Joe the Plumber in Middle Class Denial
Joe the Plumber’s faulty logic is that he likes to imagine himself making $250,000 when he buys his plumbing company. He puts on confident and gruff airs like he’s Dick Cheney. He probably likens himself to Dick Cheney. He certainly likes to fantasize about being in the same tax-bracket at Dick Cheney. Be proud Joe. You are no Dick Cheney.
Conservatives like to talk about a level playing field with no referees, where the strong and the shrewd succeed. Yet today, it is only the conniving and manipulative who have a shot at wealth. The American Dream, that Joe the Plumber pines for, of working hard and making a fortune, is under the boot of corporations. In today’s world, Joe has about as much chance of becoming a wealthy plumber as his son does of playing in the NFL. Not saying, it can’t happen; just saying it is not very likely.
So, he pledges his allegiance to the conservative candidate, because he thinks by not paying taxes he will somehow start hob-knobbing with Bush, Cheney, and Limbaugh – all such self-made men. Meanwhile, he is shooting himself in the steel-toed boot because the Obama tax plan directly affects him where he really is, not where he imagines himself to be. If he really wants to pay less tax, he should embrace Obama, not reluctantly shake his hand, and then defend McCain and his fellow Republicans.
Obama’s the only candidate here who actually gives the middle class a decent shot at the American Dream. Throughout this campaign Obama has been, literally at times, the only candidate to even mention the middle class. And Joe the Plumber, you are middle class. Soldiering as a lackey for the conservative candidate, thinking he gives a rusty pipe fitting about you or your business aspirations, that’s just… well, I don’t want to call it low class. That’s just remedial class.
Exactly what I was thinking, couldnt have said it better myself!
Peter, you are right on the money. Sadly there are millions like Joe. They’ve been listening to the “trickle down” promise for such a long time, and all the Republican talking points about how the Democrats want socialism, that they’ve come to believe it is gospel. Since most are at the bottom of the food chain they have yet to notice that in the past few months the entire Reaganonomics set of beliefs have been proven utterly without merit and bankrupt. The fact that “Joe” doesn’t really grasp his true position is further evidence that he, and millions like him, are just not really paying close attention. It is so much easier for them to just mime what the Republicans have been planting in their minds for decades now.
Typical Liberal mind-set. Apparently it’s not Obama’s responsiblity to explain his position to those who don’t understand it, because those people are just too stupid, brain-dead or brain-washed to understand it.
Well, understand THIS. *OBAMA* is the man running for President, not Joe the Plumber. Joe has every right to ask these questions and it is Obama’s place to convince him that his plan is sound. To attack someone who has the temerity to question anything that comes out of the Chosen One’s mouth is the height of liberal kool-aid drinking.
Shame on you.
Well said!
I have a neighbor who is a junior partner in an accounting firm – whose wife is convinced they will be paying $60k more in taxes under Obama! He doesn’t even draw $60k more than the $250k as GROSS, never mind net – so couldn’t possibly pay that much even if the rate above $250 was 100%!
Any decent accountant, especially a partner, should have so many legitimate right-offs that if his Adjusted gross were anywhere near $250k he would be laughed out of the profession!
Methinks my neighbor is trying to engineer himself a little slush-fund unknown to his wife!
And Joe the plumber thinks he’s in the same earning league as a partner in a professional firm!
I’d laugh if it wasn’t so damn sad!
If I were earning $250,000 a year, I wouldn’t cry about a three percent tax increase. I would buy a house, have kids, and start saving for a plant to build electric cars.
Everyone has high hopes for themselves and they want a real future, and that’s fine, but they’re not going to get it continuing to support politicians whose only brilliant idea is to lower the tax burden of the rich, and in so doing, raise yours. I’m sorry folks, but if you’re making $250,000 a year, you’re rich. If you live on what most people live and save the rest, you’re a millionaire in less than five years, not to mention if you invest your money. Most of us are lucky to get one tenth of that sum.
The problem is that people don’t have their priorities straight. Honestly ask yourself: Which goal do you think is more likely to happen if you put your efforts towards achieving it, finding some scheme to join the ranks of the wealthy, or organize political change that will make it possible for anyone working in your current profession to live a decent and prosperous lifestyle?
