What is Digg?151 Comments
- AmyVernon, on 09/17/2008, -3/+53An article on digg that tells us to stop digging? ?!?!?!
- ScienceDoc, on 09/17/2008, -5/+53A neocon disaster machine. We are now a fascist country. The corporations come before the people. No money for schools. But AIG needs $85,000,000,000, no problem. Does this seem okay to everyone? This is not okay.
- skelliewag, on 09/17/2008, -3/+39But digging posts about being in a hole, that's OK, right? *looks worried*
- MacBookForMe, on 09/17/2008, -2/+27And they are still expanding military activities all over the globe, even though financial situation of entire economy is declining rapidly...how long more?
- oo7evan, on 09/17/2008, -0/+21In what ways are "tax cuts and increased spending" surprising causes of a budget deficit? You don't have to be an economic genius to understand that if you decrease the government's income (tax cuts) and increase the government's spending (military, war) you'll easily turn a budget into a deficit. Which is exactly what this administration and congress have done.
- inactive, on 09/17/2008, -1/+18I blame the gays. They're ruining the moral fiber of our country. And when I figure out the connection between that and the budget deficit, I will post it here. We don't need to wait though, I'm definitely right.
- WordsnCollision, on 09/17/2008, -1/+18So where is the $85 billion to bail out AIG coming from? I need me one of them bottomless moneypits!
- 1053r, on 09/18/2008, -0/+16The answer may surprise me? So it isn't the war and tax cuts? Oh wait. It is. Nevermind.
- firebirdx01, on 09/18/2008, -0/+15And Bush got into office promising to cut back on federal spending...
- deepthot42, on 09/18/2008, -2/+15Wait wait WAIT!
War costs money? - sathias, on 09/18/2008, -0/+13With that sort of understanding of economics, you should be working for John McCain :p
- Dustin00, on 09/18/2008, -0/+13For 8 years we've had the "Spend & Spend" party in power. Every time they have the executive branch they go nuts with the piggy bank and our tax money.
This is only a surprise if you are an abused house wife and you are shocked, *SHOCKED*, that your husband hit you again after he promised not to after his last drinking binge. - Berkana, on 09/18/2008, -0/+12The $546 is the *deficit* in the current budget, not the total debt. The total debt has only skyrocketed since Bush came to power.
- inactive, on 09/17/2008, -3/+15What's another half a billion when we have a total debt of $9.5 trillion.
- FairDinkumMate, on 09/17/2008, -3/+15You absolute MORON! Even the graph you linked to from the right-wing propoganda machine heritage.org shows that spending was steady until Bush 43 came in & then increased, whilst revenue was steady until the same time & then decreased significantly(when his tax cuts came in)!
Bush reduced the income of the Federal Government & increased it's spending. If you were honest & linked to an inflation adjusted graph the figures would look even worse for Bush! Even people running their own home budgets know that if your income decreases, your spending has to go down with it.
If you right-wingers REALLY believe in Bush's policies, why aren't you pushing for banks to offer loans to people that their grandchildren can pay off when they reach working age? The Federal government under a Republican Administration seems to thinks it's OK, why isn't it accessible to everyone? - geddon, on 09/18/2008, -1/+12This would have caused a rebellion in any country OTHER than the United States.
- brandita, on 09/18/2008, -0/+11Bear Stearns: Billions, Fannie and Freddie: Billions, AIG: Billions... A Huge Deficit: Priceless
- darladoon, on 09/18/2008, -0/+10from the article:
"In reality, the two main reasons why the 2009 budget will be so much worse than CBO had predicted are tax cuts and increases in military and other security-related spending"
the conservative worldview in a nutshell. - haymarket, on 09/18/2008, -0/+10That's pretty nuts. 550 billion dollars is about what Canada's ENTIRE national debt is (give or take a couple dozen billion). You guys managed to tick that up in a single year. Impressive.
- sjaxso, on 09/18/2008, -1/+10As a foreigner, it amazes me that the American People will happily bend over and allow this to happen.
