Job Growth: Better then expected in October.

[Avorysuds]

The stimulus package included both tax credits and tax cuts.

You're smart enough to know that, right?

Show me the 400 billion in "tax cuts"... You're smart enough to do that, right?

Yes, I'm smart enough to use der geugler:
- The New York Times

Im sorry, did you just link me something that said "tax credits" over and over ... why, yes you did!

Haha, maybe I'm reading this wrong.. Your "Tax cut" that happenes to be a deficit building "tax credit" LIKE I FUCKIN SAID also does this ... "Since the credit is “refundable,” people with no federal income-tax liability will get money back." Does that really mean if you paid no taxes the Government just gives you money? Wow, cool "tax cut"... You don't even have to pay taxes to get it!

 

[8537]

Show me the 400 billion in "tax cuts"... You're smart enough to do that, right?

Yes, I'm smart enough to use der geugler:
- The New York Times

Im sorry, did you just link me something that said "tax credits" over and over ... why, yes you did!

Haha, maybe I'm reading this wrong.. Your "Tax cut" that happenes to be a deficit building "tax credit" LIKE I FUCKIN SAID also does this ... "Since the credit is “refundable,” people with no federal income-tax liability will get money back." Does that really mean if you paid no taxes the Government just gives you money? Wow, cool "tax cut"... You don't even have to pay taxes to get it!

You seem awfully angry...

A tax credit is a targeted tax cut. On the other hand, much of what I linked was "fuckin" tax cut in the old school sense...and not all of the credits are refundable.

You could just admit you were wrong, but I'm quite certain we'll never see that. Republicans were for tax cuts before they were against tax cuts.

 

[Flopper]

Why should Republicans want to see unemployment fall? Well, so far they haven't had to deal with such a disaster.

 

[Avorysuds]

Yes, I'm smart enough to use der geugler:
- The New York Times

Im sorry, did you just link me something that said "tax credits" over and over ... why, yes you did!

Haha, maybe I'm reading this wrong.. Your "Tax cut" that happenes to be a deficit building "tax credit" LIKE I FUCKIN SAID also does this ... "Since the credit is “refundable,” people with no federal income-tax liability will get money back." Does that really mean if you paid no taxes the Government just gives you money? Wow, cool "tax cut"... You don't even have to pay taxes to get it!

You seem awfully angry...

A tax credit is a targeted tax cut. On the other hand, much of what I linked was "fuckin" tax cut in the old school sense...and not all of the credits are refundable.

You could just admit you were wrong, but I'm quite certain we'll never see that. Republicans were for tax cuts before they were against tax cuts.

I'm not angry, I'm laffing while I type it...

I COULD admit to being wrong but then again... You said 400 billion in "tax cuts" and reallt probably less than half of it if that was a tax cut... The biggest one right off the bat was a deficit building tax credit. You "target" people with credits so they vote for you later because there are more of them than the people you have to steal the money from to actually pay for these credits...

 

[Avorysuds]

Blinders: The Difference Between Tax Cuts and Tax Credits

Spend about 3 min reading that, it will help.

 

[8537]

Blinders: The Difference Between Tax Cuts and Tax Credits

Spend about 3 min reading that, it will help.

It wasn't worth 3 minutes. Let's start here:

"Tax cuts apply to everyone equally," What in the wide world of sports does that mean? It's patently false.

The stimulus package included a reduction in the FICA contribution. No amount of spin can call that anything but a "fuckin" tax cut - unless the author is flatout lying.

"The Carter/Reagan recession was ended via tax cuts. This is not disputed by anyone."

^this is absurldy wrong. It's not disputed by any dumb rightwing bloggers, of course, but it is CERTAINLY disputed by most economists. But hey, if a product manager from California said it, it must be true! Afterall, it's on the internets!

 

[Avorysuds]

Blinders: The Difference Between Tax Cuts and Tax Credits

Spend about 3 min reading that, it will help.

It wasn't worth 3 minutes. Let's start here:

"Tax cuts apply to everyone equally," What in the wide world of sports does that mean? It's patently false.

The stimulus package included a reduction in the FICA contribution. No amount of spin can call that anything but a "fuckin" tax cut - unless the author is flatout lying.