It’s a tough question because they’re both tough goals, but I think it’s easier to organize change. At least you wouldn’t be alone in that goal.
So, before the debate even happened
1. McCain invited Joe the Plumber to attend his upcoming rally this coming Sunday (10/19).
2. Joe accepted (though now he is caught up in interviews and might not make it).
3. McCain added “Joe the plumber” to the debate (over and over in order to let USA get to know him.
Was McCain hoping we would all just watch News agencies report how Joe the Plumber must back McCain because he was seen at McCain’s rally? I think that’s the intention the McCain camp was aiming for. Now that we have all the facts, it’s apparent it was a gimmick, another failed gimmick.
Never have I ever been happier to be “Joe the Mechanic” before.
I almost feel sorry for the guy. Until I just thought, he might actually make a crap load of money off this. If he has any brains what-so-ever.
Good luck Joe!!
Now go donate to Obama’s campaign if you have any sense!
Trickle up economics – sounds good but how does it sustain itself?
There is no such thing as trickle up redistributionist economics…at any economy’s foundation you have to have capital (even in a socialist system) to have the necessary capacity, productivity, jobs, etc. So unless you want to be unemployed, net after tax profits is not a dirty word. The reason I mention net after tax profits is that by raising taxes on those who make $250K or more may sound like a good idea. However, I’d like to point out that raising taxes is aiming an arrow at the heart of small business, the source of the only job growth we have in the U.S. in the last decade.
Taxes on profits are the only way the government exists, and the only the way that the government can redistribute wealth. However, when you raise taxes on business, net after tax profits falls, growth slows, layoffs rise, the government raises less revenue, and then there’s even less to redistribute. It’s called a shrinking pie. Be careful what you ask for. In the end the consumer pays almost all taxes. So raising taxes shrinks the private sector and enlarges the public sector with no net benefit to us. Who has given you more, the private sector or government? and how does government exist without a thriving private sector?
So unless you have decided you don’t want to be employed by a business, shop at a business, or invest in a business, continue to believe that trickle up redistributionist economics that the “left” in all countries trick the common man into believing will be beneficial to us. We can continue to believe life’s not fair….and it isn’t, but unless we prefer Cuba’s or Venezuela’s economy which is where we are headed with silly socialist but fairer economic policies, I’d recommend we look around and see what we possess now because it’ll be a lot less under any type of socialist regime even with supposed free healthcare, education, etc.
The rich did not put us in the position we are in, its the government. Enlarging the government has never worked anywhere I’ve aware of….unfortunately, Robin Hood is a myth.
Wow, now we can’t ask questions of the candidates without our motives being questioned. If Obama’s tax plan is so spectacular a simple question from an American citizen shouldn’t cause his supporters to become unhinged. I myself have a question. Are the people in the neighborhoods of Chicago where Obama so diligently worked to improve their lives consider themselves better off now? And for the record, it’s not Obama that causes me the most concern, it’s a congress with no counter balance. Obama, who has accomplished exactly nothing worries me not at all. It’s the puppet masters I’m afraid of.
Perhaps the accountants are worried about their income under Obama, because Obama has a plan to vastly simplify the process of filing taxes.
Quick question: Who loses if you simplify tax filing? The accountants.
8 Ben Woodward provides a concise argument against over taxation. However, you have to ask if the Clinton economy felt over-taxed. Were jobs created during the 90’s. Yes.
Were more jobs created during the last 8 years under lower taxes on the top rates? No.
This suggests to me that a return to Clinton era tax rates for top incomes would not slow job growth. In fact, it might even encourage some people to look for ways to lower the taxable income of their business, by doing things like HIRING people and paying wages.
