Ever since we nationalized the mortgage industry, I'm not sure how we're going to balance the budget ever again.

It seems that Greenspan and his lovely wife are not McCain fans.

As I watch this mess unfold I can't help but remember the late George's observation:

"When you're born in this world you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America, you're given a front-row seat"

Weaver95: Ever since we nationalized the mortgage industry, I'm not sure how we're going to balance the budget ever again.

Don't worry! Hockey Mom will apply her local know how and fix everything!

We eliminated small business inventory taxes. I eliminated things like business license renewal fees on our small businesses. Those economic indicators of success on a local level should provide to America that worldview that I have of what we can do on a local level, and then a state level, where we just suspended our fuel tax in our state also. Palin Transcript (clicky pop)

That goddamn liberal spreading lies like that. How unbelievably un-American.

Weaver95: Ever since we nationalized the mortgage industry, I'm not sure how we're going to balance the budget ever again.

This.

Whatever happened to free market capitalism? Neither party seems to believe in it any longer? Bob Barr, maybe?

b...b...b...but sarah palin knows energy!

After lying about earmarks, lobbyists within his campaign, Palin's qualifications to be a heartbeat away from a 72 year old man and the vetting process that got us there, why would anyone believe anything this campaign says?

This.

What does Greenspan know about economics... oh. Yeah, sorry.

Is this the beloved-by-everybody Greenspan or the caused-the-lending-bubble Greenspan? I keep getting them mixed up.

quickdraw: It seems that Greenspan and his lovely wife are not McCain fans.

Yeah, she didn't lie for McCain.

What a BIATCH!

ZAZ: Is this the beloved-by-everybody Greenspan or the caused-the-lending-bubble Greenspan? I keep getting them mixed up.

Well I'm no fan of Greenspan but it is fair to say that McCain and his economic adviser Phil Gramm did far more to engineer the mortgage crises ^ than Greenspan did.

FlashHarry: b...b...b...but sarah palin knows energy!

[Sarah Palin] knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America. ~John McCain

Laugh or cry? I don't know, yet.

Invading Iran would help, I'm sure.

Mordant: Invading Iran would help, I'm sure.

Fourth behind shiny objects, jingling keys, and puffy tails.

Weaver95, mikemoto:

You mean back in 1938, when the government effectively nationalized mortgage banking by creating Fannie Mae?

Woodrow Wilson and FDR are primarily to blame for our country's trip down the spiral porcelain waterslide. Bush is just a sideshow by comparison.

quickdraw: Well I'm no fan of Greenspan but it is fair to say that McCain and his economic adviser Phil Gramm did far more to engineer the mortgage crises ^ than Greenspan did.

He's the peach that pushed for the Enron loophole too!

Phil Gramm, causing a nation of whiners.

eqtworld: If you are spending more money than taxes bring in; you can't fix it by reducing taxes?

There are many people on Fark who believe, in all seriousness, that cutting taxes automatically increases tax revenues.

Think about that for a second. For all the "gosh, Fark is nothing but drunk frat boys and SURPRISE BUTTSECKS", the level of intelligence on these boards is on average relatively high.

So if we have people on Fark who believe that premise, you can rest assured that there are millions of voters out there who probably believe that cutting taxes across the board by 80% will kill Osama bin Laden, give them an orgasm, summon Jesus to start the Glorious End Times and cause puppies to rain from the sky.

Mordant: Invading Iran would help, I'm sure.

You know what would help even more than that? Starting a war with Russia. They can call it "Operation: Endless Prosperity".

McCain said he would offset the tax cuts with cuts in spending -- what's the big deal? Greenspan only said we can't afford them if they aren't paired with spending cuts. Everything suggests they will be. Non-story.

KaponoFor3: McCain said he would offset the tax cuts with cuts in spending -- what's the big deal?

So...we're accepting campaign rhetoric at face value?

Oh, well, I like Obama's, case closed! Skeptical economists go fark yourself!

The same Alan Greenspan who's policies got us into the current financial titty twister? Wow. Not that I agree or not, but come on, Alan Greenspan?

Lionel Mandrake: So...we're accepting campaign rhetoric at face value?

We have no reason not to -- we should accept what Obama says at face value as much as we should accept what McCain says at face value (as it relates to policy positions). It is wise, however, to look beyond the rhetoric and ask "what if" if the rhetoric ends up to be false.

But there's no reason to believe McCain wouldn't offset the tax cuts with a cut in spending. In fact, that's been his position for a long, long time.

Oh, well, I like Obama's, case closed! Skeptical economists go fark yourself!

He's not even skeptical -- just saying we can't afford them without cuts in spending. That's not skepticism.

KaponoFor3: McCain said he would offset the tax cuts with cuts in spending -- what's the big deal? Greenspan only said we can't afford them if they aren't paired with spending cuts. Everything suggests they will be. Non-story.

