|
Obama's economic plan
Share
Email
Print
CommentNovember 21st, 2008
November 20th, 2008
November 6th, 2008
November 3rd, 2008
9.11.08, 8:30 a.m.Obama's plan turns largely around a key point, that over the last eight years and longer, the wages of all but the top 1 percent of Americans have either remained flat or shrunk. In very short, his plan for fixing that rests on two main things, taking money from the taxes of the top wage earners and giving it to those in the middle class and below. The other point is to reduce the deficit.
One of the problems with this scenario is the fact no one really knows for sure why we have seen that pattern. There are lots of theories but no real proof.
One of the problems with this scenario is the fact no one really knows for sure why we have seen that pattern. There are lots of theories but no real proof.
For instance, Alan Greenspan has attributed it to our failing education system, and that increasingly high paying jobs that are being generated by the modern economy require specialized training. Another perhaps more obvious reason is that outsourcing jobs to lower paying countries, i.e. globalization, is causing Americans to lose what were better paying jobs. And there are other theories as well; including that health care costs have absorbed what would have otherwise been wage increases.
Another view is the influx of heavy immigration, with immigrants taking low wages, has caused the average wage to lower, creating a statistical effect that means little. Finally, there is the simple economic fact that as globalization has increased and Americans are more and more competing with a worldwide labor force, our wages are shrinking toward lower wages found worldwide.
Another view is the influx of heavy immigration, with immigrants taking low wages, has caused the average wage to lower, creating a statistical effect that means little. Finally, there is the simple economic fact that as globalization has increased and Americans are more and more competing with a worldwide labor force, our wages are shrinking toward lower wages found worldwide.
Today, the Wall Street Journal reported wages for all categories of educational groups have fallen in that time, except for the highest level, i.e. doctors and lawyers. Even at that level they only saw a 3 percent increase in eight years, the rest have slid backwards on inflation adjusted wages. This pretty much proves that it is a true phenomenon, and not a statistical anomaly have some have argued or the result of low paid immigrants skewing the numbers.
Click here for the full article
Click here for the full article
Look for this to be a key issue in upcoming economic debates, as this is the problem that much of Obama's plan turns on to try to resolve. I can tell you now, simply taking more money from the wealthy to give to the middle class is not going to do much except give them some money. It won't raise the wages on their jobs, which is the ultimate answer.
This is a thorny problem, and until some more definitive agreement is reached on what the problem is, it will be difficult to find a solution.
This is a thorny problem, and until some more definitive agreement is reached on what the problem is, it will be difficult to find a solution.
Join the conversation
Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
|
|
Bill wrote on Sep 11, 2008 9:22 AM:
Absent from the formula most expound is the dramatic drop in labor unions as an important make up of economic health. I know you are anti union especially in the public sector but labors demise in the private sector has led to much of this stagnation.
Because labor and business never found an accommodating recipe where they could share in economic development out side of a purely adversarial relationship has promoted the current situation. We are not all destined to be Doctors, lawyers or Professionals in fact the vast majority must exist outside this pale. No significant progress has been made in assuring that those who actually perform the work that supports the upper echelons of society are included in the prosperity enjoyed by that elite.
Now that it is also dragging down the life style of MBA’s it becomes a concern of the Wall Street Journal and the best economic medicine that McCain can provide is not a tax cut for individuals or house holds but for corporations. Tinkle down economics is the route of the problem yet many see it as salvation. "
napablogger wrote on Sep 11, 2008 9:50 AM:
It may have nothing to do with economic theory but rather with globalization and the fact that all of a sudden Americans are competing with a vast new labor pool that will work for peanuts.
The problem with unionizing is that unions can't force workers in Chili to get higher wages or force Europeans to pay more for more expensive goods made by unionized workers in the US when they can buy the same thing from the Chinese.
What that means is that we have to adjust our economy to make those things that can best be made by us. In the past that has been technologically based products in general, medicines, information technology, and Napa wine of course. That is why Napa is in such a good position. There is only one Napa in the world. "
freeport56 wrote on Sep 11, 2008 2:57 PM:
NB- do not forget 12-22 million of that new, cheap labor pool has already come across our southern boarder. "
Bill wrote on Sep 11, 2008 5:18 PM:
There is no way that globalization can be tweaked by macroeconomics. A multinational corporation like Mittal Steel, now perhaps the largest steel corporation world wide, owns major pieces of a formerly U.S. dominated industry. Control of natural resources, Iron ore and coal not just energy, was given up in the name of something that does not appear in the constitution. We can do all the tweaking we want but in the long run Mittal will not care. Cutting Mittal corporations (based in India) and their subsidiaries taxes will not create more investment here.
