Iran was fighting against Communists attempting to destabilize the country and against religious fanaticism also aiming to destabilize a pro-western which in their view meant pro-satanic regime. Carter gets elected - demands that the Shah enact progressive reforms - but promises to back up the Shah if there is any trouble - HA! And Carter's weak response there emboldened the Soviets - and lead to their invasion of Afghanistan.
Anyway, so I presume that once you took the oath to be a liberal, received all your code words, talking points, and bumper stickers, finished your crash course on climate change and stayed up all night watching your free Al Gore and Michael Moore double feature dvd, you signed on to the theory that cutting tax rates, including those of the pariahs otherwise known as "The wealthy". (what is that token rate down to now, eighty thousand or more anuallly?) was the most destructive thing to the economy.
I will agree, it is plausible that cutting tax rates can reduce government revenues, but it is also plausible that cutting tax rates can spur investment, consumer spending and other economic activity, which in the long run can offset the revenue loss, or even produce a net gain.
Now then, I'm guessing you totally agree with the first concept and totally discount the latter. So my question is: if you think the loss of tax revenues was a key factor in large deficits, which in turn was a key factor in the economic crisis, then how is making those deficits even larger going to help solve the problem?
"As much as I would prefer it otherwise, in this financial environment I see no choice but to require that all securitizers retain a meaningful part of the securities they issue. This will offset in part market deficiencies stemming from the failures of counterparty surveillance. There are additional regulatory changes that this breakdown of the central pillar of competitive markets requires in order to return to stability, particularly in the areas of fraud, settlement, and securitization"
You don't say?
"It is important to remember, however, that whatever regulatory changes are made, they will pale in comparison to the change already evident in today’s markets. Those markets for an indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime."
Whoa there bud! Are you sure that your using the term "indefinite future" properly?
"We should seek ways to reestablish a more sustainable subprime mortgage market."
In other words, business as usual, right? Unless, wait, are you getting at more regulation?
These quotes are form a "conservative".
Last edited by username; 10-21-2009 at 12:56 PM.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|