Conservative Tax Cuts - you gotta be kidding me

[The Derp]

Well, for starters, there is no tax cut for top marginal rates. That's what generates growth revenue.

No, it doesn't. Not even close. Bush cut the top rate and revenue for 2001-3 was below revenue from 2000. It took a mortgage bubble for revenue to finally surpass the level it hit in 2000.

So you took three steps back to take one step forward. How many steps does that leave you behind?

If we were cutting that back to the Reagan era of 28%, I would be on board with the plan, but that's not in the works. I also don't like this notion of "revenue neutral" tax policy because that's not a tax cut. If we're going to collect the same amount of dollars under the new plan as the old, how have we cut taxes? We've simply changed who pays the taxes. I want REAL tax cuts and REAL spending cuts.

But you don't know why. That's what you're not explaining. You're not explaining how or why you think cutting taxes for the rich will lead to all this magical growth when it never has before.

 

[Boss]

So your whataboutism is pretty fucking obvious here as you're trying to avoid the fact that no business will hire anyone based on their income tax rate. So your half-assed, rhetorical attempt here doesn't go unnoticed. Greedy CEO's still have a business to run. And these greedy CEO's are telling you that if you cut the tax rate for corporations, they will not invest in their companies. I'm not sure what more you need. A roomful of CEO's shooting down your stupid tax plan should be enough. Apparently it isn't. The reason why is obvious; for you, personally, your ego cannot take the bruising from being wrong about something like this. So you do everything you can to avoid and dodge and whatabout your way to not having to explain your shitty position.

And again... I asked you why you now want to listen to CEOs who you claimed were the most evil people on the planet with nothing but their own self interest at heart, just a few short years ago? What's the matter? Why can't you answer me?

Since you seem to have the intelligence of a 2nd grader.... Companies don't hire people based on the tax rates. They hire based on NEED. If they don't NEED anybody, they're not going to hire anybody.... simple as that, really.

Now... pay attention.... IF we lower corporate US tax rates (which are currently the highest in the free world)... it will spark interest from businesses abroad to come here and open up shop. They will NEED to hire employees. It will also prompt SOME businesses already here, to expand their business or bring back portions of their business they sent overseas due to high taxation. When they do that, they will have a NEED to hire new employees. As they hire these new employees, that means new consumers who are buying products. When a company is selling more products that means they have to produce more products to sell and you know what that means? They have a NEED to hire more people!

But the CEO, who has his cushy income and nest feathered already, doesn't really give two shits about changing anything with regard to tax policy. Why would he? More importantly, why are you listening to what a rich evil corporate CEO wants?

 

[BluesLegend]

How do crazy angry lefties get away with the term "budget busting" when Barry Hussein busted the budget for eight years without offering the slightest incentive to businesses other than failing jokes like Solyndra?

Obama reduced the deficit by 2/3 from where your guy, Bush the Dumber, left it.

You're welcome.

Total lie but okay lets play, what specifically did Obama do to reduce the deficit by 2/3, bills, executive orders, put up or shut up.

 

[Boss]

No, it doesn't. Not even close. Bush cut the top rate and revenue for 2001-3 was below revenue from 2000. It took a mortgage bubble for revenue to finally surpass the level it hit in 2000.

So you took three steps back to take one step forward. How many steps does that leave you behind?

Well the mortgage bubble had diddly-squat to do with tax revenue or tax rates.

Again, Bush is not a Conservative and the Bush tax cut plan was dumb. He cut rates across the board for EVERY taxpayer and it effectively cancelled itself out in terms of revenue growth. Contrast with the Reagan tax cuts, he cut the top marginal rates dramatically and expanded the tax base. This resulted in almost double the tax revenue in 8 years. In fact, every time we have lowered top marginal tax rates, we've seen an increase in tax revenue. It happened under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and even Bush, eventually.

 

[The Derp]

Sorry, I opposed the bailouts when they happened and there are threads on USMB to back that up. I NEVER supported "too big to fail" and I still don't..

