committee proposal? (none / 0) (#47)
by wasabi on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:00:19 PM EST

Pence isn't even on the House Financial Services Committee. What happened to the proposals from that committee? Last I heard was Blunt was brought in to replace Spencer Bachus as the lead negotiator. Where's Pence fit in?

Sept. 26 (Bloomberg) -- House Republicans rejoined talks on a financial rescue plan as leaders of both parties vowed to keep Congress in session until a deal is reached.

In a further sign the deadlock is easing, Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said he had reconsidered his decision to try to block a bailout package.

``I know politics, I read the tea leaves,'' Shelby told reporters outside the Senate chamber today. ``There's going to be a deal here if there's any way to do it and it's not going to be, I believe, in the best interest of the American people,''

Yet Peter Wallison, a McCain adviser, said it is now ``too late'' to oppose the bailout and Congress must move to enact the administration's plan so banks can make loans. He criticized House Republicans for stalling negotiations with their plan.

Intra-party warfare...

McCan't/Pal (none / 0) (#69)
by snstara on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:54:56 PM EST

This week made one fact abundantly clear: McCain/Palin are, and will be, a disaster. They bring the awful on an epic scale. We are in a major financial mess; this 'plan' is McCain's answer?!

To bastardize the Clinton campaign phrase: this is our economy, stupid!

Tax Cuts DEFINED (none / 0) (#74)
by codekeyguy on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:07:04 PM EST

When you cut "taxes", you are actually cutting TAX RATES, which results in more total tax revenues. Do all you Democrats out there know who FIRST PROPOSED cutting taxes to raise revenues?
JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY!!!!!! Who'da thought....

Don't be silly (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:15:32 PM EST

Read this op-ed, by one of the conservatives who wrote Reagan's tax cut, and maybe you'll understand tax policy a little more deeply. The idea that revenues go up when you raise taxes is pure know-nothingism.


Thanks, Steve M (none / 0) (#77)
by caseyOR on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:18:07 PM EST

I was too annoyed by the tax cut/tax revenue idiocy to respond. Good on you for setting the record straight.


Heh (none / 0) (#78)
by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:22:54 PM EST

Yeah, my response was so good that I made a typo, right? The idea that revenues go up when you CUT taxes is pure know-nothingism.


: I didn't even notice your typo. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by caseyOR on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:40:34 PM EST

I guess I just knew what you meant and read that instead of what you actually wrote.

wow! (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by coigue on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:47:53 PM EST

So if tax rates are zero, do we have INFINITE revenues????


Heh (none / 0) (#79)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:33:50 PM EST

Welcome Prof. Laffer. Thanks for the Laff . . .,