How about giving Oregon Steel a break. Remember them under their pseudonym of Napa Pipe guess who owns them now, oh goodness me it’s the Russians-well ok a group of capitalist Russians. Corporate structure has run wild and pays little heed to what governments run by democratic means dictate. When I hear cut corporate taxes all I can really understand is that this is not business or capitalism as it was envisioned by earlier sanguine minded enthusiasts.
The individual citizen is lost in the midst of a helter skelter global feeding frenzy where those who control the corporate structure direct the live of the rest. Something both Zakaria and Tom Friedman do not address. If there is no role for labor to play in managing its own destiny then we are truly serfs if not yet slaves. "
a teacher wrote on Sep 11, 2008 8:13 PM:
We've been living on credit cards for years now and we haven't been putting the money to good use. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our schools are in trouble. Our health care system and retirement systems are dysfunctional. These are things a country needs to be an economic powerhouse.
One of FDR's most brilliant projects, in my opinion, was the WPA. It was more than putting people to work? It was about building the industrial infrastructure that won WW2 and made us the country we are today. Eisenhower built the interstate system. Kennedy started the race to the moon, whose technology led to the computer I'm using right now.
Since then we've done nothing. We've had a succession of presidents and policy makers who believe that government is the problem, the free market can do it better and no one should pay taxes.
All those countries we worry about beating us have one thing in common. They are investing in their infrastructure. We're not. We're busy selling our country bit by bit to the highest bidder because we don't want to pay the bills.
You can't bild something on nothing. "
napablogger wrote on Sep 11, 2008 8:29 PM:
After I wrote this last night I started thinking, maybe the campaign will continue with Sarah Palin's children and we will never get to the most substantive issues like this. That would be a great loss.
Bill, and teacher, I agree with all that you are saying. The problem is, how can the US government control a mulit national corporation? If we try to raise taxes on them, they go elsewhere. Not all can, but many will and long term it is not an effective policy.
I do come back to the libertarian ( I will call it) economic philosophy of free trade and comparative advantage. We have to move in the direction of establishing what we have comparative advantage in compared to the rest of the world.
We have to trust ourselves that we have freedom and we have the greatest success in the world and we can continue with that.
It is clear to me now that we are going to go through a transition, but we can come out the other side better off than ever. "
cab e-girl wrote on Sep 11, 2008 8:56 PM:
a teacher wrote on Sep 11, 2008 9:08 PM:
a teacher wrote on Sep 11, 2008 9:38 PM:
The bottom line is that economic growth increases revenues. "
kdbk wrote on Sep 11, 2008 10:15 PM:
Nevada, Arizona, possibly even New Mexico...lots of states that might have been closer will now go decidedly for McCain.
Cali, N.Y., Washington, Minnesota, New Jersey etc. won't be nearly enough for Obama. He may not even get Wisconsin. FORGET about North Carolina. Virginia will go Republican. Throw in Florida, it's a done deal. "
napablogger wrote on Sep 12, 2008 1:54 AM:
Take the Kimpton which split town over the union issue. They could open a new hotel in Vancouver, Singapore, lots of places besides Ca or the US.
We are already losing business over taxes. "
a teacher wrote on Sep 12, 2008 6:23 AM:
1) Napa is the least liberal of all the bay area counties.
2) the people who respond to the "blogs" here are predominantly conservatives.
3) the election is 50 some odd days away
4) it's a very inaccurate poll. I've managed to vote 3 different times.
5) a random sample of the size of this pol has a confidence interval on the order of 4%, so it's not showing much more than a dead heat with a lot of wiggle room.
I would avoid posting your "news" in every section, as you appear to be doing. That's an awful lot of crow to eat... "
cab e-girl wrote on Sep 12, 2008 8:54 AM:
If you don't believe that unreasonably high taxes and rigid government regulations are driving businesses away, take a look at the exodus of small businesses from the State of California. "
kevin wrote on Sep 12, 2008 10:19 AM:
Unfortunately, I have read and it seems to bear out, our strong middle class after WWII was the EXCEPTION. It was a result of the war and it's aftermath. Where we are now and where we are going appear to be the "normal" economic stratification.