Again, just because you say you opposed the bailouts doesn't suddenly mean you opposed the policies that led to the crisis that caused the bailouts. TBTF wasn't what caused the bailouts, letting the banks self-regulate is what caused the collapse which caused the bailouts. So you're not actually saying anything with this statement of yours. You're trying to pretend that you opposed the policies you supported that caused the mortgage bubble and economic collapse. You're also trying to take credit for the economic growth that came from that mortgage bubble. So you're trying to have it both ways; you're trying to pretend that your policies created growth as a result of the housing bubble, but weren't responsible for the bubble that was creating all this "growth".

Nice try, but I see right through it.

It also wasn't conservative policies that led to the financial crisis. That was the result of left-wing democrat liberal policies which forced lenders to make sub-prime loans to people who couldn't afford them. Conservatives warned it would lead to disaster and it did. And yes, it was signed into law by G.W. Bush who was NOT a conservative!

So here we go...so you're blaming Democrats and liberals for the mortgage bubble, the growth for which you're trying to take credit. Well, the bad news for you, pal, is that Bush tied his tax cuts to the growth of the housing market as he was campaigning in 2004.

From Fox News, March 26th, 2004:

Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.​

Which means he thinks and was campaigning on the idea that tax cuts led to the growth of the housing market...the same housing market you are blaming on everyone else, while simultaneously trying to take credit for the economic gains that happened as a result.

Furthermore, Bush's own Working Group on Financial Markets said that turmoil in those markets was caused by a "dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004 and extending through 2007". Democrats weren't in control of anything from 2004-7. The GOP controlled both Houses of Congress, the White House, and SCOTUS. So it wasn't Democrats that caused the weakening of standards, it was Bush's regulators who ceased enforcement of those standards to allow the banks to self-regulate...which is like letting the fox guard the henhouse:

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

 

[The Derp]

It also wasn't conservative policies that led to the financial crisis. That was the result of left-wing democrat liberal policies which forced lenders to make sub-prime loans to people who couldn't afford them. Conservatives warned it would lead to disaster and it did. And yes, it was signed into law by G.W. Bush who was NOT a conservative!

The problem is that Bush was entirely Conservative because he mortgaged our economy on debt. Here's a nifty little chart from calculatedrisk that shows Bush's economic growth with and without people using their homes as ATMs. You can see very plainly that any economic growth Bush had was due to people leveraging themselves in debt. So that's pretty typical of Conservative economics. It's always creating deficits and debt...then you complain about the deficits and debt you created. The pattern is so common now, I already know what you're going to say before you say it.

I have NO trouble explaining MY position or policies. I am a constitutional conservative libertarian. I believe in a small limited government pursuant to Article I Sec. 8 of the Constitution. I believe social issues should be determined by state and local government and the federal government should stay out of it unless there is a compelling civil rights argument. I want federal government out of my life as much as possible. I personally favor a consumption tax as opposed to income tax.

Posturing.

 

[Boss]

Again, just because you say you opposed the bailouts doesn't suddenly mean you opposed the policies that led to the crisis that caused the bailouts. TBTF wasn't what caused the bailouts, letting the banks self-regulate is what caused the collapse which caused the bailouts. So you're not actually saying anything with this statement of yours. You're trying to pretend that you opposed the policies you supported that caused the mortgage bubble and economic collapse. You're also trying to take credit for the economic growth that came from that mortgage bubble. So you're trying to have it both ways; you're trying to pretend that your policies created growth as a result of the housing bubble, but weren't responsible for the bubble that was creating all this "growth".

Nice try, but I see right through it.

Again, I didn't support the bailouts... never have, never will. I also didn't support the liberal policy of mandating sub-prime loans to low income borrowers which created the housing/finance crisis. It had nothing to do with regulation.

The economic growth under Reagan certainly didn't come from policy signed into law 30 years later under George W. Bush.

Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.
Which means he thinks and was campaigning on the idea that tax cuts led to the growth of the housing market...

I think I readily admitted Bush signed it into law... Bush wasn't Conservative! I did not agree with this policy and said so vociferously at the time.

The problem is that Bush was entirely Conservative because he mortgaged our economy on debt. Here's a nifty little chart from calculatedrisk that shows Bush's economic growth with and without people using their homes as ATMs. You can see very plainly that any economic growth Bush had was due to people leveraging themselves in debt. So that's pretty typical of Conservative economics.

Again, you continue trying to claim that Bush was a Conservative and his policies were Conservative. Bush is responsible for the formation of the Tea Party! Go study some fucking history dude! Bush was not a Conservative other than on populist social conservative issues.

I've explained numerous times on this forum why the Bush tax cuts weren't as great and awesome as the Reagan tax cuts but it seems to fall on deaf ears. Bush cut all rates and didn't expand the base. Reagan cut top marginals dramatically while expanding the base. Bush's plan resulted in slower economic growth which didn't show revenue gains for about 3 years. Reagan had revenue gains the following year and nearly doubled tax revenues in his 8 years.

 

[The Derp]

Well the mortgage bubble had diddly-squat to do with tax revenue or tax rates.

Now hold on a second...that's not true. The problem is that Bush himself tied his tax cuts to the growth of the housing market...the
"growth" you are pretending occurred as a result of Conservative policies. So when you say "revenue grew", what do you think was the cause of that growth of revenue? The housing market, which was being inflated by Bush for the purpose of making the eocnomy look like it was growing as a result of tax cuts, when it was really growing as a result of debt.

Again, Bush is not a Conservative and the Bush tax cut plan was dumb. He cut rates across the board for EVERY taxpayer and it effectively cancelled itself out in terms of revenue growth.

How so? You're saying that cutting taxes cuts revenue growth? What makes you think revenue would grow as a result of cutting revenue? What's the logic there? Do you think that if the wealthy get a tax cut, they will increase their consumption? Problem is that doesn't happen. When the top marginal rate was cut by Bush, the wealthy didn't increase their spending, they increased their savings. So the entire rhetoric behind your push to cut taxes for the wealthy; that if they get tax cuts they will increase consumption, is false. Why would tax rates for everyone else have an impact on the spending done by the wealthy? You need to connect those dots and you haven't.

Contrast with the Reagan tax cuts, he cut the top marginal rates dramatically and expanded the tax base.

No he didn't. He may have cut income taxes, but he raised other taxes 11 times and the EITC was expanded which is why "47% of the people pay no taxes" today. The tax base wasn't broadened, it was narrowed because he cut income taxes for everyone, just like you said Bush's mistake was. So what happens when you cut someone's taxes to 0? Does that increase the tax burden on the wealthy or decrease it?

You cut taxes, then you complain that 47% of the people pay no taxes, so your solution to that is to...cut taxes. It's just one big circle jerk with you voluntarily eating the cracker.

This resulted in almost double the tax revenue in 8 years. In fact, every time we have lowered top marginal tax rates, we've seen an increase in tax revenue. It happened under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and even Bush, eventually.

No, not a doubling of tax revenue. Not even close.

Revenue Receipts (in billions):
1981: $599.3
1989: $991.1
$991.1 - $599.3 = $391.8
$391.8 / $599.3 = 65% growth, not 100% growth. So you don't seem to get math.

Let's compare that to how much Clinton increased revenue, shall we?

Revenue Receipts (in billions):
1993: $1,154.3
2001: $1,991.7
$1,991.7 - $1,154.3 = $837.4
$837.4 / $1,154.3 = 73% growth. And that was on an INCOME TAX INCREASE beginning in 1993.

And of course, let's see what Obama did:

Revenue Receipts (in billions):
2009: $2,105.0
2017: $3,643.7
$3,643.7 - $2,105.0 = $1,538.7
$1,538.7 / $2,105.0 = 73% growth. And that was on an INCOME TAX INCREASE beginning with the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts at the end of 2012.

