Video: Barney Frank wants more taxes

posted at 8:25 am on October 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Suddenly, with Barack Obama pitching almost a trillion dollars in new spending, leading Democrats see nothing wrong with deficit spending. Why? Because the rich will pay for it, silly! Barney Frank explains that spending tons of money we don’t have now will be no problem, because he knows where to get it:

I think at this point, there needs to be an immediate increase in spending, and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second, uh, a second seat. I do think this is the time for a very important kind of dose of [unintelligible]. Yes, I think later on, there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of rich people out there who we can tax at a point down the road to recover some of this money.

Frank has a large amount of chutzpah to talk about recovering money.  Frank and his cohorts in Congress ensured that we lost the money by blocking regulators from doing their jobs at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Frank himself kept telling us from 2001 to this year that Fannie and Freddie were solvent and that there wouldn’t be a collapse — and so we didn’t need to toughen oversight over their business practices.

Look at Frank grin while talking about all of the rich people he’ll soak with new taxes if given the chance.  Frank loves his class warfare.  He’s one of the architects of this financial collapse, and now he wants to make sure that the collapse is complete by confiscating the capital that would correct it.  I’m not sure if he’s insane or just stupid, but neither makes me terribly comfortable while Frank remains chair of the Financial Services Committee.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

NoDonkey on October 21, 2008 at 9:19 AM

You’ll love Texas. Lots of room for conservatives in the big red state as long as you stay away from that blueberry we call Austin.

txsurveyor on October 21, 2008 at 9:36 AM

Out = Irresponsible Overspending
In = “deficit fear”

ronsfi on October 21, 2008 at 9:38 AM

I think that at a point down the road, we should pour hot tar on you Barney and then dump feather pillows on your treasonous ass.

Viper1 on October 21, 2008 at 9:40 AM

This whole banking disaster was planned. It is a plot for the takeover of our country.

stenwin77 on October 21, 2008 at 8:35 AM

Your on to something…

Kevin in Washington State on October 21, 2008 at 9:40 AM

Frank and his cohorts in Congress ensured that we lost the money by blocking regulators from doing their jobs at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Not quite. The accounting irregularities at those companies might have been corrected years ago- but that wouldn’t have saved either company from the balance sheet blow out that occurred when their subprime loan portfolios were decimated by the market (and by homeowners in over their heads).

It’s easy to point fingers but much harder to identify responsibility for the massive failures in our banking system. If you think that better regulation of Fannie and Freddie is all that’s needed, then you are just asking for a similar disaster to occur in the future

bayam on October 21, 2008 at 9:44 AM

This has got to be one of the stupidest men on the planet. But then why should I be surprised–he’s in Congress and from MA, the State that keeps re-electing John Kerry who is equally stupid.

jeanie on October 21, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Every time I see or listen to him, I can’t help but think, who votes for him!

Glynn on October 21, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Looping the ‘unintelligible’ phrase here, sounds like Barney makes up a word, and it sounds like ‘changenism’.

Substitute ‘Social’ or Commune’ for “Change” (where have we heard that one?) and ‘do the math’

Seems to be pretty clear cut – because there’s little doubt that’s what’s on his mind. . .

Wind Rider on October 21, 2008 at 9:50 AM

philwynk on October 21, 2008 at 9:13 AM

Exactly. Ed… that’s the “unintelligible” word in the Barney quote… Keynesianism.

T J Green on October 21, 2008 at 9:50 AM

The accounting irregularities at those companies might have been corrected years ago- but that wouldn’t have saved either company from the balance sheet blow out that occurred when their subprime loan portfolios were decimated by the market (and by homeowners in over their heads).

Shoot, by that logic, why bother treating cancer or any other problem/disease early? While there may be inhernet problems with the banking industry (what, I don’t know, but I’m no expert) but in ANY industry, recognizing and fixing problems early ALWAYS means less pain down the road.

ALWAYS!