Taxes are a neccesary evil. What is the exact right tax rate? Well, that’s hard to say, but I’d gladly pay another 8% if I could have the Clinton economy back
Why do lberals/socialits/marxists understand that the United States is a free country. Freedom of speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom to vote, Freedom to … Why don’t some people understand that the great value of America is freedom. Businesses invest in America because it is free. It is the most wealthy nation on earth because it is free. There is not the fear that the government is one day going to take over an industry because it wants to. We don’t have a dictator, we don’t have a king, this is a Republic built by free citizens. Then why is it that free Americans want to take away the right and freedom to earn money. Unjust taxes are not fair or a sign of a free nation. If you reduce freedoms you destroy the American dream whatever freedom that is. To say one person is bad because they have money is equally as bad as discounting the struggles and efforts of the poor. Don’t steal one man’s freedom to give to another man. We became a nation because of over taxation and the founders of this great nation knew that. Let every man have the right to pursue his own happiness. This country won’t survive if government tries to dictate what freedom is. Cheer for Americans and American companies to make a profit, our economy is global.
to BP:
what exactly is it that makes taxes “unjust taxes”? it seems to me that any tax system, not just a graduated income tax, will have to be unjust if the value by which you judge them is the to the extent they uphold freedom. a tax, by its very nature, is redistributionary. and so if you are going to decry Obama’s tax plan, surely you decry all taxes. and if you decry all taxes surely you decry all public works from roads to dams to information networks; in all of these cases money is taken from the individual and given to the whole in the form of these projects. further, if “freedom” is your value then i think you ought to question the existence of the state itself; is it not unjust? even by a democratic system the majority forces demands upon the individual and you are not free to do what you want. ignoring moral questions — and the state does uphold moral questions, hence the debate on abortion as well as the different classifications of killing that designate levels of moral agency — the state (at least at the moment) doesn’t allow you to smoke marijuana, or any other narcotic; it doesn’t even allow you to smoke in public indoor spaces in some states. the fact of the matter is that is you value “freedom as highly as you do, the only thing you value is the lack of government, and so the only logical conclusion is anarcho-capitalism.
the vast majority of peoples simply don’t wish to live that way — not even Ayn Rand — and so they choose to live in a state, even with the necessities of redistribution and the curbing of individuality. the state exists because we want it to; in a sense it is a cultural artifact. the form of the state exists because the population, or the greater portion of the population, wants to live in a certain way and the state is the codification of those wants. a great many evils are committed in this way because there are discrepancies between members of a population, we don’t all think the same and can’t, but that only highlights the necessity of rational discourse and of trimming the state until it isn’t a nanny but is and effective ground for all individuals.
its not the the state ought to exist, or ought not to, its that we want it to (and the evidence of this is that it does). indeed, there are no such moral necessities; there are no objective values (and if there are they still don’t effect us because we have to accept them subjectively anyhow.)
choose Obama and that tax system because you want to live in a society that takes care of itself, and moreover, takes care of itself because its members want to. the essence of any state is the individual ego, not just the minimalist state or anarcho-capitalism, and in that sense the story of robin hood is a myth and a straw-man: its a myth that it is the ground of all socialist tendencies, when it is still the ego.
side notes:
the founders were avoiding “taxation without representaion”: the quarrel wasn’t the taxes but the imperial demands the british gov’t was placing on the fledgling U.S. without giving them equal rights. most of them just wanted to be British.
also, go read a book on globalization, i’m not tackling it, but i assure you we’re getting hammered by it too.
By cutting taxes you have to cut other things like education, healthcare, wellfare, and social security. Even then the American deficit will fall lower with the continued effort in Iraq conflict. As this happens the value of the American dollar will continue to inflate and economic collapse is inevitable. I see the Great Depression part II if McCain is elected.
LG and Joe
LG, I never said taxes were bad, or there shouldn’t be government, or there shouldn’t be a state. But when you want to “distribute the wealth,” and force others to follow your beliefs using their money, I have issues. And just like you have issues with using your money to fight a war, or buy military items, or whatever. Does our government have a moral responsibility? Of course, is it the mechanism to handle the social issues. I don’t think so. Our government is good at a few things, building roads and winning wars, and freedom. Outside of that it struggles because of bureaucracies and politicians. Government isn’t efficient. Churches, charities and companies are efficient. They don’t take as much money to handle the issues and for the most part they do a better job. I contribute to charities, 10% minimum and I give to people that are in real jams. How is that not better than a overspending, overreaching, overtaxing politician 3,000 miles away telling me what to do with my money, not even that, taking my money and doing what they want with it. Both parties. As far as globalization, free trade has worked for every government that has tried it, and has done more good for mankind than any social policy in the history of the world.
