Is John Dingell the Dumbest Man in America?

Discussion in 'Bill Archer's Guestbook' started by Bill Archer, Aug 27, 2007.

  1. Bill Archer

    Bill Archer BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 19, 2002
    Washington, NC
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So John is worried about global warming, and he figures that one thing that we should do about it is eliminate the interest deduction for houses over 3000 square feet.

    Is it really possiblethat a guy in his position really doesn't understand the effect this would have on the economy? That prices for houses over 3000 sf would completely collapse? And prices for houses under 3000 sf would skyrocket, thus putting home purchase out of reach of more lower income Americans? That it would essentially destroy the economy? Hello?

    How can liberals be this dense about economics? I mean, I understand that they aren't intelligent enough to understand that lowering tax rates raises tax revenue; it's counterintuitive and you have to know something, which few of them do.

    But this, this is so mindbogglingly stupid that I can't even comprehend it.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082400897_pf.html?
     
  2. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You are absoultely right Bill. The right thing to do is eliminate the mortgage deduction for ALL homes. There is no reason why my renter ass should be subsdising the purchase of private real estate. It's just another liberal social engineering scheme that if ended would make our nation better off in the long term.
     
  3. west ham sandwich

    Feb 26, 2007
    C-bus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    While i'm not against that in theory, do you really think that would be good policy right now considering how everyone is saying the housing market is already the noose around the economy's neck?

    Not saying I agree with wailing and gnashing of teeth about the housing market (seriously everyone knew for for years that a cooling, if not a downturn, would come eventually - but then when it does happen they run around like a bunch of chicken littles). But it would really have the effect of a tax increase on the economy. And those always work well. Now if you lower taxes whilst getting rid of deductions, okay then.
     
  4. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You would have to lower taxes. That's a given. The dirty little secret is that this deduction was a major cause of the housing bubble. Without tax deductable interest you do not have interest only ARM's. Without interest only ARM's you don't have the vehicle for people to borrow far more than they can pay back because they see the initial number and conveniently forget that that number is going up when the loan resets.

    Meanwhile, the interest deduction is a tax break with racist and classist origins. This, along with the GI bill and housing projects and many other programs designed to help put the most socially weak people in our society in a tragic and many times dangerous position.

    Once again, you government doing what's best for you and hurting you in the process.
     
  5. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    IMHO, John Dingell has right idea. The interest deduction simply subsidizes the wealthy.
     
  6. west ham sandwich

    Feb 26, 2007
    C-bus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    only if you consider over half of the country "the wealthy"
     
  7. FeverNova1

    FeverNova1 New Member

    Sep 17, 2004
    Plano
    Good point. From what Bill’s thread on the poor says, 46% of the them own a house. How would this affect them?
     
  8. Bill Archer

    Bill Archer BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 19, 2002
    Washington, NC
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, see, everything makes sense to the democrats if the theme is "eat the rich". He's defining anyone wiht a 3000 sf house as "rich" and figures this is a populist idea. He's really just appealing to the lowest common denominator: people who think that someone else should pay taxes and that rich people should pay a lot more than their fair share and who have no idea how economics works.

    Thats why they've all spent the last six years shrieking about Bush's "tax cuts for the wealthy" which was really a rather modest across the board rate reduction and which has helped raise the economy out of the dot-com disaster and the Clinton recession.

    But the idea that "lowering taxes raises revenues" takes a brain and most democrats really don't have one.
     
  9. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    "Clinton recession"? Bill, please, be serious. Your attempts to blame Clinton for everything are just as ridiculous as the worst posts on the DU message boards.
     
  10. Bill Archer

    Bill Archer BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 19, 2002
    Washington, NC
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I have never, ever, attempted to blame Clinton for "everything"

    But it''s a fact that the 2000-2001 downturn began while he was President.

    Now in reality, of course, the whole thing was neither Clinton's fault nor Bush's fault. Economic forces beyond the control of mere politicians were to blame.

    But if the democrats get to blame 2001's economy on Bush, then I can blame it on Clinton with every bit as much validity.

    ie. None.

    I would add, however, that while I for one do not "blame Cinton for everything" I have yet to see Clinton accept responsibility for ANYTHING.
     
  11. west ham sandwich

    Feb 26, 2007
    C-bus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    whoa there Bill, I'm pretty sure that Clinton has, on numerous occasions, accepted responsibility for the dot-com boom of the late '90s, without, of course, the responsibility of the dot-com caused market downturn.

    He's also accepted responsibility for Kasich's work balancing the budget, peace in his time in the middle east, and stopping genocide in Kosovo (where we really need to pull our troops out, I mean here it is 10 years later and they're still trying to kill each other over there in a civil war).
     
  12. Bill Archer

    Bill Archer BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 19, 2002
    Washington, NC
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Do me a favor and don't ever mention John Kasich again.

    A brilliant, young, handsome, charismatic Republican conservative with an absolute grasp of the budget process and totally respected on both sides of the aisle and who was in line to run for the US Senate but had made a promise to Mike DeWine that if DeWine ran for the seat he would step aside.

