Link: Steve Forbes offers recovery plan

silentsam74 · January 24th, 2009, 08:47 AM

	Quote:
	"There's no reason why with a few changes we can't quickly emerge" from the global financial crisis, Forbes said, adding for emphasis: "Quickly emerge." First, Forbes said, stop mark-to-market accounting, which assigns a value to a position held in a financial instrument based on the current market price for that instrument. He said the rule makes no sense, especially in the current environment, noting that banks are afraid to lend money because they're afraid of taking a "hit" on their books. Second, "announce henceforth that we're going to treat the dollar with respect and not let it yo-yo all over the place. The dollar," he said to sustained applause, "should be the keystone for the world." Third, guarantee Freddie's and Fannie's debt. That, in turn, would give banks the confidence to lend money with 4.5 percent to 5 percent interest rates over 15 to 20 years. Fourth, enforce rules against certain forms of short-selling, which is essentially betting that a stock will fall. Fifth, reduce tax rates. "Why not take our effective corporate tax rate - 35 percent - cut it to 20 (percent) and make it permanent? . ... We'll come out ahead."

January 24th, 2009, 09:51 AM

	Quote:
	Fifth, reduce tax rates. "Why not take our effective corporate tax rate - 35 percent - cut it to 20 (percent) and make it permanent? . ... We'll come out ahead."

But, but, but, we have to punish the rich corporations for making money on the backs of the poor...

mikeua69 · January 24th, 2009, 12:19 PM

The mark-to-market accounting is funny. The banks were all for it when these assets were going up in value, now they want to get rid of it.

Don't agree with restrictions on shorting. The uptick rule should be brought back, but that's it.

Pluck and Grit · January 24th, 2009, 07:06 PM

#5 is spot on. One of the major reasons I voted for McCain. No I'm not trying to rehash the election. But I did find it disconcerting that on such a clear and critical policy difference (McCain wanted to lower the corporate tax rate to 25%, Obama wants to raise it to 45%) it didn't even become a campaign issue. Instead, the media was talking about William Ayers, or Sarah Palin's daughter's boyfriend. I feel cheated. Not because my guy lost, but because the issue didn't get a fair hearing in front of the public. That is partially because neither candidate made a significant talking point out of it. I wonder why they didn't.

TDBama78 · January 24th, 2009, 09:09 PM

	Quote:	mikeua69
	The mark-to-market accounting is funny. The banks were all for it when these assets were going up in value, now they want to get rid of it. Don't agree with restrictions on shorting. The uptick rule should be brought back, but that's it.

what he is refering to is naked shorting. shorting is not a bad thing as long as stock certificates are held or exchanged.market makerscan run a stock into the ground by naked shorting. but then there is a short squeeze,u gota love those.

TRUTIDE · January 26th, 2009, 11:01 PM

Where is the 100s of millions of dollars for condoms? Does this guy know anything? Not even a mention of funding to prepare the country for universal health care. What is he "daft" or something?

We need to check his tax returns.

Crimson Speed · January 27th, 2009, 11:53 PM

	Quote:	Pluck and Grit
	#5 is spot on. One of the major reasons I voted for McCain. No I'm not trying to rehash the election. But I did find it disconcerting that on such a clear and critical policy difference (McCain wanted to lower the corporate tax rate to 25%, Obama wants to raise it to 45%) it didn't even become a campaign issue. Instead, the media was talking about William Ayers, or Sarah Palin's daughter's boyfriend. I feel cheated. Not because my guy lost, but because the issue didn't get a fair hearing in front of the public. That is partially because neither candidate made a significant talking point out of it. I wonder why they didn't.

McCain was doomed from the start of the campaign. It boiled down to an old man against a slick, energetic politician with the gift of speech and charisma. Actual political platforms were not going to change the outcome. In my lifetime, this has happened twice before; the elections of John Kennedy and Bill Clinton.