Fortunately, small business is still the economic engine of sucess. People that are willing to work hard, seven days a week, 14 hours a day, seem to be able to still pull themselves up to the upper classes... "
JustMy$.02 wrote on Sep 12, 2008 10:25 AM:
We are built on a capitolistic free market economy. Changing that to re-distribution of wealth (darn near socialistic) liberal style of tax and spend will be devistating to us. YES change is neede, but it must be within the framework of how we are built.
Remember trickle down works for taxation as well, the more you add extra tax's to corporations the more the end product will cost us. They have stock holders to answer to, they will not simple eat the extra expense. "
winemd wrote on Sep 12, 2008 10:35 AM:
a teacher wrote on Sep 12, 2008 11:33 AM:
As for ths change of the corporate landscape, drive from Fairfield to Sacramento and notice the amount of construction of businesses. Why would Genentech build in Vacaville? The land is cheaper and they draw from the Bay Area Brain trust. Cheaper land means their employees won't demand as much for housing and the company can expand without paying alot.
Nothing at all to do with taxes.
$0.02:It hasn't been trickle down, it's been trickle up. Since the 80's, the poor have been getting poorer and the rich, richer. We have been redistributing wealth up wards, evil socialism.
Taxes haven't been driving small business' under, corporations have. Small business can't compete with Walmart or Home Depot or Safeway. They either have to specialize or be in an area where the big guys can't reach.
The right wing has been selling us this supply side nonsense for 40 years and I think that's part of our current economic woes. "
napablogger wrote on Sep 12, 2008 12:07 PM:
This applies to even big projects, like developments. They want to put in all this affordable housing, but someone has to pay for it. Taxpayers pick up some of that, the people who buy market rate homes get higher prices to cover it, on and on.
Don't get me started I guess, but check taxes elsewhere than Ca and you will find this state is the worst, except maybe New York. CA can get away with it to some extent because it is so blessed economically. "
Bill wrote on Sep 12, 2008 12:13 PM:
A major over haul of corporate regulation is necessary and is far more important than the tax issue. Neither party is addressing this issue.
Corporations already move offshore to avoid our laws not just taxes and do so to deliberately violate not merely tax law but labor, environmental, and criminal law codes. The current greatest market force is still the USA and cannot be ignored by multinationals. We have not yet been reduced to the rest but we soon will be and it is necessary to get out in front of the multinationals now before they are able to play complete scofflaws across the globe.
If we think we can enforce our will in foreign adventures then where will corporations in the Azores of Cayman islands really have to hide? Small business in America is still the core of our economic engine but it is being smothered not strictly by taxes but by corporate mammoths freezing out local competition and ownership. Buying up a perfectly well functioning company with no concern for local needs and moving it or gutting it because that mammoth has no local ties or concerns.
The corporate model is a good functioning model when well regulated but it has been allowed to become all-consuming and a power unto it self. We have laws on the books that are called anti trust laws but they have not been enforced and have been watered down by corporate influence. There are things that can be done we are not yet helpless. "
Ruff Limblog wrote on Sep 12, 2008 3:14 PM:
The biggest problem with economic thinking is the model used is that of a machine, instead of a garden or farm.
If you eat your seed corn, you become impoverished. If you store away for lean times, and invest in better seed, you do better year over year. Too much fertilizer and you burn your crop instead of boosting it.
It's interesting to note that historians and economists note that strong nations becoming empires is what hastens their demise.
The current corporate empire-building at the expense of the middle class is starting to become manifest.
The current tax burden on the various levels of income in the USA is about the same as it was before 1929. The middle class was squeezed until it collapsed.
If money is viewed as being like 'water' to a garden then letting the rich take the lion's share of the 'water', take it overseas, and even renounce American citizenship and move their corporations to the Bahamas to avoid letting enough water flow to the garden's plants... well you get the picture.
Having a whole bunch of water in a big tank somewhere while your garden dries up is... poor gardening practice... even if you can say "I got a MILLION GALLONS of water right over there! There's LOTS of water!"