"The Carter/Reagan recession was ended via tax cuts. This is not disputed by anyone."

^this is absurldy wrong. It's not disputed by any dumb rightwing bloggers, of course, but it is CERTAINLY disputed by most economists. But hey, if a product manager from California said it, it must be true! Afterall, it's on the internets!

I'm sorry all I was trying to point out was the difference between tax cuts and tax credits. I don't care about anyone’s version of history.

In the end I called Obama's 400 billion tax credits and you said they were tax cuts. Of course you're wrong but that will not stop the debate...

Do you really need me to get a dictionary and post it here on the difference between credits and cuts? I mean, really?

400 billion in tax credits and yet if the Government does not do it again soon we will slip into a depression... Huh, almost like his tax credits didn't help "fix" anything but instead floated it...

 

[Sallow]

Show me the 400 billion in "tax cuts"... You're smart enough to do that, right?

Read the bill.

It's in there..or use google.

Awww... I don't wana do it again just to prove you're wrong... So I won't, because it does not matter to you that you're wrong.

Faith.

Such a funny thing in the face of facts.

Never break that..

Faith.

 

[Avorysuds]

Read the bill.

It's in there..or use google.

Awww... I don't wana do it again just to prove you're wrong... So I won't, because it does not matter to you that you're wrong.

Faith.

Such a funny thing in the face of facts.

Never break that..

Faith.

Cool... Was the 400 billion "tax cuts" or "tax credits?"

 

[McDowell's]

how did two firms that couldn't buy the most toxic subprimes, two firms that saw a steep decline in their subprime holding between 2001 and 2006 as they got chased out of the market for only holding conforming loans, cause the financial mess?

By enabling slack lending standards overall.

Of course, the new federal standards couldn’t just apply to minorities. If they could pay back loans under these terms, then so could the majority of loan applicants. Quickly, in other words, these became the new standards in the industry. In 1999, the New York Times reported that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were easing credit requirements for mortgages it purchased from lenders, and as the housing market boomed, banks embraced these new standards with a vengeance. Between 2004 and 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became the biggest purchasers of subprime mortgages from all kinds of applicants, white and minority, and most of these loans were based on the lending standards promoted by the government.


RealClearMarkets - Articles - The Long Road to Slack Lending Standards

FM and FM had more strict standards (conforming rules) than the private sector - that's why they lost half their market share between 2001 and 2006.

The slackest of lending standards were in the private sector.
Have a nice day.

So the GSEs did not purchase almost 2 trillion dollars worth of sub prime loans and MBS's consisting of sub prime mortgage pools throughout the 2000s? Maybe you should tell that to Fannie and Freddie so they reverse all those write-downs they had to take.

 

[fyauthor]

When I read the economic theories of the Repugs, I am very happy that I took economics so no one can bullshit me about what will work, and tax-cuts for the rich does not stimulate anything here, maybe overseas, but not here. Give workers more money and more ways for workers to make more money to stimulate the economy. If rich folks weren't so greedy and had rode the downfall awhile without laying off anyone, and take a little hit, things would be okay today and the lost would have been far less. Workers are not corporations enemies, they are their partners, as one cannot exist without the other, and investing in your workers are the greatest thing that business can do for no other investment gives such a high return. Greed makes us stupid; that’s why con games work, and billionaires still steal!

 

[8537]

Blinders: The Difference Between Tax Cuts and Tax Credits

Spend about 3 min reading that, it will help.

It wasn't worth 3 minutes. Let's start here:

"Tax cuts apply to everyone equally," What in the wide world of sports does that mean? It's patently false.

The stimulus package included a reduction in the FICA contribution. No amount of spin can call that anything but a "fuckin" tax cut - unless the author is flatout lying.

"The Carter/Reagan recession was ended via tax cuts. This is not disputed by anyone."

^this is absurldy wrong. It's not disputed by any dumb rightwing bloggers, of course, but it is CERTAINLY disputed by most economists. But hey, if a product manager from California said it, it must be true! Afterall, it's on the internets!

I'm sorry all I was trying to point out was the difference between tax cuts and tax credits. I don't care about anyone’s version of history.