So you say Reagan's tax cuts grew revenue to astounding levels, and I say that's a load of shit because Reagan's revenue growth for his 8 years was less than both Obama's and Clinton's...and Obama and Clinton didn't cut income taxes, they raised them.

 

[g5000]

I just took the GOP tax reform plan and did my 2016 taxes with it.

I ended up being taxed 29 percent more under the new plan than I do under the current tax structure.

You can see how you do yourself here: Do You Win Or Lose Under The GOP Tax Plan: Find Out For Yourself Here

 

[The Derp]

In fact, every time we have lowered top marginal tax rates, we've seen an increase in tax revenue. It happened under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and even Bush, eventually.

No, we haven't.

Definitely not during Bush the Dumber.

Revenue levels for Bush the Dumber for 2001-3 were below revenue levels for 2000. It took a mortgage bubble to spur growth, a mortgage bubble you blame on the Democrats while trying to give credit for the gains to your shit policies. Like a duplicitous turd, you're trying to have it both ways. Too bad you're just not smart enough to see it.

Also, Clinton raised taxes, he didn't cut them. The Capital Gains Tax Rate was cut, but that's what created the dotcom bubble, proving Conservative fiscal policy never works and only produces recessions and debt.

 

[Boss]

Now hold on a second...that's not true. The problem is that Bush himself tied his tax cuts to the growth of the housing market...the
"growth" you are pretending occurred as a result of Conservative policies. So when you say "revenue grew", what do you think was the cause of that growth of revenue? The housing market, which was being inflated by Bush for the purpose of making the eocnomy look like it was growing as a result of tax cuts, when it was really growing as a result of debt.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT BUSH SAID! BUSH IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE!

He did not say his tax cuts resulted in growth of the housing market! The housing market grew as a result of liberal policy mandating sub-prime loans to low income borrowers which Bush eagerly signed into law and took credit for. It had nothing to do with tax cuts! And just because the housing market grew doesn't mean that alone is responsible for all economic growth!

When I say "revenue grew" I'm not talking about the economy growing, I am referring to tax revenue collected by the Treasury. That is the result of tax rates applied to earned incomes.... has nothing to do with debts or housing markets.

 

[Boss]

When the top marginal rate was cut by Bush, the wealthy didn't increase their spending, they increased their savings.

So what?

Look... a dollar bill doesn't have "rich person's dollar" written on it! It's just a dollar! It doesn't matter what it's used for as long as it's being used. Unless someone is hiding it in a mason jar under their porch or stuffing it in the mattress, it doesn't matter how it's spent. So it goes into "investments"? That means someone has capital available at a bank somewhere to start a new business or build a home, or buy a car, etc.

Even if the rich person burned the money in the fireplace... that decreases the supply of money which increases the value of the remaining money! Supply and demand! So there is nothing the rich person can do with their money that doesn't stimulate the economy in some way.

 

[Boss]

No, not a doubling of tax revenue. Not even close.

Revenue Outlays (in billions):
1981: $599.3
1989: $991.1
$991.1 - $599.3 = $391.8
$391.8 / $599.3 = 65% growth, not 100% growth. So you don't seem to get math.

I said "ALMOST DOUBLE" which is NOT the same as "DOUBLE!"

So... 65% growth in revenue when YOUR SIDE claimed it would create a massive shortfall in revenue! 'Nuff said!

 

[Boss]

How so? You're saying that cutting taxes cuts revenue growth? What makes you think revenue would grow as a result of cutting revenue? What's the logic there?

Cutting taxes CAN cut revenue growth, it depends on which taxes you cut and by how much. History shows when we cut the TOP MARGINAL tax rate, it results in revenue growth. However, if you simply cut lower income tax rates, there is no subsequent economic prosperity generated besides the actual spending of the tax rebates by consumers which is short lived. Poor people don't tend to create many jobs or open new factories and such.

