I agree with Deacon in that Obama can't cut everyone <$250k taxes, can't give every American $1000 tax rebate, can't fund whatever he says he'll fund without MASSIVE cuts somewhere because the economy is struggling. When the economy struggles, federal tax revenues decrease. What I'm afraid he will do is raise business taxes across the board. He plays this off as if he's only hurting Exxon and whatever. But what happens if your local business has their taxes raised? Do they fire somebody? Go out of business and put 5, 10, 25, 100 out of work? Oil companies are not the only companies...and if you work for a company it will potentially affect you, whether it's your job, your raise, your company insurance premium, whatever. If companies have to pay higher taxes, employees and customers will take the brunt...not the companies.
I'm really sticking my neck out here but it's true. And I feel somewhat similar to Otega in that I'm disappointed at the increase in govt under W. However, all this blame for the financial breakdown is not his fault.
The deregulation movement began in the 1970s, and the key to the financial collapse occurred in 1999 when Congress and Bill Clinton revoked the Depression-era regulations that separated Investment banks (Lehman, Goldman) from Commercial banks (Wachovia, Citi). Prior to this, Commercial banks were not allowed to invest in mortgages and such...it was the territory of the Investment bank. When the 1999 Clinton Admin and Congress revoked those regulations, the competition for those investments increased dramatically for the Investment banks (thus decreasing their profits). So what were the Investment banks to do for profits (remember they don't have the income from Joe 6-pack's checking account like Wachovia or Citi)? They created a tradable asset called "Mortgage Backed Securities" based off of packages of yours and my mortgages to buy, sell, and use as collateral for loans. This was something new that they could make $ on. And they did, but once the housing crisis hit, these "securities" became untradeable, and under mark-to-market rules, basically worthless. When your collateral becomes worthless, you can't pay your loans, thus the Lehman bankruptcy and other bailouts. I could go on, but the creation of the problem lies in the 1999 decision to deregulate banks...it was nothing W did while in office.
I'm really sticking my neck out here but it's true. And I feel somewhat similar to Otega in that I'm disappointed at the increase in govt under W. However, all this blame for the financial breakdown is not his fault.
The deregulation movement began in the 1970s, and the key to the financial collapse occurred in 1999 when Congress and Bill Clinton revoked the Depression-era regulations that separated Investment banks (Lehman, Goldman) from Commercial banks (Wachovia, Citi). Prior to this, Commercial banks were not allowed to invest in mortgages and such...it was the territory of the Investment bank. When the 1999 Clinton Admin and Congress revoked those regulations, the competition for those investments increased dramatically for the Investment banks (thus decreasing their profits). So what were the Investment banks to do for profits (remember they don't have the income from Joe 6-pack's checking account like Wachovia or Citi)? They created a tradable asset called "Mortgage Backed Securities" based off of packages of yours and my mortgages to buy, sell, and use as collateral for loans. This was something new that they could make $ on. And they did, but once the housing crisis hit, these "securities" became untradeable, and under mark-to-market rules, basically worthless. When your collateral becomes worthless, you can't pay your loans, thus the Lehman bankruptcy and other bailouts. I could go on, but the creation of the problem lies in the 1999 decision to deregulate banks...it was nothing W did while in office.






