In the end I called Obama's 400 billion tax credits and you said they were tax cuts. Of course you're wrong but that will not stop the debate...

Do you really need me to get a dictionary and post it here on the difference between credits and cuts? I mean, really?

400 billion in tax credits and yet if the Government does not do it again soon we will slip into a depression... Huh, almost like his tax credits didn't help "fix" anything but instead floated it...

It was not 400B in tax credits. It was a mix. And as for the difference: a Tax credit is a tax cut for a specific behavior. If, for instance, you bought a home in 2009, you received a reduction in your taxes equal to 8000. You filed your taxes and where you list the amount you owe at the bottom, you subtracted 8000. That's a cut in the amount of taxes you owe. A tax cut.

Now, I know a product manager in Cali might disagree...but he also believes that all tax cuts impact people equally. So we can chalk him up has wrong.

 

[8537]

By enabling slack lending standards overall.

Of course, the new federal standards couldn’t just apply to minorities. If they could pay back loans under these terms, then so could the majority of loan applicants. Quickly, in other words, these became the new standards in the industry. In 1999, the New York Times reported that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were easing credit requirements for mortgages it purchased from lenders, and as the housing market boomed, banks embraced these new standards with a vengeance. Between 2004 and 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became the biggest purchasers of subprime mortgages from all kinds of applicants, white and minority, and most of these loans were based on the lending standards promoted by the government.


RealClearMarkets - Articles - The Long Road to Slack Lending Standards

FM and FM had more strict standards (conforming rules) than the private sector - that's why they lost half their market share between 2001 and 2006.

The slackest of lending standards were in the private sector.
Have a nice day.

So the GSEs did not purchase almost 2 trillion dollars worth of sub prime loans and MBS's consisting of sub prime mortgage pools throughout the 2000s? Maybe you should tell that to Fannie and Freddie so they reverse all those write-downs they had to take.

MBS's? Yes. Subprime loans? Yes. I never claimed otherwise.

The most toxic subprimes? No. They could only buy conforming loans - which explains why they lost so much market share in the subprime area throughout the decade.

 

[skookerasbil]

When I read the economic theories of the Repugs, I am very happy that I took economics so no one can bullshit me about what will work, and tax-cuts for the rich does not stimulate anything here, maybe overseas, but not here. Give workers more money and more ways for workers to make more money to stimulate the economy. If rich folks weren't so greedy and had rode the downfall awhile without laying off anyone, and take a little hit, things would be okay today and the lost would have been far less. Workers are not corporations enemies, they are their partners, as one cannot exist without the other, and investing in your workers are the greatest thing that business can do for no other investment gives such a high return. Greed makes us stupid; that’s why con games work, and billionaires still steal!

 

[Sallow]

When I read the economic theories of the Repugs, I am very happy that I took economics so no one can bullshit me about what will work, and tax-cuts for the rich does not stimulate anything here, maybe overseas, but not here. Give workers more money and more ways for workers to make more money to stimulate the economy. If rich folks weren't so greedy and had rode the downfall awhile without laying off anyone, and take a little hit, things would be okay today and the lost would have been far less. Workers are not corporations enemies, they are their partners, as one cannot exist without the other, and investing in your workers are the greatest thing that business can do for no other investment gives such a high return. Greed makes us stupid; that’s why con games work, and billionaires still steal!

Perhaps then..the argument could be torn down with something other then cutesy pictures. Obscenely rich people don't really contribute much to the economy at large..and are basically a drain. And in some cases..like Maddoff, Lay, Ebbers, Boesky, and Milken..criminal.

 

[Flopper]

When I read the economic theories of the Repugs, I am very happy that I took economics so no one can bullshit me about what will work, and tax-cuts for the rich does not stimulate anything here, maybe overseas, but not here. Give workers more money and more ways for workers to make more money to stimulate the economy. If rich folks weren't so greedy and had rode the downfall awhile without laying off anyone, and take a little hit, things would be okay today and the lost would have been far less. Workers are not corporations enemies, they are their partners, as one cannot exist without the other, and investing in your workers are the greatest thing that business can do for no other investment gives such a high return. Greed makes us stupid; that’s why con games work, and billionaires still steal!