I guess the only Americans I know personally are intelligent ones who use the internet, because if the Americans I know were representative of the whole country, it sure wouldn't be happening. - Hillsfar, on 09/18/2008, -0/+9Bush is setting up Obama to fail. Then the Republicans will blame it all on President Obama just like they blamed it all on Clinton and blamed it all on the "Democratic Congress that has been in power for the last 2 years."
- damack, on 09/18/2008, -0/+8The feds paid for it by printing the money increasing inflation.
Problem is they either keep increasing inflation which damages the economy or they go to the treasury and ask the underpaid tax payers to pay for it.
Either way somebody suffers for every penny spent and it pushes the economy into even more turmoil but they have no choice they can't let the banks collapse they will just have to wait for somebody to eventually bail out the treasury which is where everything will trickle down to in the end.
China might buy out the US treasury which practically means China will own America but I don't think there is an alternative the fact of the matter is this can't go on. - FairDinkumMate, on 09/17/2008, -2/+9Revenues increased based on what? Dollar figures? As I said before, post some non-inflationary based figures & you may have something to discuss.
You CLAIM that the Federal tax cuts INCREASED tax revenue. Justify that. Show the Federal income tax receipts for the relevant periods and the government's take. It's a ridiculous assertion. I'd love you to even try tro justify the THEORY of it. A company suddenly starts making increased profits due to increased spending by the general popualtion & decides to give away those profit increases in pay rises for their workers?
Let's assume(to the benefit of your argument) a 40% tax rate. Joe's $50K income at 40% income tax (ridiculous but for arguments sake we'll go with it) suddenly drops to 30% income tax. So Joe has an extra $5,000 to spend. He spends it with his own employer, who makes 75% profit(again, ridiculous but it's all in your favour!) so they are $3,750 better off. They pass the ENTIRE amount of their extra profit on to Joe so his salary is now $53,750 & he pays his 30% tax.
Tax under old scheme: 40% of $50K = $20,000 to the Fed
Tax under new scheme: 30% of $53,750 = $16,125 to the Fed
Please explain how this is an INCREASE in Fed tax revenue? And also why a company would be interested in passing its entire profit increas to its employees. - shutaro, on 09/17/2008, -1/+8I blame Communism.
- str3ama, on 09/17/2008, -1/+8There's some mention of holes in the description..why not use that. Be sure to work in illegal immigration, terrorism threat on the homefront, and outsourcing. Oh don't forget the bogeyman, he's always willingly to take the blame.
- bullox, on 09/18/2008, -0/+6Deficit is the yearly difference between what is allocated for the budget and what is actually spent over that amount. Debt is the year to year total of all of the past deficits. A budget surplus would lower the debt. That is not happening.
Nice try though. - crowbar77, on 09/18/2008, -1/+6The feds paying for it, basically creating money out of thin air. In a way its good since its not coming from the taxpayer, but they're probably getting more screwed because of increased inflation.
- fluoro, on 09/18/2008, -0/+5Yeah, the dollar will be worth less and our salaries will not be increasing at the same rate. So it's still effectively a tax.
- drmangrum, on 09/18/2008, -0/+5I want to know where i can apply for my bail out.
- sjaxso, on 09/18/2008, -0/+4Step 1) Read
Step 2) Understand, comprehend
Step 3) Comment. - cnot3, on 09/18/2008, -0/+4"A female from Seattle who joined Digg on May 9th, 2007"
Did Seattle secede from the Union recently? - inactive, on 09/18/2008, -2/+6How long more? Do you write fortune cookies and Beijing signs in your spare time?
- GorfTron, on 09/18/2008, -5/+9So, in practice, Reaganomics does not reduce deficits?
- darladoon, on 09/18/2008, -3/+6my favorite line of your response:
"tax cuts don't mean less revenue"
the most moronic thing i've heard EVER on these pages.... - inactive, on 09/18/2008, -2/+5 New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0 ...
September 11, 2003 < lookie here
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.
Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.
The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.
The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.
After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.
''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.
''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.
At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.
Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.
After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.
''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.
Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.
Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''
The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.
Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.
''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said. - coldkodiak, on 09/18/2008, -1/+4The kicker is that there's no reason for tax cuts to the rich if they won't keep their damn money in the economy when things get tough (As seen recently..)
the Republicans have nothing, no way to justify these tax cuts. - empirefalling, on 09/18/2008, -4/+7What a dismal mess you americans create.
