Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Dad2three]

Who controls interest rates, Derp2three?

Look to my next post Bubba,

I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington




NOT THE FED


I noted earlier that the most important source of lower initial monthly payments, which allowed more people to enter the housing market and bid for properties, was not the general level of short-term interest rates, but the increasing use of more exotic types of mortgages and the associated decline of underwriting standards. That conclusion suggests that the best response to the housing bubble would have been regulatory, not monetary. Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders' risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach to constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates. Moreover, regulators, supervisors, and the private sector could have more effectively addressed building risk concentrations and inadequate risk-management practices without necessarily having had to make a judgment about the sustainability of house price increases.


FRB: Speech--Bernanke, Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble--January 3, 2010


Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?




Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?


… after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. …

When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:

Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas

 

[Dad2three]

Explain how a US sub-prme mortgage crisis went world wide by itself or STFU, 2,350th tier partisan hack.

No Bubba, it was a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE BUBBA. In the US Dubya's REGULATOR failure allowed it to happen here


Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf



The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along. The big investment banks simply connected the investors to the originators, helped by the AAA ratings.

A credit bubble doesn't originate from lenders, it originates from those who mandate lending; the Federal Reserve and the initiatives of the congress of both wings.

Really? Initiatives? Weird, a world wide credit bubble and bust because of Congress *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

HOW DID THE US PROSPER AT 50% under Reagan?

Lots of economic activity that people didn't want to undertake at 70% was more attractive at 50%.

CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

Jan 1979 65,636,000
Jan 1981 74,677,000

INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS

Jan 1981 74,677,000
Jan 1989 89,394,000

14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

WHAT WERE YOU SAYING? Even though Reagan BLEW up spending that benefited the 'private sector' and he allowed the S&L crisis to expand as a bubble when he ignored regulator warnings that had started in 1984!!!

All that success and Carter could only carry 6 states? The people must not have believed he was any good.

Glad you agree, tax cuts DON'T create jobs!

 

[Dad2three]

On those where rates don;'t matter?

Which are those?

Or those with the lowest sustained EFFECTIVE and marginal rates in 80+ years?

Some rates are lower than recently. Like capital gains.
Some are higher, like the top income tax brackets.
Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost? Be honest.

DEMAND creates jobs, demand is driven by those at the bottom

Does raising taxes on business cause job loss? Cause business creation to shrink? Cause demand by the newly unemployed to shrink?

the payroll tax holiday, that not ONE GOPer opposed it's demise, would've saved jobs!

Bush's tax cuts saved the middle class more than the payroll tax holiday.

All a bunch of right wing garbage, I'm shocked.

Yes, capital gains were cut to 15% under Dubya, besides benefiting the MOST wealthy among US 9top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends) , how does 20% it is today hurt job creation?


EFFECTIVE rates SUSTAINED haven't been this low since before the GOP great depression!!!

Marginal rates, heck even that socialist Reagan had the top rate at 50% for 6 years


NO RECENT TAX INCREASE HAS STUNTED GROWTH, PROOF? Look at Clinton's 1993 tax increases where he created 3 new brackets and took the top rate from 31% to 39.6%, the economy lost jobs right?

lol

Dubya's tax cuts benefited the RICHEST ($1+ MILLION ) the most, BUT that doesn't refute the FACT that NO ONE in the GOP fought to stop the payroll tax holiday from increasing, first time in decades the GOP supported increasing taxes, of course it hit those on the bottom 90% NOT those 'job creators'


CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

Jan 1979 65,636,000
Jan 1981 74,677,000

INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS

Jan 1981 74,677,000
Jan 1989 89,394,000

14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

YEAH, CUTTING TAXES CREATES JOBS *Shaking head*

top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends)

This error was funny the last time you said it. Or is it a lie?

Marginal rates, heck even that socialist Reagan had the top rate at 50% for 6 years

There were a lot more loopholes and tax shelters as well.

Look at Clinton's 1993 tax increases

Now explain why taking more money from taxpayers creates jobs or increases growth.

Dubya's tax cuts benefited the RICHEST ($1+ MILLION ) the most

And benefited the middle class more than the SocSec "holiday".

CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS

Makes you wonder why his misery index was so high?

Bubba, ASK me I'll provide

It was CAP GAINS however

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes


There were a lot more loopholes and tax shelters as well.


YEP

the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009
DOUBLE YOUR INCOME AND PAY HAL;F THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES? LOL

Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP (UPDATE)



Now explain why taking more money from taxpayers creates jobs or increases growth.

Higher taxes you tend to put money back into your Biz versus taking it out, creating more wealth, expanding your Biz and JOBS. Pretty simple really. Why didn't you know that?

 

[Dad2three]

Why did the Housing Market Crash? There are many people who are asking this question and most of them did not recognize the irrationality during the housing bubble nor had the foresight that the housing bubble would collapse.

Contrary to the misconception that it was the free market that made the housing bubble possible it was interference in the market place that distorted the demand and supply variables for credit and real estate. The Federal Reserve greatly distorts the supply and availability of money with its anti-free market loose interest rate manipulation. The Government also interferes in the market place with non-sense guarantees of home loans made through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, USDA, and VA.

It wasn’t the free market that encouraged malinvestment and speculation. It was the Government guaranteeing home loans through various agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that eliminated risk as the lender would have the ability to make loans while the Government guaranteed its potential losses.


Why Did The Housing Market Crash?*|*WTF Finance

Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown



Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.

Tagging Fannie and Freddie as the primary suspects in the mortgage debacle diverts attention from bigger offenders and from policy decisions that helped create the climate for out-of-control lending.