    And rather than break his word - despite on-their-knees-begging-and-pleading by virtually everyone in the Ohio Republican party, he withdrew from the campaign and left it to that sniveling, weasel-faced RINO, that mealy-mouthed, brainless dickbag of a waste of flesh, that putrid, scum-sucking egg-eating-dog of a useless bag og fresh horse shot Mike DeWine who won in a walk, proceeded to be an enormous embarrassment, voted with the Democrats most of the time, alienating the entire Republican party without gaining one damn Democrat vote so that when he ran for re-election he got buried by an empty suit.

    Kasich, meanwhile, ought to be running for President right about now. A fresh, enthusiastic, pragmatic Republican beholden to no one and genuinely dedicated to public service now has a weekend TV show.

    It's a freakin tragedy that makes me physically ill.
     
  13. Microwave

    Microwave New Member

    Sep 22, 1999

    I hate when you talk about economics. You're aware there were all sorts of indicators of a recession around 1999. Everyone was predicting it.
     
  14. west ham sandwich

    Feb 26, 2007
    C-bus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Never heard about this deal with Dewine. That sucks. He was my man for prez back in 2000, but threw his hat in behind Bush.

    Would have been nice if he'd ran for Governor instead of Taft *shudder*. Then he'd really be a front runner for the republican nod.
     
  15. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    Of course I am aware of that. Just like I'm aware that there's talk about the same indicators right now.

    Oh, but I forget, you have a minor in economics or something.:rolleyes:
     
  16. FeverNova1

    FeverNova1 New Member

    Sep 17, 2004
    Plano
    And how long have they been talking about it? Basically the ever since Bush was elected.
     
  17. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    I'm not talking about Bush critics; I'm talking about economists in general. Ted knows what I mean--discussions re: the credit crunch, the inverted yield curve, the lack of transparency in hedge fund holdings as it relates to mortgage and debt holdings, etc. Maybe these economists will be right, maybe they won't.
     
  18. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    70% of Americans own their own homes, but it is mostly upper income homeowners that are able to take advantage of the mortgage deduction. If you home is paid for the deduction is worthless. If you don't itemize the deduction is worthless. That means the deduction is worthless to elderly and low income homeowners. And why should I, the owner of a modest home, have to subsidize my neighbor who wants to buy a McMansion? And why should I, someone living in a relatively cheap city, have to subsidize someone that chooses to live in NY or SF?

    Here’s an idea that should appeal to the conservative mindset, get rid of the deduction and cut everybody’s tax rate!
     
  19. Microwave

    Microwave New Member

    Sep 22, 1999

    I don't understand how you can claim to read the WSJ and understand economics and then call yourself a liberal. It just doesn't seem right. I am friends with many people who work in finance or work at banks and a total of one person I've met is a Democrat, and that is mostly because his Dad is a union guy.

    I predicted a recession for this year and I was wrong - and I used the inverted yield curve as my reasoning. It had nothing to do with the housing market though. That will work itself out. I agree with Bernanke on that topic.

    I am certain there will be a major downturn in the economy though and the next President will be (wrongly) blamed. Sort of like Bush got blamed in 2001-2003.

    Let's get back to the yield curve though....it's not really an indicator for a slowdown currently. A flat yield curve is usually an indicator of a slowdown or recession and currently the yield is rising.

    this is an interesting read:
    http://www.livemint.com/2007/08/21012252/The-yield-curve-does-matter-in.html
     
  20. Microwave

    Microwave New Member

    Sep 22, 1999
    Bill,

    I can't believe you think Dingell is the dumbest man in America, you're way way off base. In fact he isn't even the dumbest man from Michigan. Have you ever heard of John Conyers? Hell, have you heard of our mayor Kwame Kilpatrick? How about another great Michigan politician: Carl Levin.

    I should move.
     
  21. west ham sandwich

    Feb 26, 2007
    C-bus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes, you should. And that's even before mentioning that abomination that took place on Saturday.
     
  22. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    I work in finance, I have a degree in economics and I'm a Democrat. And no one I'm closely related to is in a Union. Many people I work with in our NYC office are also Dems. As are many bankers I know.
    Few of them read the WSJ editorial page, however, which doesn't have all tath much to do with economics.

    The housing market shake-out isn't the really big deal. If the current liquidity crunch (it is NOT a credit crunch, since the assets aren't defaulting!!) continues, the capital markets will slow down to a significant degree and we will have slower growth, which would cause problems for companies running at unreasonable levels of debt assuming they can take that debt out later. Is it assured? No, not at all. But it is possible.

    Oh, and Michigan sucks. HaHA!
     
  23. Microwave

    Microwave New Member

    Sep 22, 1999
    I was rooting against Michigan.


    If you say that most people you know that work in finance are democrats, I would say I don't believe you. The overwhelming amount of brokers and bankers are fiscal conservatives. I don't think it's close, it's like 90/10....would you dispute that?
     
  24. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    Most people I know who work in finance are indeed conservatives, but I also know several Democrats. In fact, the CEO of a major investment firm in Chicago is a Democrat (I don't know him, however). And, of course, Warren Buffet just held a fund-raiser for Barack Obama.
     
  25. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    I don't think its 9/10, and fiscal conservatives and Republicans are hardly equivalent these days, now are they? Most people who're really rich don't tend to be especially conservative. For instance, when one of the partners here in London talks about his high esteem for Maggie Thatcher, he gets annoyed looks.
     

Share This Page