~Ruff "
glenroy wrote on Sep 12, 2008 5:16 PM:
Last year was the first year since the days of the Apple llc that Silicon Valley lost more jobs to other states than were created…. Texas, New Mexico, Atlanta and believe it or not even Boston is now cheaper to do business…a Republican did this to us ….we’re even losing service and distribution centers to Nevada and Arizona where taxes either don’t exist or a fraction of California. Brother Industries, printers, copiers etc relocated a massive distribution center out of state.….Bank of American left in the 90s…don’t be fooled…government inefficiency and meddling drives up costs and costs drive jobs out of state.
Outside of government jobs….all other jobs are competitive….smartly managed states figured it out…states have to compete with other states…this state is so uncompetitive they couldn’t run off more jobs if they tried…..maybe if we tripled government employee income tax deductions libs would share the pain….or maybe lay one off for every lost job to another state.
My little half rear-end retirement business…since 2003 our annual local taxes and special assessments have gone from $26k to just under $50k…most of that is education/sanitation…state minimum tax tripled ... I pay more taxes than I earn and it won’t be long we’ll move out of state and save 75-85k immediately….We don’t have to work or provide jobs we do because we can…. "
cab e-girl wrote on Sep 12, 2008 7:49 PM:
Teach you are also incorrect about why businesses are leaving California. It IS because of taxes and strict government regulations that allow only businesses with lots of capital to set up shop because the average person cannot afford all the fees, licenses, taxes, EIR's etc. Maybe a little time in the private sector would clarify some of these issues for you. "
a teacher wrote on Sep 13, 2008 12:31 AM:
From the East Bay Business times"But states with lower salaries, taxes and housing costs, especially Oregon, Nevada and Arizona, still beckon California entrepreneurs. Is leaving the Golden State worth it?" The article also mentions poor schools. Taxes one of four reasons.
It is illogical to suggest that business will leave if taxes are raised. The world is full of expensive places to run businesses, Hong Kong, London, NYC, San Francisco, business thrives there. Californians have money, so businesses will come here so they can make money. That's basic economics. "
kevin wrote on Sep 13, 2008 12:41 PM:
"In a recent survey conducted by the California Business Roundtable, about 20% of 400 California businesses said they are planning to move or expand out of state. That's by far the highest figure ever recorded in their survey, the group says." "
Bill wrote on Sep 13, 2008 1:32 PM:
Taxes on individual income, worth and independently owned and operated enterprise are a different economic discussion from the taxes of corporations. Local economics affects all economics and visa versa, if a business is unwilling to accept the unintended consequences of pollution, health hazards, road maintenance and many other social costs of economic activity then it must find a place where such costs are not considered important, i.e. Sri Lanka or China.
It is unfortunate that the local entrepreneur does not have real access to that free flow of capital which would allow the entrepreneur to address those unintended consequences and compete with large corporations owning multiple businesses. Unless regulation is brought to bear on these legal fictions an inherent inequality, restriction of liberty and the evaporation of genuinely free and fair markets will continue. "
a teacher wrote on Sep 13, 2008 6:06 PM:
kevin wrote on Sep 14, 2008 9:34 AM:
cab e-girl wrote on Sep 14, 2008 11:37 AM:
glenroy wrote on Sep 14, 2008 2:49 PM:
I’d also make the argument that wages haven’t been flat for the past few decades….wages have correlated with productivity gains for the last century…the exclusion being confrontational unionized labor…
At the end of the day it really doesn’t matter what a ‘think tank’ concludes or more often some partisan study using selective data trying to deny the consequences of their policies…..the only opinion that matters are those who provide the jobs and they say they’re leaving because of taxes, it seem foolish to me to call them liars. "
Bill wrote on Sep 14, 2008 2:56 PM:
Competition for California businesses to move is strong especially among those states and countries that have little to offer but a work force willing to accept lower wages and standards as well as lucrative land options and special preference.
Companies that move will still do business here. A major reason for many moves is the price of real estate not taxes. Manufacturing moves where labor is cheaper and the quality of education is not as important to their needs. I personally do not see companies locating to less populated place in the U.S. as a bad thing where housing and the cost of living is not a high.
Each economic down turn spurs cries of an inhospitable business climate but over the past 60 years California has managed to develop a dynamic economic environment that adepts readily to change. It will be a different place but so will Arizona, Idaho and Mexico or any other place.
