Meet Jeff Barth — He May Have Just Made the ‘Greatest Political Ad Ever’

User Profile: jernie

Member Since: December 04, 2010

CommentsDisplaying jernie's 10 most recent comments.

  • And I thought she was smart enough to figure out what TIAA-CREF funds do with her money! If she thinks they bury it in the back yard or that they give it to charities she is not smart enough to be in Congress. Oh, wait, maybe I am wrong.

  • Add to the crony capitalism the fact that GM went bankrupt, shafting the retirement funds holding their debt, This bankruptcy, structured as an asset sale, was also unusually allowed to pass their tax losses to the asset purchaser, meaning they will pay no taxes for years. This represents much of their value and is not reported in government losses. It was a gift to the unions and a means of shafting the taxpayers. The “new” GM will not pay its “fair share” of taxes.

  • Sheila and Juan seem to worry that the republicans might lose the 4% of the African-American votes that they get now. The African-American community have put themselves out of consideration as a swing block and will get no concessions from either party. The democrats will keep this talk up only to try to make the African-American mad enough to actually vote, given their loss of economic standing under Obama.

  • While the whole story is about greed, it should be noted that the government mandated bank participation in the subprime lending through the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. ยง 2901 et seq.). The involvement of the Fannie in new loan origination was set in 1996 at a target of 42% of their loans being to families with incomes below the median in their community. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. This gave federal approval and financing to the subprime market, keeping in mind that Countrywide did not hold the mortgages they originated and relied on the ability to market them. The government attitude is summed by the statement of Barney Frank to the House Financial Services Committee hearing in 2003 2003:
    I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .

  • If the problems are unique to capitalism, please explain why Cuba is in the process of laying off 500,000 workers, including those involved in education. http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/cuba-shed-500000-state-workers
    Another way to attack the problem is with Venezuela’s 26% inflation rate (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/inflation-cpi) so anybody retired on a non-government inflation is wiped out. Could someone describe which communist country these people would like us to be like?

  • When the cost of not letting GM go through a legitimate bankruptcy is discussed people should mention the unusual and favorable tax break by allowing the “new” GM to purchase the assets and not the liabilities while keeping the former company’s tax loss carry-forward. To be honest add the 14 billion that the treasury gave up in future tax revenue. This was done in an unsuccessful under-the-table effort to sweeten the stock price.
    http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/23/news/companies/gm_bailout/index.htm

  • It should be noted that as a part of the bailout GM will not pay taxes for years, a subtraction from federal revenues of up to $45 billion in addition to the $14 billion they admit. This at a time when federal tax breaks are scorned by the administration.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575590642149103202.html

  • Net worth has nothing to do with an income tax. If every dollar of assets is in tax-free municipals there is no tax and no contribution to improving the economy. If it is kept in a money market, there is negligible tax. Only if net worth is profitably employed in the economy is there a tax issue.

    If “soak the rich” is a desirable social goal, why has Congress for the past two years refused to address the lack of an inheritance tax policy? No direct taxes and plenty of confusion this past year and a politically untenable policy for next year and no discussion. If it was a desirable social goal why was it not addressed before the election so voters could respond? The Democrats preferred posturing rather than addressing the issue in a timely manner and in a meaningful way.

    I am disgusted