Originally posted by: Evan
^ Fern, that's just a sad response. Reagan
raised taxes and spending
Reagan raised taxes? I don't think so. Tax rates, particularly those for individuals, were much lower under Reagan than before. Prior to Reagan's 1st act (ERTA of '81) individual rates were as high as 70% IIRC.
The 1986 tax act was another very big/extensive piece of tax legislation. While there many many changes, the bigest change IMO was the elimination of all kinds of 'loopholes' (Although they are often referred to as 'loopholes' technically they weren't; they were legislatively approved/enacted benefits for a variety taxpayers engaged in various activites). Accordingly it could be said the '86 act raised taxes (although it was revenue neutral) they still remained much lower than they were before Reagan.
, Morris is out to lunch with his analysis because it isn't actually based in reality (is this really Dick Morris btw, because if so it's pretty pathetic).
Yes, it is Morris. Google the opening sentence of the article and you'll see it's a Morris piece (along with his wife) hosted on many web sites.
And as a financial professional, you know damn well the banking system won't be nationalized, we have many banks that don't need bailouts and many of the big are already locked into long-term loans.
No where in my comments did I refer to "nationalization". I commented on the yet unknown effects of common stockholders as a result of the structure of gov plan - purchase of preferred stock and loans.
While I have argued elsewhere that this program is not nationalization per se, I do acknowlege that the gov is likely in a very strong position as compared to other investors. (Frankly, I'm sort of happy that it is in such a strong position because it's our tax money). So I think it fair to question what impact will result on common stockholders. We've not seen this before, no one really knows.
Why would Obama suddenly change all that, he's no economist. It's just asinine to think he's going to entirely nationalize the banking system, and any such extreme scenario would be temporary in the first place (much like nationalizing the railroads during WWII).
I haven't mentioned "nationalized?
Also, what part of stimulus package to jumpstart confidence in the economy can be construed as a socialist guise to raise the national debt when the overwhelming consensus among economists is that a package is necessary in the first place?
I haven't mentioned "socialist"? I.e., you haven't addressed any of my remarks on the stimulus package.
Bush supported these same plans and raised national debt into the trillion territory for the first time in history last year. Bush was no socialist by any stretch. Fairness doctrine "support" has been debunked again, and again, and again. It's not going to happen in its previously proposed form, get over that paranoia when the reality says Fairness Doctrine hasn't
actually happened, oh and of course the clamoring for it to happen is virtually nil
(though I'd love see examples).
Here's your 'examples":
Pelosi, Durbin and Feinstein have all expressed support for the Fairness Doctrine
And this from Wiki:
[edit] Support
Some Democratic legislators have expressed interest in reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine,[18] although no one has introduced legislation to do so since 2005.
In June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (Democrat of Illinois) said, "It?s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,? [19] an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.[20] However, according to Marin Cogan of The New Republic in late 2008, "Senator Durbin's press secretary says that Durbin has 'no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view'?that the American people were served well under the doctrine?'and it's all been blown out of proportion.' " [21]
On June 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who represents most of San Francisco, California) told reporters that her fellow Democratic representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding ?the interest in my caucus is the reverse.? When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, ?Do you personally support revival of the ?Fairness Doctrine???, the Speaker replied "Yes." [22]
On October 22, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, told a conservative talk radio host in Albuquerque, New Mexico, "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view," and "All I?m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since." [23]
Senators John Kerry & Charles Shumer have publicly expressd support for the reintroduction the Fairness Doctrine
You might be interested to know that reintroduction of the fairness Doctrine would not require any legislation. The FCC can simply implement it by itself. Also be aware that Pelosi has forbidden any legislation to come to the floor that would prevent the FCC from doing so (outlaw the FD)
Given the abundance of support expressed by much of the Dem leadership in both Houses for the Fairness Doctrine I think it simply ridiculous to say anything's been debunked. I.e., no basis to call those worried about it "paranoid" or "morons". The FD is very much 'in play'