Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He failed to reinstate financial reg that Clinton repealed, and he failed to get Fannie & Freddy regulated and force congress to actually perform proper oversight.
A lot of other people also failed to do these things, to include former Treasury Secretary Snow who attempted to persuade Congress to replace ineffective OFHOE.
The basic problem is that the Reps suck at this as well. Both parties are in league with big business to screw over the middle and working classes. No Republican or Dem cares about most Americans. The Reps think they can win over the lower classes with cultish anti-science religious nonsense that attacks reproductive rights and assigns women to roles as breeders and nothing more. The Dems think they can win over the lower classes by supporting the economic desires of Mexicans and pandering to Muslims.
I see no reason to take Republican seriously on this issue. They've given no indication they care about the strains most middle class people face. It's like listening to them talk about reproductive rights or the environment. They have no credibility at all.
Bush's OTS was supposed to be regulating AIG's Credit Default Swaps and Derivatives trading; of course, they didn't, since Bush believed that banks could regulate themselves.
* -- here's a great quote from that article on the SEC Net Capital rule:
Oh, momonkey, I forgot another Bush screwup: accounting standards.
In 2006, FASB (aka "the bankers") convinced Bush's SEC to adopt new mark-to-market accounting rules (FASB 157) that would allow them to redefine the value of their assets in a way that would increase their value. Higher valued assets meant that they could lend more of the Fed's money to consumers.
Of course, in 2008 when TSHTF, Bush's SEC reversed this rule because "the market" wasn't being kind to banks, and let banks pursue "Mark to model" asset pricing (aka "Mark to Make Believe") that let banks pretend their assets were worth whatever they wanted. Problem solved!
Well, IF you bothered to take a look at the TAX RATES, you would see the upper income brackets pay MORE of a percentage of their income in TAXES.
Ah, the sin of telling half-truths.
One is that you have to beware of the old trick of saying "taxes," then slipping into "income taxes." Most Americans pay more payroll than income taxes, but the reverse is true at high incomes. So focusing only on income taxes makes it seem as if the rich pay much more of the burden than they really do.
The Tax Policy Center has new numbers about the distribution of average tax rates by income class. Consider, in particular, the estimates of the combined income and payroll tax by income class; A couple of columns were deleted to make the thing fit with more or less legible type:
Here’s how to read this: 40 percent of taxpayers with incomes between 30K and 40K pay more than 12.9 percent of their income in income and payroll taxes; meanwhile, 25 percent of people with incomes over $1M pay less than 12.6 percent of their income in these taxes. This suggests that there are a lot of very-high-income guys paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries.
And that doesn’t even take into account state and local taxes, which are quite regressive.
The bottom line is that there are a lot of rich people basically free-riding on the system.
Bush's OTS was supposed to be regulating AIG's Credit Default Swaps and Derivatives trading; of course, they didn't, since Bush believed that banks could regulate themselves.
* -- here's a great quote from that article on the SEC Net Capital rule:
The SEC net capital rule of 2004 had no bearing on the 2008 meltdown because the mortgage backed derivatives at the heart of the crisis were never regulated by the SEC.
As for what was said at this meeting, apparently I'm reading a third-hand account via Bloomberg and MSNBC about what someone is claiming was said years ago. Should I just take the word of MSNBC and Bloomberg about claims made by Miller and Cooper who were in a closed door meeting with Hawke?
The whole piece reeks of National Inquirer.
Is it asking too much for a reliable quote from Hawke?
One is that you have to beware of the old trick of saying "taxes," then slipping into "income taxes." Most Americans pay more payroll than income taxes, but the reverse is true at high incomes. So focusing only on income taxes makes it seem as if the rich pay much more of the burden than they really do.
The Tax Policy Center has new numbers about the distribution of average tax rates by income class. Consider, in particular, the estimates of the combined income and payroll tax by income class; A couple of columns were deleted to make the thing fit with more or less legible type:
Here’s how to read this: 40 percent of taxpayers with incomes between 30K and 40K pay more than 12.9 percent of their income in income and payroll taxes; meanwhile, 25 percent of people with incomes over $1M pay less than 12.6 percent of their income in these taxes. This suggests that there are a lot of very-high-income guys paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries.
And that doesn’t even take into account state and local taxes, which are quite regressive.
The bottom line is that there are a lot of rich people basically free-riding on the system.
Even if it were true, I'd be okay with it.
Who wants to give the politicians more money to waste?
Oh, momonkey, I forgot another Bush screwup: accounting standards.
In 2006, FASB (aka "the bankers") convinced Bush's SEC to adopt new mark-to-market accounting rules (FASB 157) that would allow them to redefine the value of their assets in a way that would increase their value. Higher valued assets meant that they could lend more of the Fed's money to consumers.
Of course, in 2008 when TSHTF, Bush's SEC reversed this rule because "the market" wasn't being kind to banks, and let banks pursue "Mark to model" asset pricing (aka "Mark to Make Believe") that let banks pretend their assets were worth whatever they wanted. Problem solved!
Were still debating the role of the SEC when the SEC had no legal authority to regulate the mortgage backed derivatives that caused the meltdown?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