If you believe that government should be cut back for no other reason than to say you cut spending, than yeah, it guess it wouldn't be a big deal.

Cagey B: If you believe that government should be cut back for no other reason than to say you cut spending, than yeah, it guess it wouldn't be a big deal.

"McCain has said that he would offset his proposed cuts - including reducing the corporate tax rate and eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax that has plagued middle-class families - by ending congressional pork-barrel spending, unnecessary government programs and overhauling entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security."

Those aren't bad things.

Only one candidate's plan offers a cut in taxes for ALL Americans regardless of their wealth.

Weaver95: Ever since we nationalized the mortgage industry

I think you got that a bit wrong... they privatized the profits and socialized the debts.

KaponoFor3: Only one candidate's plan offers a cut in taxes for ALL Americans regardless of their wealth

I like that graphic, it's exactly the kind of tax plan this country needs: soak the rich, they've been soaking us for years.

KaponoFor3: Only one candidate's plan offers a cut in taxes for ALL Americans regardless of their wealth.

Only one offers substantial cuts for those who need it most.

Oh, but I do weep for the poor rich people...I do ;(

KaponoFor3: Those aren't bad things.

Ending unnecessary government programs and "pork-barrel spending"? You might as well run on a platform with your core policy ideas being "fighting evil" and "doing awesome things".

As for Medicare and Social Security, a person who doesn't believe in government monkeying with those programs isn't a good thing. At all. Not that he'll be able to touch those programs anyways. He can probably ask Mr. "I've got political capital" about that.

Here's what will happen. He will get tax cuts rammed through because they're popular and people don't connect the payment of taxes with government services.

Then, if he even decides to go after his vague "unnecessary government programs", he'll get absolutely reamed by Congress, and will cut just enough out of executive spending to maybe add some more crazy people to wander our streets.

Voila. Less revenue, unchanged spending levels and a bigger deficit. To be fair to McCain, this is more a construct of the fact that people demand both lower taxes and more services than any one person's fault, but he's been in the Senate long enough to know that this posture makes no sense in the real world.

Lionel Mandrake: Oh, but I do weep for the poor rich people...I do ;(

You should. If we tax rich people one iota more, they will all flee the country and refuse to be in America any more. Than we'll all be poor and die in the gutter while they laugh at us from their secret Atlas Shrugged Fortress of Superiority.

Cagey B: Here's what will happen. He will get tax cuts rammed through because they're popular and people don't connect the payment of taxes with government services.

Then, if he even decides to go after his vague "unnecessary government programs", he'll get absolutely reamed by Congress, and will cut just enough out of executive spending to maybe add some more crazy people to wander our streets.

Voila. Less revenue, unchanged spending levels and a bigger deficit.

I'd bet everything I have on that outcome.

Mordant: I'd bet everything I have on that outcome.

Do it. I'll do the same, and we can live in Richpersonstan when the taxes go up again.

Mordant: I'd bet everything I have on that outcome.

I'll put a fiver on the over

mikemoto: Whatever happened to free market capitalism? Neither party seems to believe in it any longer? Bob Barr, maybe?

Sometimes it doesn't work.

KaponoFor3: Only one candidate's plan offers a cut in taxes for ALL Americans regardless of their wealth.

You say this as though its a good thing.

Cagey B: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, but I do weep for the poor rich people...I do ;(

You should. If we tax rich people one iota more, they will all flee the country and refuse to be in America any more. Than we'll all be poor and die in the gutter while they laugh at us from their secret Atlas Shrugged Fortress of Superiority.

lol

Alan Greenspan warned long ago against the government borrowing from Social Security so they could waste it on bewlsheet. Then they made him Chairman of the Fed and he suddenly became fine with raping SS.

You had an obligation to the country to address serious concerns following Long Term Capital's failure and you did nothing.

Shut it, old dude. Shut it.

mikemoto: Weaver95: Ever since we nationalized the mortgage industry, I'm not sure how we're going to balance the budget ever again.

This.

Whatever happened to free market capitalism? Neither party seems to believe in it any longer? Bob Barr, maybe?

RON PAUL

Alan Greenspan says the country can't afford tax cuts proposed by John McMaverick MAVRICK

ftfy.

what the hell does Alan Greenspan know?? He obviously is a disgruntled political outcast that was never in the loop....

Cagey B: eqtworld: If you are spending more money than taxes bring in; you can't fix it by reducing taxes?

There are many people on Fark who believe, in all seriousness, that cutting taxes automatically increases tax revenues.

This has got to be one of the most infuriatingly stupid republican talking points ever. You had basically all of the republican candidates in their primary debates repeating "everyone knows cutting taxes *always* increases revenue." They've been saying "taxes are too high, we need to cut taxes" as their platform for the last 30 years. They act like there couldn't possibly be circumstances where that *won't* work, though. *Part* of Reagan's tax cuts were offset by increased revenue, but only a small part of them. Any tax cuts since then are basically a net loss.