Markets change, systems adapt including governmental systems the problem is regulating those companies that are only willing to take what resources are offered and not accept any responsibility for the extra liabilities they create. The places offering incentives to attract such businesses learn soon enough that the deals they cut to attract certain corporations do not out weigh the damage done to their localities by practices dictated not by local need but by distant corporate wants.
Dey leaves Napa not because local conditions have changed or are inhospitable but distant corporate conditions. "
dellasumbrella wrote on Sep 14, 2008 5:04 PM:
a teacher wrote on Sep 14, 2008 8:35 PM:
I agree with you 100%. It's advice you should follow.
It seems to me that you all only want to hear about taxes and not any of the other variables in the economic equation. That's not surprising, your party could care less about what happens to Californians. They are the party of me, me, me. "
Raven wrote on Sep 15, 2008 1:44 PM:
Ruff Limblog wrote on Sep 15, 2008 3:08 PM:
The 'supply side' arguments are common because corporations pay 'think-tanks' to popularize the concept.
The amount of money in circulation is what determines the basic economic trend. When there is a growing supply of money people can spend more.
Money in circulation can be boosted by a middle class tax cut leaving more of what workers earn in their pockets, but it works differently when the money goes to corporations and the rich. They can't spend it all so they must lend it to others -- which is fine -- until the folks in debt can no longer pay it back -- and we have an economic meltdown like 1929.
And we are not doing so well right now.
What Obama is trying to accomplish is to put spending power in the hands of consumers without loading them up with more debt, the way the Republicans have done for eight years.
~Ruff "
Raven wrote on Sep 15, 2008 5:36 PM:
napablogger wrote on Sep 15, 2008 10:06 PM:
I think the thing of it is, there is no one thing that determines everything, so it is complicated and comes down to balance. One thing not mentioned is workers comp which is also a drag on business here compared to other states.
But there are many factors involved. One factor in California is that there is just something about the state where it is easy to generate wealth. I don't know if it the resources, or the fact that there are so many people here, or that once things got going it started a "virtuous cycle" of one success feeding off another, but I am always amazed at how California with its constant higher prices and bigger tax bite stays in business as well as it does.
When you really stop to compare it with other states at least I am familiar with, people really don't have as much here, though.
My sister is a nurse in Tennessee, and lives on a 140 acre ranch. Now land prices are very low there, but still, most nurses could never afford that here, even in the most rural areas.
Or in Orlando, housing is so inexpensive that your average working stiff can afford a 2000 sq ft house on a lake with a pool, maybe 220K even now.
So part of what informs me is personal experience, which I realize can be risky. But I don't think the average person is as wealthy here as many other states. "
Bill wrote on Sep 16, 2008 2:20 PM:
NVGal wrote on Sep 16, 2008 2:22 PM:
The middle class has got to get smarter about economics and finance – pay yourself first, why don’t people do this? Why would anyone give their power away to a corporation or a government? And that is what you are really talking about, shifting power from a corporation to the government. Bad idea in my opinion. We have to come up with better solutions than this, the government can not control our financial freedom, noone will ever prosper in this way. "
Bill wrote on Sep 16, 2008 3:12 PM:
This is not a nation of "We the corporations" but "We the people."
We vote for government representation we do not vote for corporate representation.
Money must always circulate. when you pay your self first the question must be asked are you saving or consuming in either instance your money passes through the financial system. It circulates it is never yours to hold in your hot little hands.
When too few people control too much of the capital that generates money then the middle and working class has little opportunity to generate meaningful wealth. Expanding and contracting money supply causes all kinds of havoc one way to expand it is to print more as in paying for the war in Iraq.
The government can, should and does control interest rates it is the main mechanism the Federal Reserve uses to tweak the economy but it is only a tweak. We need more "tweaks" or at least regulatory oversight that is meaningful.
Executive pay is a gloss over for the real problems of risk concealment and and the credit grading of corporations. No one is calling for a wealth transfer from rich to poor, that is a political sound bite designed to obscure not enlighten.
No one is financially free, least of all the wealthy. "
NVGal wrote on Sep 16, 2008 8:01 PM:
Too few people control much of the capital because we the people don't even know what the term "capital" means.