 

[The Derp]

gain, I didn't support the bailouts... never have, never will. I also didn't support the liberal policy of mandating sub-prime loans to low income borrowers which created the housing/finance crisis. It had nothing to do with regulation.

So you're just spreading propaganda about the housing bubble, with good reason! The housing bubble was the culmination of Conservative leveraging of our economy. No one mandated subprime loans...that's a lie. What happened and what caused the bubble to appear was Bush's regulators ceasing the enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004, just like his working group says.

So help me understand why you think the turmoil was caused by ambivalent, vague "mandates" as you say, and not by the "dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for subprime loans beginning late 2004 and extending to 2007" like Bush's Working Group says?

The economic growth under Reagan certainly didn't come from policy signed into law 30 years later under George W. Bush.

What economic growth during Reagan? So you're muddying economic growth, of which there was none until Congress increased spending and the Fed lowered interest rates beginning in 1983 (we were in stagflation from Q1 1981 - Q3 1981, then a recession from Q4 1981 through Q4 1982), with revenue growth and you're wrong on both counts. Reagan's economic growth from 1981-1984 was shit. It wasn't until he doubled the deficit, increasing government spending and the Fed lowering interest rates, that the economy started moving. But that was short-lived because like all Conservative economies, they're built on a house of cards; in the case of Reagan, the S&L's, which ended up collapsing right as he was leaving office, paving the way for the recession that would occur just a couple short years later during Bush the Elder. So Reagan, like Bush the Dumber, was riding a bubble that was destined to pop.

You people just make up shit all the time to justify your shit policies, don't you?

I think I readily admitted Bush signed it into law... Bush wasn't Conservative! I did not agree with this policy and said so vociferously at the time..

So I find this confusing because you say you opposed the Bush Tax Cuts, yet they did exactly what you want; lowered the top marginal rate. The lowering of the other rates doesn't have any impact on the effects of lowering the top marginal rate, even though you are trying to make the connection. So walk me through that...how does lowering a middle class worker's tax rate from, say, 28% to 25% impact the economic activity of a rich person whose marginal rate was lowered from 39.6% to 35%? Because that's what you're arguing...that tax cuts for the rich lead to increased revenue. That's the principle behind your push to cut taxes for the rich, isn't it? You believe that if the top marginal rate was cut, the wealthy would then increase their consumption which would result in increased revenues to make up for the drop in revenues from the income tax cut, right? That's your belief system, isn't it? So explain to me what anyone else's rates have to do with the actions of the wealthy upon receiving a boost to their after-tax income? Cause I don't think you can. I think you're bullshitting.

Again, you continue trying to claim that Bush was a Conservative and his policies were Conservative. Bush is responsible for the formation of the Tea Party! Go study some fucking history dude! Bush was not a Conservative other than on populist social conservative issues.

No, the Teabaggers were just a bunch of people who wanted to posture as fiscally responsible when the entire time they supported tax cuts and all of Bush's policies. You say there was this massive resistance from Conservatives to Bush...where was that resistance? You can say you opposed Bush's policies, yet you're defending them. So it seems to me that what's going on here is that you have an identity crisis. You rightfully recognize the Bush policies were shit, but you didn't know that at the time, so you now posture that you opposed them that whole time (but were strangely silent along with all the other self-professed "Conservatives who opposed Bush"). Speaking of which - I was out protesting the Iraq War...don't remember seeing any Conservatives there! In fact, the only Conservatives I did see were the ones screaming at me that I was a traitor and an appeaser because I opposed the stupid war. The trouble with people like you is that no record exists of you opposing Bush. Instead, there's record of you defending his policies while at the same time pretending you opposed them.

I don't buy it. I think you're just trying to make everyone think something about you that is completely untrue because your ego means more to you than the truth.

What a poseur.