Remember that bridge in Minnesota?

karl9000 on October 21, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Gee, vote a straight ticket! What’s not to like?

Frank gurantees more taxes and Biden swears on a stack of Bibles of some pending threat within the first 6 months if Obama is elected.

These guys wouldn’t happen to be talking down the economy in an effort to help Barry, would they??

moxie_neanderthal on October 21, 2008 at 9:56 AM

Scroll down to Keynes and redistributionism.

Damn liberals are all saying the same thing.

txsurveyor on October 21, 2008 at 9:58 AM

It was said already. Who are the morons that keep voting for this guy?!

Badger40 on October 21, 2008 at 10:00 AM

Thats Barney, always looking after your wallet!
Folks, even if my wheelchair quits, this old vietnam vet will crawl to the voting place on Nov. To keep the FREEDOM that our brave soldiers have fought and died for for over 200 years!

Da_Hutt on October 21, 2008 at 10:01 AM

If you can get the money from those rich guys down the road, why not get it from them now? Call up the Oracle of Omaha and ask him to Pony up $50 Million, Call up Gates, Obama, Soros, etc. and ask for the same amount. Let’s see what they say.

PappaMac on October 21, 2008 at 10:04 AM

I’ve already said that this whole thing has been planned to be the “October Surprise” that would be used to bring Dhimmicrats back into office so that they could continue the inexhorable slide to a socialist nation. “If you can’t win the war from without, win it from within”

Vntnrse on October 21, 2008 at 10:05 AM

I wonder what it would look like I’d they transcribed Barney Frank the same way they do Governor Palin. I personally think it would be hilarious.

JadeNYU on October 21, 2008 at 10:20 AM

“…and recover some of this money.”

Like it was stolen by all these “rich people”? What an idiot.

jackmac on October 21, 2008 at 10:31 AM

Not quite. The accounting irregularities at those companies might have been corrected years ago- but that wouldn’t have saved either company from the balance sheet blow out that occurred when their subprime loan portfolios were decimated by the market (and by homeowners in over their heads).

It’s easy to point fingers but much harder to identify responsibility for the massive failures in our banking system. If you think that better regulation of Fannie and Freddie is all that’s needed, then you are just asking for a similar disaster to occur in the future

bayam on October 21, 2008 at 9:44 AM

I don’t think you understand all of what happened at Fannie and Freddie. A strong regulator and a stronger governing statute would have prevented them from investing in subprime mortgages to the extent that they did, and especially from keeping so many subprime mortgage-backed securities in their portfolios. If they had not been allowed to buy so much subprime MBS, the market would not have gotten so huge, and when the defaults started hitting it would not have caused such dramatic losses for everyone who invested in them.

The new regulatory regime also doubled the capital requirment for Fannie and Freddie, made them subject to Sarbanes-Oxley, and required them to register their securities with the SEC. All of those would have added to the transparency of their transactions and given investors a more accurate view of the risks they were taking on. The market would have acted as more of a brake on their growth, as would the higher capital requirements.

rockmom on October 21, 2008 at 10:53 AM

I’ve already said that this whole thing has been planned to be the “October Surprise” that would be used to bring Dhimmicrats back into office so that they could continue the inexhorable slide to a socialist nation. “If you can’t win the war from without, win it from within”

Vntnrse on October 21, 2008 at 10:05 AM

Not enough attention has been paid to Chuck Schumer’s role in bringing down both Countrywide and IndyMac. There is a connection and commonality between those two companies, and a reason why Schumer wanted them both to fail. The failure of Countrywide led directly to the insolvency of Fannie and Freddie; and the failure of IndyMac led eventually to runs on Washington Mutual and Wachovia, which were the proximate cause for the Paulson panic that led to the bailout.

I’m not as certain that Schumer orchestrated this specifically to hit just before the election, but he did orchestrate it to s great extent.

rockmom on October 21, 2008 at 10:59 AM

Apparently, a mouth can only take so much abuse until is sounds like Barney’s.