I think Republicans have just completely disconnected themselves from economic reality. Or, they just think we're all actually that dumb.

KaponoFor3: Only one candidate's plan offers a cut in taxes for ALL Americans regardless of their wealth.

KaponoFor3, I really, really, really want to know what your annual income is. Seriously. Round off as many places as you want. Just tell me how many digits. Come on.

Rusty_shack: Cagey B: eqtworld: If you are spending more money than taxes bring in; you can't fix it by reducing taxes?

There are many people on Fark who believe, in all seriousness, that cutting taxes automatically increases tax revenues.

This has got to be one of the most infuriatingly stupid republican talking points ever. You had basically all of the republican candidates in their primary debates repeating "everyone knows cutting taxes *always* increases revenue." They've been saying "taxes are too high, we need to cut taxes" as their platform for the last 30 years. They act like there couldn't possibly be circumstances where that *won't* work, though. *Part* of Reagan's tax cuts were offset by increased revenue, but only a small part of them. Any tax cuts since then are basically a net loss.

I think Republicans have just completely disconnected themselves from economic reality. Or, they just think we're all actually that dumb.

Up to a point (and all things being equal) - cutting taxes DOES increase revenue. But you have to cut spending at the same time and balance the budget for it to work.

So yes, you CAN cut taxes and increase revenue. The devil, as always, is in the details. Nobody wants to cut spending or balance the budget, which is where we run into problems.

I'm telling you right now -- McCain is playing a shell game with this election... While we sit here debating Palin, there has been a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes..

Pay close attention to what the Bush administration has "just started authorizing" as far as our troops crossing over into Pakistan. Why are they "just now" deciding to cross the border? There is an above average possibility that BushCo and McCain have had a good idea where Bin Laden has been over the past 7-years. They are banking on an October surprise.

Ask yourself -- Provided they capture Osama -- what would Obama have to do to prevent this? Obama needs to take steps and call them out right now. He needs to call them out for before their "searches" yield something. If they find Osama -- Obama is not going to win this election, unless he preemptively begins to call out the Republicans for waiting this long to act. They waited 7-years and they are just now crossing over into Pakistan. They are shooting for an October surprize.

/Time stamped & placed in my profile
//Think about it -- look at our actions of late

Isn't he the one that told Clinton in 1992 that the deficit was so big that it had to be reduced or catastrophe would result? Obviously he was wrong, since we've got much bigger deficits in the last few years.

Didn't Republicans (investors, stock market shiats) used to worship Greenspan like Mac geeks worshipped Steve Jobs?

McCain has said that he would offset his proposed cuts - including reducing the corporate tax rate and eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax that has plagued middle-class families - by ending congressional pork-barrel spending, unnecessary government programs and overhauling entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

He will also make cloudy days, hurt feelings, and angry faces go away.

Weaver95: Rusty_shack: Cagey B: eqtworld: If you are spending more money than taxes bring in; you can't fix it by reducing taxes?

There are many people on Fark who believe, in all seriousness, that cutting taxes automatically increases tax revenues.

This has got to be one of the most infuriatingly stupid republican talking points ever. You had basically all of the republican candidates in their primary debates repeating "everyone knows cutting taxes *always* increases revenue." They've been saying "taxes are too high, we need to cut taxes" as their platform for the last 30 years. They act like there couldn't possibly be circumstances where that *won't* work, though. *Part* of Reagan's tax cuts were offset by increased revenue, but only a small part of them. Any tax cuts since then are basically a net loss.

I think Republicans have just completely disconnected themselves from economic reality. Or, they just think we're all actually that dumb.

Up to a point (and all things being equal) - cutting taxes DOES increase revenue. But you have to cut spending at the same time and balance the budget for it to work.

So yes, you CAN cut taxes and increase revenue. The devil, as always, is in the details. Nobody wants to cut spending or balance the budget, which is where we run into problems.

Greenspan has always said that 1) the government spends too much, and 2) we are on the wrong side of the Laffer curve.

Very quick explanation of the Laffer curve -- if you tax 0% of income, you take in 0% of GDP. If you tax 100% of income, you take in (wait for it) 0% of GDP (if people don't get paid, they don't work).

Greenspan, and most fiscal conservatives, believe we are above the Laffer curve cutoff, which means lowering the tax rate brings more revenue.

My personal belief is that the point of inflection for the Laffer curve is around 19.5% of GDP, based on 50 years of historical data of tax receipts.

So yeah, lower the tax rate to 20%, and exempt all income below $36k (yes, adjust for inflation), and I think we got a winner.

KramericaWallet: Isn't he the one that told Clinton in 1992 that the deficit was so big that it had to be reduced or catastrophe would result? Obviously he was wrong, since we've got much bigger deficits in the last few years.

Clinton eliminated the deficit, and Bush II increased it from Bush I left for Clinton. Under Clinton, the economy boomed. Under Bush, the economy is going down the drain.