Joe (not the plumber)
There are two theories of Economics the Keynesian theory and classical theory. Milton Friedman proved the Classical theory to be true, Liberals base all their assumptions on the Keynesian theory. If the government spends more, than the economy grows. The truth is if you cut taxes you bring in more taxes. Hate Bush all you want, but cutting taxes, helps the economy and ends up bringing in more taxes. The budget the last few years has reached record levels and that was what Bush did, and what John F. Kennedy did to get out of a recession.
Lastly, one of the reasons we went into the depression was because of legislation that cut trade and made us a protectionist country. Raising Tariffs and reducing trade destroyed wealth and made others countries do the same to retaliate against the U.S. Kill trade you kill wealth, for everyone. Obama is the one that is sounding a lot like the politicians before and during the great depression, not McCain, although I don’t think he has an answer either. We got out of the Great Depression because of WW2. Everyone was on the Gold standard and guess who got most of the world’s gold after WW2?
BP you are just plain wrong!! First of all, until our government started building the Military Industrial Complex, this government oversaw and funded schools, bridges, roads, NASA, education and the list goes on. We had the best of everything in the world and it was overseen and funded by the US government. The problem started when the repubes started de-regulating everything in sight starting with Reagan (a**hole). Reagan that is. Along with Bush1,Bush2. Government contracts are what has destroyed our government’s effectiveness. Smaller government is not and never has been the answer. It has been the answer to the pocketbooks of the rich and the repukes. We built the finest of all systems infrastructure, etc. The minute we de-regulated and abandoned oversight it started it’s slow descent to where we are now. So sorry but you are wrong and misinformed.
My 2 cents….NEITHER candidate will do much to help the true middle class. neither tax plan will do much for people in my income level. Basically the tax laws are written that if you are a single or married individual with no children you just pay your taxes and shut up. I have been doing that for years and I get that my taxes will continue to be paid and i will continue to shut up until i decide to grace this loverly planet with an offspring, at which point all of a sudden i count…sorry, future teen agers are not worth a tax break, so Ill just keep paying.
But what i do not get is why the people that can afford to hire tax attorneys to circumnavigate all tax laws are the ones who get the most in tax breaks. Personally, a flat rate income tax seems to be the fairest and most simple of methods to solve alot of problems. The largest issue i see with our tax laws is that they are so complicated that loopholes abound, and if you can afford an accountant or a tax attorney you can weasle out of paying. Decomplicate the system, make it fair across the board for all income levels, make ALL citizens pay their taxes and not create shelters to avoid it and we may have an economy that can sustain itself for a bit longer.
Its really unfortunate, but you have to plan for the lowest common denominator, and I agree, deregulation has caused alot of our issues. But be realistic…those of us that fall into the “Joe Six Pack” catagory have much more pressing day to day things to handle…like how are we going to pay our rent, keep our lights on, afford new tires for the care before winter, etc…and tend to be less involved in the system, also a large part of the problem. Those of us that live paycheck to paycheck, that manage restaurants & retail stores, that HAVE to make our businesses run profitable in order to survive..maybe we need to be allowed to run things for a bit. We keep the cogs of this country turning as is, give us a shot. Yes we may smoke pot, yeah we def drink too much, we may not always say the right thing, but i can run my business with a 45% cost margin and 18% profit…better than i can say for any friggin politician we have thus far.
I live in a city where 60% of our property is owned by “non-profit” organizations that dont pay taxes of any type and ive watched it take its toll over the last 10 years. Something needs to be done to balance things out and redistribute the tax burden across the board. Non-Profit hospitals…right. Non-Profit colleges…right. Republican or Democrat you at least have to be willing to admit that the system is flawed ans skewed to benefit those that already have money and that it needs overhauled in order to operate at its most efficient & fair.
and BTW…anyone ever ask our European friends what they are paying in personal income taxes? We really have NO right to complain about what we have to pay…
Really? The funny thing about your ideology, is that you support a party who is planing on taking control of your voice. Your cute little “freedom” page of ranting, will soon become a memory should you dare speak of things in which the socialist deem “unfair”. The idea of punishing success and rewarding ignorance and nonproductive individuals is insane. What is your answer when everyone realizes that not working has more perks than working? That looks like a good productive America to me, I hope you get what you desire.