Akzed on October 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Barney Frank is laughing at us. As Bill Ayers said, “Guilty as sin, free as a bird. It’s a wonderful country.”
Welcome to the Age of Lawlessness and Discord.
I am tired of signing petitions.
I am tired of writing emails and letters.
We have to FORCE the Dems to stop their communist / socialist activities.
Men of action – what will you do? And how can I help?

rishika on October 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM

I think he is right, lets tax more of the wealthy. The best and most logical way would be to classify the wealthy, and class by class, raise their taxes.
Lets start with actors, actresses, and sports figures first…they produce the least, and receive some of the highest salaries.
Anyone making more then 3 million per year, we will take 90% of the excess over 3 million.
So Oprah would get her 3 million, and the balance of say 50 million would be taxed at 45 mil. That leaves her 8 million for the year, plenty for anyone to live on.

right2bright on October 21, 2008 at 11:12 AM

Notice that he says “recover SOME of this money”?
Haven’t the Dems screamed about “THE DEFICIT”? And here they are proclaiming loud and clear that that they are going to deficit spend.
And why is Mr. Gay Whorehouse Supporter /Nothing Wrong at Freddie or Fannie being interviewed about spending and fiscal matters?
For the irony I guess.

Amendment X on October 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM

I’m not sure if he’s insane or just stupid, but neither makes me terribly comfortable while Frank remains chair of the Financial Services Committee.

I’m not sure that the two are mutually exclusive.

hillbillyjim on October 21, 2008 at 11:33 AM

The bottom line for me is this, and what I think they underlying dynamic is:

• If you HAVE a job, Obama wants to take more of your earnings and give them to someone who either doesn’t work or earns less than you.
• If you DON’T HAVE a job, Obama will give you more free money.
• Currently, 30% of workers pay no taxes. Obama wants to make that 40%.
• Obama wants people who TAKE the handouts to vote. McCain wants people who PAY FOR the handouts to vote.
• Whoever gets more votes, wins.
• Obama is cheating. The Democratic Secy of State in Ohio THIS SATURDAY, 10/25, will open the suspicious ballots and comingle them with all the other absentee ballots, forever separating them from the verified ballots. There were 220,000 suspicious registrations and in Ohio voters could cast a ballot the day they registered. How many of those 220,000 are ACORN frauds? We don’t know because the Democratic Secretary of State refuses to validate the ballots. The public isn’t aware because the MSM won’t report on it.

Additional thoughts:

• The 95% “tax cut” is pure BS. These are not tax DEDUCTIONS which reduce tax liability, they are tax CREDITS which are govt handouts.
• Example 1: My son for example earns $10 an hour and works 40 hours per week. He has healthcare benefits, pays no taxes, and receives approx $3500 in tax credits every year when he files his tax return. I know this for a FACT because I do his taxes. His HUD funded apartment is nicer than any apartment I ever lived in. The govt pays approx $3642 annually toward his apartment. . I know this for a FACT because I helped him fill out the forms. I live in a modest home within my means and no one pays for it but my spouse and me. My son dresses better than I do and has more free time because I use all my extra money to pay tuition for night school. He chooses not to go to school, so in addition to having more free time and a lot more fun, he will never earn as much as I do. We have both made choices, and we both have the right to make these choices.
• Example 2: A classmate of mine is for wealth redistribution and universal healthcare because her brother doesn’t have healthcare. He does not go to college, but has a job and recently bought a house, and probably drives a nice car. Like my son, he makes these choices freely, but my classmate believes society should make up for whatever discomfort he experiences as a result of his choices. If he would go to school and increase his earning potential, we would not have to pay for him. Or perhaps he could live in an apartment, or drive an older car, or spend less on entertainment. But he chooses not to. So according to my classmate, society should pay for what he chooses not to pay for. She believes we have to turn our healthcare system into a Canadian/English/Cuban style system by turning it over to the govt because her brother doesn’t have health insurance. She is convinced that taking from the “rich” to give to the “poor” is not stealing. It is social justice. She believes not only that the “rich” people have enough extra money to pay for the “poor”, but that this would be fair, that it would be sustainable, that it would not decrease work, that it would not decrease jobs, and that it would not harm the economy.
• We ALREADY have a progressive tax system. I already pay a much greater % of taxes than my son and my classmates brother. Barrack Obama wants to further increase my burden to benefit my son and my classmate’s brother, regardless of the personal choices made that directly affect our wealth and earning potential. The result will be that I will simply stop producing so much value. There is a point at which taxation makes it counter-productive to continue to increase wealth. Obama is not talking about dipping into the bank accounts of the super rich, he is only going to tax actual earnings, he only seeks to tax actual additions to value, INCREASES in wealth, not the vast holdings of billionaires. Billionaires and millionaire bank accounts will not be affected because that money just sits in the bank, it has already been taxed. Only the interest earned on those vast sums of money will be taxed, which is far far less than what is needed to fund Obama’s vast wealth redistribution plans.
• It is basic common sense: what is taxed is decreased, what is rewarded is increased. By taxing work, it will decrease. By rewarding handouts for not working, it will increase. By punishing small business, fewer jobs will be created. By increasing corporate taxes, companies will continue to move overseas where taxes are lower and employ fewer workers here at home. By killing incentive to work and increase value