I've explained numerous times on this forum why the Bush tax cuts weren't as great and awesome as the Reagan tax cuts but it seems to fall on deaf ears. Bush cut all rates and didn't expand the base. Reagan cut top marginals dramatically while expanding the base. Bush's plan resulted in slower economic growth which didn't show revenue gains for about 3 years. Reagan had revenue gains the following year and nearly doubled tax revenues in his 8 years.

The Bush Tax Cuts and the Reagan Tax Cuts were not great at all, and were the same thing; a tax cut for the rich disguised as a tax cut for everyone, even though all the benefits of these cuts go to the top, and even though you cannot prove that cutting the rates for the rich leads to increased consumption by the rich. In fact, we have data that proves the opposite...that when the wealthy get a tax cut, they don't spend it in the economy. They save it.

 

[The Derp]

I said "ALMOST DOUBLE" which is NOT the same as "DOUBLE!"

LOL! Way to move the goalposts. So now you want to make this a semantic argument? OK, well you missed a "doubling" by a third. So it's not "almost". In fact, Reagan's revenue growth was less than Obama's and Clinton's over the same time period of 8 years. These are facts. And Obama and Clinton raised taxes. So Obama and Clinton raise taxes, which reduces deficits and increases revenue growth at higher rates than Reagan's tax cuts which doubled deficits and led to revenue growth below that of Obama and Clinton.

You "almost" made an argument, if not for the pesky facts that undermine it.

So... 65% growth in revenue when YOUR SIDE claimed it would create a massive shortfall in revenue! 'Nuff said!

No, we claimed it would create massive deficits, which it did. It doubled the deficit and tripled the debt (no outrage from the deficit peacocks there...where were you?). That's why Reagan had to raise all those other taxes...and why Stockman is going around today saying that this trickle-down policy is a fraud and always was a fraud.

 

[The Derp]

Cutting taxes CAN cut revenue growth

Only if you control for every variable and operate in a vacuum. Unfortunately, our economy and budgets aren't that linear. You're saying "Oh tax cuts work if all these preconditions are met"...which is tantamount to fantasizing. Your fiscal policy is a fantasy that relies on the presumption that people should behave the way you think. But because you're barely a person yourself, you're not really clued into how people behave and think. All Conservative policies work in theory, and that theory has to have a very careful set of parameters that don't allow for any deviation. Conservatives craft policy based on how they think people should react, as opposed to liberals who craft policy based on how people will react. That's the difference between us. You presume to know how people should behave, and we presume to know that people will behave. This couldn't be made any clearer than the example of Kansas.

Conservatives in Kansas said that if they cut taxes for the rich and corporations, there should be all this increased economic activity. Well guess what? There wasn't. Instead what happened was Kansas' GDP growth, their job growth, and the business creation growth lagged the national average, which means Conservative policies in Kansas helped drag down Obama's economy. KS' GDP growth during the tax cuts was below the national GDP growth over the same period. Same with job growth. Same with business creation. One thing the KS tax cuts did produce was massive deficits and debt, which led to two credit downgrades for Kansas, and cutting of essential services like education (public schools closed early because they didn't have the $$ to keep them open), health care (KS raised co-pays, and co-insurance, and drug prices for Medicaid patients), and of course the raiding of the Welfare Block Grant and the KS Highway Fund. So bad were these tax cuts that the KS State Board of Regents were forced to raise tuition (which means families and students had to borrow more) because funding for the State University system was cut by Topeka because the revenue everyone was promised by Conservatives never materialized.

So you cut taxes for the rich, which then resulted in middle class families having to go deeper into debt just to send their kid to state college.

No economic growth as a result.

 

[The Derp]

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT BUSH SAID! BUSH IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE!.

Yes, he is a Conservative because he leveraged our economy on debt. That's what you people do. That's why deficits always explode when you're in office. That's why you grow debt. That's why Reagan tripled the debt after 8 years, why Bush the Elder grew it by 50% after 4, and why Bush the Dumber nearly doubled it again after 8. That's also why Kansas saw their pre-Brownback surplus vanish post-Brownback tax cuts. It's the same thing; Conservatives promise that the wealthy will increase their consumption if they get a tax cut, they never do, and then Conservatives screech about the deficits their tax cuts created and ask everyone else to sacrifice just so you don't have to admit your fiscal ideology is shit.