- Tenoq, on 09/18/2008, -0/+3Maybe you need to start billing for services. :p
But military activities aren't what I'd be concerned about - that's your national past-time. Personally, I'd be much more worried about the progressive tax cuts (ie, regressive tax system). That's not cool. You've already got serious distribution of wealth issues - why make it worse AND ***** the country at the same time? - inactive, on 09/18/2008, -0/+3Don't confuse us with our thieving sadistic leaders, and we won't confuse you with yours.
- Tenoq, on 09/18/2008, -2/+5While in theory I agree, I prefer a Government bail-out to world recession and US depression. That $85b is really the tip of the iceberg if big corporations like AIG are allowed to go under.
It's a fundamental flaw in capitalism though - when you reach a certain size you can't afford to let market forces alone rule the roost. Some shady dealing and 'boom!', your entire economy vanished. :p - firejack007, on 09/18/2008, -1/+4darladoon, you obviously don't know Economics. Sadly you are not alone. Too many think that you cut taxes and you lose revenue. It doesn't work like that. ScreenRant is exactly right.
This is from the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress
Lessons on Tax Reform
Tax Rates and Tax Revenues
High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion. A reduction in high marginal tax rates would boost long term economic growth, and reduce the attractiveness of tax shelters and other forms of tax avoidance. The economic benefits of ERTA were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth." Unfortunately, the Council could not bring itself to acknowledge the counterproductive effects high marginal tax rates can have upon taxpayer behavior and tax avoidance activities.
Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase.
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/ ... - cowsgonemadd3, on 09/18/2008, -0/+3But we might find a treasure chest of Gold if we keep digging! ha ha
- Kumaku, on 09/18/2008, -0/+3Hey! It's supernova17!
- DeskFlyer, on 09/17/2008, -1/+4Inconceivable!
- oldgal, on 09/18/2008, -0/+3The U.S. national debt is held in the form of interest bearing I.O.U's called T-Bills (short term) or T-Bonds (long term) which are issued/auctioned by the U.S. Treasury. To see foreign holdings in U.S. debt (note numbers are in billions of dollars): http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
Note: As of July 2008, China holds $593 billion, Russia holds $74 billion.
These bonds are negotiable - I could by some at treasury auction, or theoretically I could buy some from China. If China were to start dumping them on the open market, they would take a huge loss (the only way you could sell them all would be at reduced price) and we would be unable to sell new issues at a higher that the price the Chinese would be getting. This would seriously impact our ability to finance our debt which could cause us to start defaulting on our debt obligations...and I really don't want to consider what happens beyond that. Personally, I think this severely constrains our ability to negotiate with China (and other big foreign holders), but my government assures me that this is not so, because China (or other foreign holders) would not be willing to incur the loss or the impact on their economy. - jaybol, on 09/18/2008, -0/+3the man the myth the legend. i heard that he can shoot lightning bolts out of his eyes.
- inactive, on 09/18/2008, -1/+4That only works if you give the public at large a tax break. When you give the top 1% a tax cut, they invest in oil, drive the prices to ungodly heights and cash in before the market slumps again.
See GDP (60% of which is consumer spending) before and after the tax cut stimulus package, i.e. IRS checks. - bainfu, on 09/18/2008, -1/+3A 1,000 diggs if I could give them to you sir. However you're probably going to get digged down, so let me give you advice if you want to improve your digg count. Bush == bad, all bad things are because of him. All Republicans are neo-cons, neocons are fascists, so all Republicans must be fascist. Let's stop pointing out blame, and let's start talking how we can fix it.
- shig, on 09/18/2008, -0/+2You need a lobbyist.
- ptheroux, on 09/18/2008, -0/+2I find it interesting that this article says the way to get out of a budget deficit is to "stop digging", yet the Democrats propose far more spending on things like the military, "national service", health care, foreign aid, energy, etc. than what is currently being spent. Since they are proposing no real spending cuts, forgive me for not trusting them to balance the budget. I'm not saying the Republicans are any better, by the way.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 152 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is