JustTruth101 on October 21, 2008 at 11:35 AM

It makes liberals feel good to take from those who have and give to those without. I say, feel good on your own time. Charity isn’t a govt check in the mail. Charity is a state of mind, from the heart, about how you treat others near you. What govt program has ever been effective. Maybe building walls, which you can’t mess up, or social security, which is just sending people a check, how can you mess that up. Besides, social security is now insolvent. Government is a weight around our necks. Get used to it.

Paul-Cincy on October 21, 2008 at 11:38 AM

Yes, I’m angry. I’m not Nazi, Kristallnacht angry. I’m a thinking person. I’m a moral person. I’m not going to do something wrong, break the law, or hurt others, just because I’m angry. But I’m angry nevertheless. Who wouldn’t be.

Paul-Cincy on October 21, 2008 at 11:42 AM

Can people not see where they want to take this country?
Socialism is there staring them right in the face(and even being talked about freely now).
Are they stupid?
Are they evil?
Or do they just have blinders on where Mr. Presto/chango and his cohorts are concerned?

Sterling Holobyte on October 21, 2008 at 11:43 AM

I don’t think anyone has seen Barney with this big a smile on his face since “Brokeback Mountain” came out on DVD.

kurtzz3 on October 21, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Barney Frank is laughing at us. As Bill Ayers said, “Guilty as sin, free as a bird. It’s a wonderful country.”
Welcome to the Age of Lawlessness and Discord.
I am tired of signing petitions.
I am tired of writing emails and letters.
We have to FORCE the Dems to stop their communist / socialist activities.
Men of action – what will you do? And how can I help?

rishika on October 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM

I am a woman, but I am willing. And I am not just blowing smoke. Something must be done. I truly believe this has been planned for a long time. They must be stopped.

sheebe on October 21, 2008 at 11:55 AM

ANGER!!

[yelling loudly]So lets see, Barney, You help Fu*K up the economy and bring it to near collapse and you want ME, my children and millions of other hard working Americans to un-fu*k your boneheaded mistakes by paying MORE taxes?!?!? STFU and go away, you inept POS. [/yelling loudly]

The balls this man has.