What people are saying that they want is the exact opposite of what they are actually doing. How is any government ever going to protect us from ourselves? We spend money on things that we don't need giving money out of our own pockets to corporations that don't care and that we have hatred for. Look around and watch people and watch what they spend their money on.
Conceptually you are right, but the reality is that people do not financially take care of themselves. Tax credits will never offset the abuse that people heap on themselves. "
Raven wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:00 PM:
PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 16, 2008 11:33 PM:
Bill wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:32 AM:
Many people understand the meaning of capital and its uses in general and specific circumstances even if they are not professors. The government is not there to solely protect us from our selves indeed its primary function is to protect us from others (external) from each other (internal). A different thread from an economic plan but not all together divorced from it.
I will also strongly disagree and state that the vast majority people do take care of themselves financially and that tax credits correct or in correct are not meant to alleviate personal abuse. "
Ruff Limblog wrote on Sep 17, 2008 3:05 PM:
The Obama plan posits going back to the tax rates that the Clinton administration and the Republican Congress approved.
No matter how you feel about Clinton's sexual failings, economically, things were better for the middle class with that tax structure. Wall Street managed to make a buck.
Since the government went on the Bush spending binge and cut taxes for the wealthy on top of that... things have been unraveling... and the pace of that decline is now picking up.
While I don't agree with some of Obama's plan - I can recognize the need to get spending power in the hands of the middle class without more debt burden.
It's the proper circulation of money, like watering a garden the right amount, that builds an economy -- not filling a big tank of water so you can point to how much water you have accumulated, that means America does well.
Keynesian economics to get money circulating again (watering the garden), along with a dose of monitarism to reduce inflation (to avoid over-watering) gives us the best toolset for setting things right.
And we'd ALL better get cracking, things are drying up pretty fast!
I write this the day after the government took over the dried up husk of AIG.
~Ruff "
Bill wrote on Sep 17, 2008 4:37 PM:
NVGal wrote on Sep 17, 2008 4:45 PM:
Most company’s primary goal is to maximize shareholder wealth. That’s it.
So why do so many people spend their money on “stuff” and then complain about the earnings of companies, or the people who own stocks and get “wealthy” when they have contributed their very own money to this system?
Sorry, I don’t get it. "
NVGal wrote on Sep 17, 2008 5:14 PM:
I am a very liberal republican, and I end up seeing the good and bad in all past, present and future presidents!
PS, I am also writing this on the day of the AIG mess, and I visited an Amish community today! Amish economics, incredibly interesting! "
Raven wrote on Sep 18, 2008 4:36 AM:
freeport56 wrote on Sep 18, 2008 10:05 AM:
77% of registered voters in Napa county are Democrats. In the last election for Governor the County was overwhelmingly voting for Cruz Bustamonte.
as to your statistics in the number of business fleeing the state. what did they say the lost revenue was? I have read\heard that it was 6 billion in tax revenue. "
Bill wrote on Sep 18, 2008 10:15 AM:
jwk wrote on Sep 20, 2008 8:13 AM:
Raven wrote on Sep 20, 2008 1:00 PM:
cab e-girl wrote on Sep 20, 2008 2:14 PM:
cab e-girl wrote on Sep 20, 2008 3:39 PM:
jwk wrote on Sep 20, 2008 4:22 PM:
Everyone of those Radical people you listed that BO associates with "Cab e-girl", should keep Osamabama from even getting a Security Job at an airport let alone a Senator. Somethings WAY WRONG there!! Chicago Thugery Politics at it's finest!! And the left is all out Attacking Sarah because she's NOT an Attorney, Congressperson or Senator and will take the Lifetime politician crooks to task. "
Raven wrote on Sep 20, 2008 4:30 PM:
cab e-girl wrote on Sep 20, 2008 5:13 PM:
"Anita Huslin, who wrote a profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared on July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters." "
Raven wrote on Sep 20, 2008 8:32 PM:
Since this has now become a campaign issue, (the editor) asked Huslin to provide the exact circumstances of that passage. She said that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked "if he was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said, 'Oh, general housing, economy issues.' ('Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific?' I asked, and he said 'no.')"