He did not say his tax cuts resulted in growth of the housing market!

That is exactly what he said. You don't get to pretend words don't mean what they mean. Bush credited his tax cuts for the growth in the housing marker This is from Fox News:

Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.​

So while campaigning in 2004, Bush was saying the strong housing market was a result of his tax cuts. He literally pointed to the strong housing market as proof his tax cuts were the economy's "savior".

The housing market grew as a result of liberal policy mandating sub-prime loans to low income borrowers which Bush eagerly signed into law and took credit for. It had nothing to do with tax cuts! And just because the housing market grew doesn't mean that alone is responsible for all economic growth!

So you bought into propaganda here. No, the housing market was growing because, as his working group said, Bush had reduced the standards for subprime loans which is why subprimes went from 100,000 issued a year from 1993-2003, to 266,000 issued a year from 2004-6. Bush nearly doubled the size of the subprime market in three years and he did that by "dramatically weakening underwriting standards for subprime loans", as his own Working Group says. The subprimes issued between 1993-2003 had delinquency rates of 5-7%, the subprimes issued between 2004-2007 had delinquency rates between 21-23%, and were entering delinquency much faster each successive year between 2004-6.

So the problem with you is that you can't actually point to any specific law, and any text within that law, that mandates lenders do what you're pretending they had to do. You're a fucking fraud, or you're a clueless dupe. Not sure which. Not that it matters. There is nothing, no line of text, no passage, nothing in any legislation that forced banks to do what you say. And I dare you to pull from the text of any bill the language that you imagine exists. You're not going to be able to for a couple reasons: 1) no such text exists and 2) you're too fucking lazy to even do it. So instead, you just rely on those who confirm your biases. Pathetic. All to preserve your delicate, fragile little ego. What a shame.

When I say "revenue grew" I'm not talking about the economy growing, I am referring to tax revenue collected by the Treasury. That is the result of tax rates applied to earned incomes.... has nothing to do with debts or housing markets.

And the growth of tax revenue during Reagan's 8 years (65%) was less than Clinton's (73%) and Obama's (72%), both of whom raised taxes. So before we can move forward with this debate, you have to acknowledge these facts. So I don't know what world you're living in where cutting taxes leads to faster revenue growth because we have 3 examples when compared to one another show clearly that Reagan's tax cuts led to slower revenue growth than Clinton and Obama's tax increases that led to faster revenue growth.

So you're not even making a good argument.

 

[The Derp]

When the top marginal rate was cut by Bush, the wealthy didn't increase their spending, they increased their savings.

So what?

So that undermines your argument that the wealthy will increase consumption enough to pay for the cuts to their tax rate.

 

[Boss]

So you're just spreading propaganda about the housing bubble, with good reason! The housing bubble was the culmination of Conservative leveraging of our economy. No one mandated subprime loans...that's a lie. What happened and what caused the bubble to appear was Bush's regulators ceasing the enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004, just like his working group says.

So help me understand why you think the turmoil was caused by ambivalent, vague "mandates" as you say, and not by the "dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for subprime loans beginning late 2004 and extending to 2007" like Bush's Working Group says?

It was called the American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act.

It was not supported by fiscal Conservatives. They were hooted down by people like you who claimed they didn't care about poor people owning homes. After passage of this legislation, lending institutions were pressured by HUD to make the loans available regardless of credit backgrounds, etc. So, yes, it was a mandate.

I don't know anything about "Bush's Working Group" or what his administration tried to say after the fact about this... it's common for administrations to do CYA after their policies fail miserably, so it wouldn't surprise me if they don't agree with me. Nor does it surprise me that you're repeating left-wing rhetoric you've heard spewed by radicals who want to blame everything on Conservatives.