Claypigeon on October 21, 2008 at 11:57 AM

I [unintelligible] at [unintelligible] point, [unintelligible] needs [unintelligible] be [unintelligible] immediate [unintelligible] in [unintelligible], and [unintelligible] think [unintelligible] is [unintelligible] time [unintelligible] deficit [unintelligible] has [unintelligible] take [unintelligible] second, [unintelligible], a [unintelligible] seat. [unintelligible] do [unintelligible] this [unintelligible] the [unintelligible] for [unintelligible] very [unintelligible] kind [unintelligible] dose of [unintelligible]. Yes, [unintelligible] think [unintelligible] on, [unintelligible] should [unintelligible] tax [unintelligible]. Speaking [unintelligible], I [unintelligible] there [unintelligible] a [unintelligible] of [unintelligible] people [unintelligible] there [unintelligible] we [unintelligible] tax [unintelligible] a [unintelligible] down [unintelligible] road [unintelligible] recover [unintelligible] of [unintelligible] money.

Correction: For all the [unintelligible] just translate: “Tu-tut”

There, Ed.
Now you know that he is both insane and a stupid King Tut.

Mcguyver on October 21, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Are you going to encourage Senator Obama and Senator McCain to change their tax and spending plans in order to pay for all of this?

BF: “My encouraging will probably have more impact on Senator Obama than Senator McCain”

BF: “This is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat”

Is this just wreaking of an RNC ad here? Franks first remark is, Yeah, Senator Obama’s going to spend and tax you more than McCain

Barney Frank’s second comment should be tied directly with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!!!! For crying out loud, he’s doing it again here.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!!!!

HarryStar on October 21, 2008 at 12:00 PM

I do think this is the time for a very important kind of dose of [unintelligible]

He is talking about a dose of Keynesianism.

The Fed Chain is a Keynesian and he is going to try and inflate his way out of this.

Get ready for when all those unfunded liabilities come up and we have this wildly inflated currency.

jharada on October 21, 2008 at 12:03 PM

I’m hoping to land a job down there in San Antonio.

NoDonkey on October 21, 2008 at 9:19 AM

…here’s hoping that you get it. Need any help once you get here (that doesn’t involve money, which we evidently won’t have should the Big O get in), let me know.

It’s a great town and a great area…and, you’re right, not at all like the creepingly socialist entitlement realms of Pennsylvania and Virginia.

Puritan1648 on October 21, 2008 at 12:05 PM

Important Update:

Obama & DNC Admit All Allegations of Federal Court Lawsuit – Obama’s “Not” Qualified to be President
Obama Should Immediately Withdraw his Candidacy for President

For Immediate Release: – 10/21/08 – Complete contact details and a pdf are at the end of this article

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania �” 10/21/08) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and tbe DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed “ADMITTED.” Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.

More Information: http://www.obamacrimes.com

AdrianS on October 21, 2008 at 12:06 PM

Can people not see where they want to take this country?

Socialism is there staring them right in the face(and even being talked about freely now).
Are they stupid?
Are they evil?
Or do they just have blinders on where Mr. Presto/chango and his cohorts are concerned?

Sterling Holobyte on October 21, 2008 at 11:43

1. Apparently not.

2. Yes.

3. Just well-intentioned morons.

4. They like the idea of the Obama story and are willing to fill in the gaping holes in the reality with fluff in order to keep the myth alive.

highhopes on October 21, 2008 at 12:06 PM

McCain could make an ad solely of quotes from Biden and Barney Frank that would win him the election.

The Biden speech about how we *will* be tested if Obama’s elected, combined with Barney Frank’s send the tax rates through the roof dogma, would probably be enough to ensure that a number of close states break for McCain.

I seriously doubt he’d do it, but it would be a winning strategy IMHO.

teke184 on October 21, 2008 at 12:13 PM

teke184 on October 21, 2008 at 12:13 PM

I think they need to do an ad with a chart showing just how involved Frank and Dodd were to Fannie Mae and just how involved Democrats were with taking down the US economy.
I’d even close with the suggestion that the Dems did it on purpose to win the election (which I think is partly true).

highhopes on October 21, 2008 at 12:16 PM

And what will they do when the rich decide to leave the country?