D – first, this country did just fine without an income tax system, social security, etc… for most of its history. Small government was the history of this country until social engineering began – mostly by the democrats. We levied more and more taxes on people to redistribute wealth under programs like social security, the war on poverty and the latest fiasco which started in the Carter Administration. Forcing banks to lend people money to buy homes which they could otherwise not afford. The current crisis was started by Carter, reinforced by the Clinton administration and continually pushed along by Barney Frank and Maxine Waters right up until the recent collapse which almost sank the world economy. Do your home work – learn something about why things happen in this country – it is big government and stupid social engineering by politicians. As your favorite a**hole said – “The most frightening words in the English language are: Hello, I’m from the federal government and I’m here to help.”
BP,
When you say that our government is “good… at winning wars” you kind of shoot yourself in the foot, don’t you think? I mean, c’mon- which one are you referring to? Well, Grenada- ok. They had about 50 old men with peashooters there, didn’t they? The U.S. vs. a tiny Latin American island; hmm, yeah, I guess you could say we were good at winning that one. (Boy, at a 50,000:1 troop ratio well I’d hope so!) Other than that, what have we got? Vietnam? Korea? “Mission Accomplished” Iraq? Afghanistan? Juries are still out on the last two, but we’ve been in Iraq longer than we were in all of WW2. So far, though, “troop surge” notwithstanding, I don’t see Bush doing his aircraft carrier Grandstanding routine. It looks like our record has been mixed, at best. In the case of Vietnam we pretty much left with our tail between our legs.
But come to think of it, you may be right. The last “war” we had must have been WW2, right? I mean, it’s the last conflict whereby War was declared, so it must be our last war. Yes, you are right. Everything since then was just… I don’t know, how would you define our little military incursions? (Note: This entire paragraph is shot through with sarcasm.)
“The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.” – James Madison
P.S. Don’t even get me started with your comments about Bush. Have you even read the newspapers lately? By all accounts, we’re heading straight INTO a recession. What has all of Bush’s big spending done for us? We’re staring right into the face of the greatest rebuttals to Bush’s economic policies, and yet you still argue for them? Wake up, man!
D – just so you don’t have to go too far to look at how your government works, here’s some history on the current crisis:
As always, it’s the cover-up that sinks people. Liberals are working overtime to cover up their role in the mortgage meltdown. Not only did they block attempts to reform Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before they could drag down our economy, but liberals also abused the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), turning it into a vehicle for directing loans to unqualified homebuyers.
The left knows that whoever shapes public understanding of what caused today’s economic crisis can shape America’s politics — and its future — for a great many years to come. Thus, they’re pushing the notion that too little government regulation was at fault.
If the country buys this idea, liberals can enact a carbon-copy of FDR’s response to the Great Depression, building a larger, more activist and ever-more-controlling federal government. They can exploit the mess by establishing a conventional wisdom that more government is the solution, rather than understanding how big government is a root cause of the current financial meltdown.
Claiming it all sprung from a lack of regulation is a half-truth, and a Yiddish proverb says a half truth is a whole lie. Over-regulation opened the money spigot by requiring lenders to make poorly underwritten loans. Under-regulation then allowed politicians to exploit that.
Although greed and dishonesty among both borrowers and lenders had major roles, the CRA and the GSEs were at the heart of what happened, setting up the now-toppled dominoes of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and others.
Over-regulation through CRA, aided by HUD, became a huge problem and, alas, wasn’t even addressed in the multi-billion dollar bailout. The Clinton Treasury Department’s tough new regulations in 1995 compelled the banks to engage in far-riskier lending practices or receive a failing CRA grade. To avoid an “F” from the CRA, which could jeopardize their viability, the banks were pressured to direct hundreds of billions of dollars in high-risk mortgages to inner-city and low-income neighborhoods. Moreover, under CRA pressure, banks would “hire” radical, non-profit groups like ACORN to find them customers. Once trillions of dollars began to flow, politicians and lobbyists tapped into this stream, and so did left-wing activist groups.
According to George Mason University’s Russell Roberts, the CRA was buttressed by other new regulations during the Clinton Administration. As Roberts writes, “For 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target — 42 percent of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area. The target increased to 50 percent in 2000 and 52 percent in 2005.