Yep. Tax cuts for the wealthy have not made any sense for many years. Today it makes even less sense. The claim is that if the rich pay less in taxes they will invest more in American creating jobs. This country does not need new investment money. Big business is sitting on tons of cash. Low interest money is ready available. What is missing is demand for goods and services. That will only come with jobs. And job creation depends on small business expansion. We should give more tax incentives to small businesses. Low taxes for the wealthy will only stimulate equity investments overseas and debt debt investments in the US. Neither produces job growth in the US.

 

[boedicca]

FM and FM had more strict standards (conforming rules) than the private sector - that's why they lost half their market share between 2001 and 2006.

The slackest of lending standards were in the private sector.
Have a nice day.

Can't read much can you?

The Boston Fed mandated the loosening of standards and the Fed threatened banks with charter revocation if they didn't go along with it.

I'd wish you a nice day, but I doubt you really grok what that would be.

So...it is your claim that the Boston Fed (not FM or FM, mind you) threatened banks if they didn't loosen their standards, and in response: Nondepository institutions lowered their standards by far more?

That makes perfect sense. right?

Yes it does. Banks were threatened with charter revocation if they didn't loosen lending standards so they could make loans to unqualified minorities in certain neiborhoods to satisfy government quotas.

The price they extracted from the government was that FM/FM would support the secondary mortgage market for such loans (which they did to excess) in order to derisk the banks. FM/FM congressional cronies (i.e., Clintonista Jamie Gorelick) happily went along, cooked the books, and paid themselves $Millions in bonuses.

Once banks realized they could get away with this, they loosened lending standards for everyone. The speculation bubble in real estate expanded greatly as people bought condos in FL and Vegas with no down payments and so on and so on.

This mess is a the reductio ad absurdum of Big Government Corporate Cronyism - which should not in any way be confused with Free Markets and Capitalism.

 

[8537]

Can't read much can you?

The Boston Fed mandated the loosening of standards and the Fed threatened banks with charter revocation if they didn't go along with it.

I'd wish you a nice day, but I doubt you really grok what that would be.

So...it is your claim that the Boston Fed (not FM or FM, mind you) threatened banks if they didn't loosen their standards, and in response: Nondepository institutions lowered their standards by far more?

That makes perfect sense. right?

Yes it does. Banks were threatened with charter revocation if they didn't loosen lending standards so they could make loans to unqualified minorities in certain neiborhoods to satisfy government quotas.

I was wondering how long you would last before you blamed minorities. Funny, though, that the highest foreclosure rates aren't in minority communities - they're in Naples, and Vegas, and other whitebread American towns.

The price they extracted from the government was that FM/FM would support the secondary mortgage market for such loans (which they did to excess) in order to derisk the banks. FM/FM congressional cronies (i.e., Clintonista Jamie Gorelick) happily went along, cooked the books, and paid themselves $Millions in bonuses.

FM and FM always supported the secondary market - and as always, only did so for conforming loans. The secondary market for nonconforming loans form nondepository institutions, loans with the highest default rate and the most toxic terms, was supported by the private sector MBS machines.

Once banks realized they could get away with this, they loosened lending standards for everyone. The speculation bubble in real estate expanded greatly as people bought condos in FL and Vegas with no down payments and so on and so on.

no, depository institutions had to meet conforming standards for FM and/or for the CRA. The loosened lending standards causing the most problems were not created in banks. They were created in nondepository institutions, repackaged and sold in the private sector because FM couldn't buy them. And no one had any skin in making sure these private-sector loans could be repaid.

 

[boedicca]

Wrong bub. I didn't blame minorities.

I blame the Fed, The Big Banks, FM/FM, Congress, and people who took out loans they couldn't afford or intended not to repay.

 

[8537]

Wrong bub. I didn't blame minorities.

"if they didn't loosen lending standards so they could make loans to unqualified minorities in certain neiborhoods"

Not to be confused with the rich white folks that actually took on the most toxic loans. "unqualified minorities" were not the problem, which might explain why the most toxic loans were given to white folks.