After all, they are the demographic with the means to easily do so…

dominigan on October 21, 2008 at 12:16 PM

Domingan – only problem is there is no place to go. We are the last truly free country on earth. Aussies and Brits can’t have guns. The french no longer have a free press. Where are they supposed to go? And middle-class people like me can’t afford to leave the country. I like the idea, though, can we have a state please, just ONE tiny little state, of nothing but conservatives…we can call it Reaganhood.

JustTruth101 on October 21, 2008 at 12:31 PM

SAW THIS COMMENT ON TOWNHALL

My ten and eight year old boys
are onto Obama’s tax plan. Last week when they received allowance I told them they are considered “rich” as per Obama.

I demanded they give me back 50% of their allowance because I must to give it to the kids down the street who do no chores during the week to earn their allowance. We must “spread the wealth” as per Obama.

Needless to say this did not sit well with my kids. But it drove home an important lesson that they probably won’t learn in school about how the power to tax is the power to destroy and enslave us. Taxes destroy the incentive to work hard and enslave us by working longer (less free/play time) to make up for what was taken away.

My boys now know how redistributive taxes reward laziness and punish hard work.

Obviously they don’t want Obama for President AND THEY WON’T SING THAT STUPID OBAMA SONG EITHER!

marklmail on October 21, 2008 at 12:33 PM

Im just impressed there was only one [unintelligible] in a Barney Frank quote.

Chuck Schick on October 21, 2008 at 12:35 PM

he’s neither insane nor stupid. It’s simply the Cloward-Piven strategy of orchestrated crises…

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967

fudgypup on October 21, 2008 at 12:41 PM

Can people not see where they want to take this country?
Socialism is there staring them right in the face(and even being talked about freely now).
Are they stupid?
Are they evil?
Or do they just have blinders on where Mr. Presto/chango and his cohorts are concerned?

Sterling Holobyte on October 21, 2008 at 11:43 AM

Truly outstanding analysis that answers these questions here. An analysis of the WaPo’s endorsement of Obama illustrates his point, here. And Baseball Crank ties it all together, here.

Short version: they’re all engaging in a willing suspension of disbelief, and allowing their feelings to overrule their reason. Obama is a blank slate onto which they project… whatever they want to see. Just like the Mirror of Erised in the Harry Potter stories.

philwynk on October 21, 2008 at 12:41 PM

he’s neither insane nor stupid. It’s simply the Cloward-Piven strategy of orchestrated crises…

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967

fudgypup on October 21, 2008 at 12:41 PM

You are correct. Soros and the Left have been at this financial meltdown for a few years.

marklmail on October 21, 2008 at 12:50 PM

State that keeps re-electing John Kerry who is equally stupid.

jeanie on October 21, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Hey, you forgot that MA has not regard for the rest of the country, because they also keep sending Teddy back to the Senate. That’s why I don’t buy products from MA, drive in/through MA and refuse to spend a penny in MA. Until they quit sending the ‘the prince of Chappaquiddick’ back to Washington, no money. I know I’m only one, but it makes me feel good about myself.

belad on October 21, 2008 at 1:22 PM

I really can’t understand why this fecal encrusted corrupt worthless corrupt pervert isn’t the focus of McCain’s campaign.

Barney Frank is a vile pervert. Barney Frank is incompetent. And more than anyone else, Barney Frank is responsible for our current economic crisis.

If the McCain campagin had made Barney Frank public enemy number one, as he should be, he would be trouncing Obama in the polls right now.

I really wonder what the reluctance is at hitting at Frank . . .

NoDonkey on October 21, 2008 at 1:39 PM

How about insane and stupid? Why does it have to be one or the other.

The thing about soaking the rich, is that they can always find a way to hide their money anyway. It is people like me who always end up paying for stuff like this.

Terrye on October 21, 2008 at 1:54 PM

Barney Frank wants more taxes

Feel free to pay mine, buddy-o.