For 1996, HUD required that 12 percent of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be “special affordable” loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60 percent of their area’s median income. That number was increased to 20 percent in 2000 and 22 percent in 2005. The 2008 goal was to be 28 percent.”
The banks were kept from rebelling by using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s deep pockets to buy these poor-quality loans and take them off the banks’ books.
Under-regulation of the GSEs — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — allowed the money stream to widen and keep flowing. There has always been an implicit understanding that taxpayers would cover GSE losses and this enabled them to attract money and pour it into the CRA-induced sub-prime market. The Bush Administration had warned about this for years. Fannie and Freddie, however, could skim enough to pay for political protection, plus pay sky-high executive salaries and bonuses to well-connected political figures.
Over the past decade, Fannie and Freddie combined to spend a reported $200 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. Now bailing them out may cost taxpayers $200 billion directly, and far more indirectly.
The circle of political back-scratching centered around the theme of affordable housing, which the GSEs marketed heavily. Politicians wanted housing for low-income and poor credit risks, so they used Fannie and Freddie to further that objective, and the GSEs responded with campaign help for those politicians.
In return, politicians resisted reforms. This was demonstrated at a 2004 House hearing, where Rep. Maxine Waters (D.-Calif.) denounced attempts to stiffen oversight and regulation of this duo “so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish, from desktop underwriting to 100 percent loans.”
“Desktop underwriting” meant undocumented loans. No proof of income or credit history required. And zero down payment.
Members of both parties were involved in protecting the system. But liberal Democrats were the dominant force.
Recently, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told The Boston Globe, “[Republicans'] failure to regulate sensibly … endangered the economy and … burdened it with bad stuff.… Their own philosophy blew up in their face. They were so extreme in their insistence that there be no government intervention that they have wound up provoking far more government intervention than the Democrats ever would have.”
But Frank is covering up his own role because he sang a far different tune in 2003, when the Bush Administration and many Republicans (including Sen. John McCain) tried to require Fannie and Freddie to comply with Securities and Exchange Commission regulations and other additional oversight requirements. Treasury Secretary John Snow, in fact, had specifically warned Congress that Fannie and Freddie needed a new supervisory structure so that both institutions would “maintain capital and reserves sufficient to support the risks that arise or exist in its business.”
Rep. Frank was unconcerned. He told a hearing, “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis.” Rather, he said, they were “fundamentally sound,” and criticisms of them were unjustified exaggerations and “disaster scenarios.” Then he confirmed why: “The more pressure there is [to regulate] then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing”
He wanted to continue both the giveaway train supplying mortgages to those who couldn’t afford them and the gravy train for politicians.
This appealed to liberals and in particular to the Congressional Black Caucus, which received six-figure support from both Fannie and Freddie in 2007.
The GSEs’ major campaign largesse went to well-placed friends in key positions. The top six from 1998 thru 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics:
Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.) $165,400
Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) $126,349
Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) $111,000
Sen. Robert Bennett (R.-Utah) $107,999
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R.-Ala.) $103,300
Rep. Roy Blunt (R.-Mo.) $ 96,950
And almost everyone in Congress got something.
The GSEs lobbied hard, too. Their combined lobbying budget averaged $17 million a year. As described by Rep. Chris Shays (R.-Conn.), “They hire every lobbyist they can possibly hire. They hire some people to lobby and they hire other people not to lobby so the opposition cannot hire them.”
But friends at the top were not enough. They needed them in every community, too. The Community Reinvestment Act guaranteed a steady stream of low-quality, but highly political, loans.
Congress passed the CRA in 1977 to combat “redlining,” a lending practice that prevented loans to minority communities.
Clinton Administration regulations in the ’90s added teeth to CRA, requiring banks to show compliance with meeting low-income loan targets or face civil actions that could assess a $500,000 penalty for each violation. Banks were “encouraged” to comply by hiring community groups (including ACORN) who contracted with financiers to steer low-income applicants to their institutions.
As the Manhattan Institute’s Howard Husock wrote in 2000: “The Senate Banking Committee has estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion so far has gone to pay for services and salaries of the nonprofit groups involved.” The left created the system that paid its community organizers very handsomely, thanks to the regulations on the financial community.
As The Heritage Foundation’s J.D. Foster recently noted, “While a worthy cause, the net effect [of CRA] is often to encourage loans at lower credit standards and to encourage people to buy houses they really cannot afford.”