todays post, titled linking Raines and Obama is a stretch... "
jwk wrote on Sep 21, 2008 3:03 AM:
Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Sep 21, 2008 10:10 AM:
J. S. McCain (Mr. Deregulator) is now calling for more regulation. McCain's statements seem incomplete without a laugh track! "
cab e-girl wrote on Sep 21, 2008 3:23 PM:
Raven wrote on Sep 21, 2008 3:34 PM:
I prefer an aromatic herbal refreshemnt, not kool-aid thank you "
cab e-girl wrote on Sep 21, 2008 3:34 PM:
And more on Mr. Raines:
Following his tenure in Democrat Bill Clinton’s White House as Budget Director, Raines returned to Fannie Mae where he served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer prior to being forced out over accounting fraud allegations that federal authorities claimed were used to pad his own pocket with tens of millions of dollars in un-earned bonuses on top of his multi-million dollar pay. Raines and other top executives drew multi-million dollar salaries at Fannie Mae for many years.
The Countrywide project deemed, “friends of Angelo” or FoA, standing for Friends of Countrywide Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo, apparently provided special loan rates for connected officials. These included Raines, James Johnson (a Democratic party activist and adviser to Sen. Barack Obama who was named to a panel to help choose Obama’s Vice Presidential running mate), Democrat Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Christopher Dodd, and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Democrat Kent Conrad. "
Raven wrote on Sep 22, 2008 12:50 AM:
as for Johnson, he stepped down from Obama's vp search committee June 11 ...... "
PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 22, 2008 12:21 PM:
Raven wrote on Sep 22, 2008 3:31 PM:
PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 22, 2008 3:44 PM:
Raven wrote on Sep 22, 2008 5:19 PM:
PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 23, 2008 8:43 PM:
Corporations often have these kinds of 'voluntary donation' programs. I worked at a major corporation who wanted to have a very high 90's percentage of their employees donate to united way. I chose to say no. My supervisor had a chat with me. Still I said no. Her boss came over and had a chat with me. Still no. His boss came over and had a chat with me. They were all very persuasive but did stop before the line in the sand of threatening firing or missing out on the next raise or bonus, at which point I could have taken legal action. But I held firm and said no. Took a few weeks before anyone would go to lunch with me again. But a lot of others who first said no were persuaded to donate.
The only interest the Fannie/Freddie employees had was the realization that they wanted to keep their little gravy train going and Bama and Barney were their best bets to stay off unemployment and stay out of trouble.
The fact remains that no matter how you slice it, Obie was the #2 recipient of Fannie/Freddie donations. And oh yeah, the individual employee thing - that's how Fannie, Freddie, and Obie got around his phony 'only donations from little people' fakery. He can't even tell the truth about where his big money is coming from. He certainly cannot be trusted to get us out of the mess he and Barney helped create. "
Raven wrote on Sep 23, 2008 10:16 PM:
and exactly what did the directors expect from McCain when the gave him the 160K...?.....McCain got more money that anyone from people connected to Fannie Mae "
cab e-girl wrote on Sep 24, 2008 10:33 AM:
a teacher wrote on Sep 24, 2008 11:56 AM:
PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 24, 2008 1:03 PM:
The alternative, that thousands of employees were suddenly seized with a religious fervor to donate a large sum of money to St. Obama, just does not pass the smell test. "
Raven wrote on Sep 24, 2008 9:35 PM:
and as I said cab-e-gril....do you honestly think every one of the thousands of employees is so frightened of their union that not even one of them would break a story of being coerced to the media.....now that doesn't pass the smell test.... "
PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 25, 2008 8:31 AM:
BTW, many workers are as afraid or more afraid of their union as they are of their employer. "
PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 25, 2008 9:23 AM:
McCain, Obama, and Biden are Senators right now and should be in DC for one of the most important issues of our time. That is where they should be regardless if they are on a committee or not. McCain is experienced in assembling bipartisan compromises, Obama is not, so he should be there to learn something. This would be more useful than a boondoggle to Iraq with stop at a beer fest in Berlin.
Like the old saying goes, "don't give up your day job yet." Obie and Joe need to keep that in mind instead of panicking that they might lose their perceived campaign initiative on economic issues. "
Raven wrote on Sep 26, 2008 1:37 AM:
and we can see how bipartisan this plan will be....house and senate GOP backed away from the agreement in principle....who would have thought that it would be the democrats supporting bush and paulson instead of his own party....oh, how the mighty have fallen "