Y-not on October 21, 2008 at 2:06 PM

Kevin in Washington State on October 21, 2008 at 9:40 AM

Scary stuff- not that I wasn’t nervous before.

doginblack on October 21, 2008 at 2:06 PM

So Ed, have we stopped labeling democrats now? I prefer Barney Frank (D!!!!!!!!!!) wants more taxes.

Califemme on October 21, 2008 at 2:40 PM

I think there are a lot of rich people out there who we can tax at a point down the road to recover some of this money.

Yeah, like your boyfriend you idiot loser!

Mercy4Me on October 21, 2008 at 3:11 PM

Lest We Forget

“Here is the article from the New York Times that was calling for Fannie Mae
to open up the subprime market by order of the Clinton Administration.
Maybe, all the Democrats that have had the power of the congress and have been led around by the nose by the lobbyist from Credit Suisse and UBS should stop saying that the Republican trickle down theory created this mess and take some ownership”. Fat chance.

Here is the article:
By STEVEN A. HOLMES

Published: September 30, 1999 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities
and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the
credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other
lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15
markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage
those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is
generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae
officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been
under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand
mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure
from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been
pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime
borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are
not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans
from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates –
anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional
loans.

”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the
1990′s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines,
Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain
too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our
underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying
significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one
study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went
to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional
loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae
is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any
difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized
corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a
government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in
the 1980′s.

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another
thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident
fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the
government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up
and bailed out the thrift industry.”

Under Fannie Mae’s pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a
mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a
conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 — a
rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes
his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage
point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not
lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks
make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of
loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more
loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to
all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add
that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and
low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than
non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the
economic boom of the 1990′s. The number of mortgages extended to
Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according
to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that
same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a
home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by
46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for
homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag
behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in
particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that
by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio
be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44
percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is
investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated
underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the
credit-worthiness of credit applicants. (End Article)

Starring Roles of The Raw Deal played by Pelosi, Frank and Raines.

Hey, if Oslima is elected it’ll be off to the re-education camps (Hotel Californias) for me. I was wondering do you think Katherine Ham would enjoy a nice Elk Dinner harvested by yours truly? You know, my last. Man’s gotta dream! (Nothing personal Michele, its just you’re married :-))

redriver59 on October 21, 2008 at 3:43 PM

doom

ThePrez on October 21, 2008 at 4:06 PM

Kerry got it all wrong.

Frank is the one who needs adult pampers.

Frank must be German. He loves to eat frankfrutters.

Rick007 on October 21, 2008 at 4:14 PM

All this talk about capital fleeing for places like ireland, why hasn’t it already happened? I mean, our corporate rate has been high for years…

Name the last high tech IPO (or any IPO for that matter). There was a time when, although our tax rate is higher, there were still advantages, like looser labor laws and such. With the passage of Sarbannes/Oxley that has ceased to be the case.

Some years ago, Congress enacted a law whose motivation was to stop US drug companies from transferring the intellectual property for very early stage drug discoveries into offshore companies, by levying a tax so calamitous that no one who knew about the law would ever do it. So, if you are a company or an individual inventor and transfer or sell your intellectual property (patents, patents pending, copyright, etc.) to an overseas company, you would be taxed as if you did not sell or transfer your patent, but as if you had only licensed your IP to that offshore company.

What does this mean? It means that, even after selling or transferring your IP, you will be liable for taxes on what that overseas company later makes on the IP, even though you never collect a single royalty from them. You will have a tax liability even though you have no income or profit.

Drug companies, faced with the incredibly long odds against any one discovery paying off and the enormous risks and costs associated with waiting years for FDA approval for any drugs that even made it that far, had ample reason and justification to transfer IP offshore at the earliest patent-idea stage in order to reduce the tax burden on any future profits from the drugs that proved out and then ran the government gauntlet. With Congress already shackling the drug companies left and right, it is a miracle on the order of a “miracle drug” in itself that our drug companies have managed to continue and innovate anyway. Moving their IP assets around internationally at an early stage, when they hardly knew what, if anything, they might be worth, is the minimum self-protection these companies should and did attempt to do, on behalf of their shareholders.