The net effect has also brought the economy to the brink of disaster. But unless the American public is told, re-told, and educated about how we got here, there won’t be reform of the bailed-out-but-still-alive GSEs nor of the CRA. Then we would witness more big government, giving us far more help than we can afford.
Mike,
We invaded and overthrew a government in 3 weeks, Iraq II. We kicked out an occupying army out of Kuwait in a few months, Iraq I. We overthrew the Taliban and killed many terrorists and disrupted their training camps. Afghanistan. We protected the South Vietnamese from communism for over a decade until we willfully left because of weak in the knees liberals and John Kerry Lying to congress. Which caused the mutilation and imprisonment of millions. When we weren’t there. We defeated the Soviet Union in a global Arms race, thank you President Reagan. We protected South Korea from invasion of a communist army, still free and prosperous. And all of the wars we fought that I mentioned we didn’t take them over, we allowed them to be free.
Yes Mike – and all we’ve ever asked is for a place to bury our dead… Unfortunately, when politicians are introduced into war (or rather introduce themselves), we tend to lose or withdraw. Our armed forces, if left to do the job they are best trained to do, will always overcome. But when weak politicians cannot support or support the other side they undermine the effort and the outcome.
They should call him “Joe the Dumber”!! Typical liberal/Democrat hating, buzz phrase buying, narrow minded staunch Republican’t….. He just does not get it. No doubt he voted for George Bush the last two elections. He is buying all the crap MaCain and Palin are selling. Can’t reason with him. After all as far as he is concerned a tax hike for the wealthy is a tax hike for all. Socailism right? He does not have a clue what socialism means but uses the word anyways, besides any good republican knows that Dems just raise taxes, right!!!
Anyone with an IQ over 70 can see that they the republicans have nothing to offer us the middle and lower class. Republican policies have historically led to fincancial disaster just do a little research. If you want to rebuild this country you need to start with the middle class. MCain’s plan is more of the same and when his lips move I just hear hear more BS. I mean George Bush painted Kerry as a liberal flip flopper….Well lets pull up a few youtube videos and newspaper articles (pay attention) and see who is the flip flopper now..In case some of you have not figured that out it is McCain who is the worst flip flopper yet.
Oh yeh and McCains plan for jobs….Just retrain the american worker ..for what??? If we do not create jobs here ans stop tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas there is nothing to retrain for..Well maybe we could all retrian to be farm hands, maids, shoe shine guys or the like $3 per day. If we leave it to corporate america and republican trickle down economics there will be no middle class!
Bottom line is this:
Republican = Wall street and Democrat = Main Street
Whats good for the Dow jones is not good for Misses Jones..
Wake up america and smeel the coffee!!
Just one independents two cents
josavl
You obviously haven’t read my post above and then gone out and confirmed who created the mess we’re in… Social engineering, socialism, wealth transfer – that’s what liberals have been doing for decades. Tell me you and the country are better off because of the CRA today, or the war on poverty, etc….
And what is it that the middle and lower class need that Obama offers? They don’t pay the lion share of taxes in this country. They never did. We are fast becoming a nation where half the people pay no taxes yet votes for taxing those who do.
If you want big government, vote Obama. Remember what Reagan said: “The most frightening words in the English language are” Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.”
Question 1 – Senator Obama: What percentage of federal tax receipts would the rich (those making over $250,000) have to pay in order for you to say, “Stop! That percentage of total tax receipts is just the right amount for the rich to be paying; any more than that would be unfair”?
Question 2 – Senator Obama: If middle and low income workers deserve relief from the payroll taxes they pay into the social security system without any reduction in their SS retirement benefits, but high-income workers deserve to pay more without any increase in their benefits, isn’t that, in effect, your historic veto of FDR’s original intent that SS contributions and benefits go hand-in-hand?
My liberal friends are going to love this one.
ELECTION 2008
Democrat: Obama’s grandma confirms Kenyan birth
‘This has been a real sham he’s pulled off for the last 20 months’
Posted: October 23, 2008
11:33 pm Eastern
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931
What do you liberals have, to comment on this one? There are three lawsuits against Obama claiming he really isn’t an American. This election is great.