By enacting these laws, the Congress over time has only added to the reasons for drug companies (and any successful company) to simply move their HQ from the US to a more hospitable country, and thus avoid the increasing network of chains put on them by Congress.

While big drug companies were the target, as with all destructive and coercive economic directives from Congress, there has also been collateral damage from these “anti-offshoring laws” to the individual inventor and the small tech startup.

Unsuspecting inventors who find a foreign company that would like to invest in their technology and transfer their invention to that company will find themselves caught by this law.

Also keep in mind that there is a draconian exit tax in the US. We are the ONLY country that has one and we are also the only country who taxes it’s citizens who work overseas.

Ann NY on October 21, 2008 at 4:26 PM

One note of optimism……

When the artificial intelligence machines we build rise and wipe our their human slavers, we won`t have to worry about ANY of this.

“Come with me if you want to live.”

ThePrez on October 21, 2008 at 4:31 PM

And what will they do when the rich decide to leave the country?

After all, they are the demographic with the means to easily do so…

They already planned for that:

http://www.sovereignsociety.com/Default/InsidiousNewExitTaxMayCostExpatsDearly/tabid/1765/Default.aspx

Ann NY on October 21, 2008 at 4:43 PM

It is a sign that we, as a people, have lost all our instinct for self preservation that this clown has not been dragged from his office, down the steps of the Capitol, and had his rotting corpse used to decorate a lamppost on Pennsylvania Avenue. As for Obama’s magic 95%, in 2006 they paid $408.1 billion in federal income taxes, the hated top 1% paid $408.4 billion. The federal budget for this year amounts to over $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in America, without the trillion or so in all the bailouts and rescues. Do a head count on your household and multiply by $10,000, if your federal tax bill is less than that number, someone else is picking up your tab and has been for a long time.

djaces on October 21, 2008 at 4:50 PM

can we have a state please, just ONE tiny little state, of nothing but conservatives…we can call it Reaganhood.

JustTruth101 on October 21, 2008 at 12:31 PM

Come to Arizona. We’re working on it.

AZCoyote on October 21, 2008 at 6:49 PM

Why does he ALWAYS sound like he’s being
TEA-BAGGED when he speaks?

awesum on October 21, 2008 at 8:49 PM

It really amazes me how any American would want to trust Barney Frank with any tax money. He simply has no ability or skill in financial management. If the democrats get control of congress and the presidency, with no checks and balances or oversight, it will be a disaster America won’t be able to dig itself out from in my lifetime.

Dollayo on October 22, 2008 at 12:00 AM

Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of rich people out there who we can tax at a point down the road to recover some of this money.

Barney Frank reminds me of Fagen You’ve got to Pick a Pocket or Two”

scrubjay on October 22, 2008 at 12:39 AM

Can’t his brothel receipts pay for some of this?

Or does he keep that stuffed in his mattress?

Black Adam on October 22, 2008 at 2:05 AM

Barney Frank obviously finds it quite helpful to have no shame.

Edouard on October 22, 2008 at 11:41 AM

Everybody without exception in Congress is rich, at least first tier millionaires. By that I mean they are worth probably only one million, the paupers of Congress.
So do these yahoos get exempt from these taxes, or, since their pay isnt really hard-earned like Joe the Plumber(s), are they ok with giving up a larger portion of their wealth to the government? Or are they like Kennedy who has off-shore holdings?
Just askin’.

abcurtis on October 22, 2008 at 1:38 PM

When I was growing up in the 50′s and 60′s there was a man in the county who lived in a hole in the ground near a small creek. His only possessions were the clothes on his back and whatever he slept on. My dad used to say this guy was the most well off man in the county and I never understood what he meant.
Now that I’m grown and have worked for a living, I understand what Dad meant: If you dont have anything, the government cant take it away from you.

abcurtis on October 22, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2