Some 6 percent of Fannie- and Freddie-sponsored loans made during that span were 90 days late at some point in their history, according to Fannie and Freddie’s regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. By contrast, the FHFA says, roughly 27 percent of loans that Wall Street folded into mortgage-backed investments were at least 90 days late at some point.

“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”

Fannie and Freddie, Cecala said in a telephone interview, didn’t start making a big move into riskier mortgages until the mortgage boom was already under way, and they were fighting to reclaim market share they’d lost to more aggressive Wall Street players. Even then, they were more cautious than Lehman Brothers and other investment banks...

Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast


DUBYA'S REGULATOR FAILURE CAUSED IT!!!!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[dnsmith35]

All a bunch of right wing garbage, I'm shocked.

Yes, capital gains were cut to 15% under Dubya, besides benefiting the MOST wealthy among US 9top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends) , how does 20% it is today hurt job creation?


EFFECTIVE rates SUSTAINED haven't been this low since before the GOP great depression!!!

Marginal rates, heck even that socialist Reagan had the top rate at 50% for 6 years


NO RECENT TAX INCREASE HAS STUNTED GROWTH, PROOF? Look at Clinton's 1993 tax increases where he created 3 new brackets and took the top rate from 31% to 39.6%, the economy lost jobs right?

lol

Dubya's tax cuts benefited the RICHEST ($1+ MILLION ) the most, BUT that doesn't refute the FACT that NO ONE in the GOP fought to stop the payroll tax holiday from increasing, first time in decades the GOP supported increasing taxes, of course it hit those on the bottom 90% NOT those 'job creators'


CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

Jan 1979 65,636,000
Jan 1981 74,677,000

INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS

Jan 1981 74,677,000
Jan 1989 89,394,000

14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

YEAH, CUTTING TAXES CREATES JOBS *Shaking head*

It looks like you are defending my comment that cutting taxes on the rich and corporations IS SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS, JUST LIKE WHAT JFK AND LBJ DID IN 1964. Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Sure, IF you don't use reason and logic I am.

Bwa ha ha ha ha

Carter INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS
Reagan 14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

WOW, IF TAX CUTS CREATED JOBS, WHY DID CARTER CREATE A HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAN RONNIE, WHO TRIPLED THE DEBT?

What has that got to do with JFK's Supply Side Tax cut?

 

[dnsmith35]

And pay wages low enough to suck BILLIONS of fthe Gov't in WELFARE to survive, that's Walmart entire Biz model

OK, so the government should shut Walmart and McDonalds and all the other businesses like them down. Then what have you got? $10 hamburgers? $$60 shirts? Good for you. You have just thrown 3 to 5 million people out of work.

Yeah, because before Walmart and McD's we had $10 hamburgers and $60 shirts *shaking head*

Before the inflation which has taken place since McDonalds and Walmart were created maybe, but now? $10 hamburgers and $60 shirts are likely less than they would be. Hint, I had to pay $60 for a simple dress shirt in May. I was not pulling that price out of my rear. It appears you have your head firmly implanted in your excremental orifice....and you wonder where the smell comes from

 

[dnsmith35]

BTW Dad2three,
a Big Mac averages $4.62 in the US. If they were forced to pay their employees what they do in Scandinavia, they would cost close if not more than $10. Is that what you want?

 

[bripat9643]

OK, so the government should shut Walmart and McDonalds and all the other businesses like them down. Then what have you got? $10 hamburgers? $$60 shirts? Good for you. You have just thrown 3 to 5 million people out of work.

Yeah, because before Walmart and McD's we had $10 hamburgers and $60 shirts *shaking head*

Before the inflation which has taken place since McDonalds and Walmart were created maybe, but now? $10 hamburgers and $60 shirts are likely less than they would be. Hint, I had to pay $60 for a simple dress shirt in May. I was not pulling that price out of my rear. It appears you have your head firmly implanted in your excremental orifice....and you wonder where the smell comes from

I've paid as much as $85 for a dress shirt, but normally I buy them at Sam's Club or Costco for $18-$25.

 

[dnsmith35]

Why did the Housing Market Crash? There are many people who are asking this question and most of them did not recognize the irrationality during the housing bubble nor had the foresight that the housing bubble would collapse.

Contrary to the misconception that it was the free market that made the housing bubble possible it was interference in the market place that distorted the demand and supply variables for credit and real estate. The Federal Reserve greatly distorts the supply and availability of money with its anti-free market loose interest rate manipulation. The Government also interferes in the market place with non-sense guarantees of home loans made through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, USDA, and VA.

It wasn’t the free market that encouraged malinvestment and speculation. It was the Government guaranteeing home loans through various agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that eliminated risk as the lender would have the ability to make loans while the Government guaranteed its potential losses.


Why Did The Housing Market Crash?*|*WTF Finance

the following quote was from dad2three

Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown

Wrong! Obviously you are still relying on old left wing claims and parroting your puppet master's propaganda. The NEW STUDIES show the facts based on actual scientific data collection and not the left wing rhetoric you are spewing. Why not read the study conclusions and how they reached them?

Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?

Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?

Sumit Agarwal, Efraim Benmelech, Nittai Bergman, Amit Seru

NBER Working Paper No. 18609
Issued in December 2012
NBER Program(s): AP CF


Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks’ incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming.

​

New Study Blames Community Reinvestment Act For Mortgage Defaults - Investors.com

Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.

But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."

Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.

 

[dnsmith35]

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Failure: The Lies, the Cover Ups and the Making of a Disaster | Loan Calculators

Wall Street Journal October 4, 2004:

Fannie Mae isn’t an ordinary company and this isn’t a run-of-the-mill accounting scandal. The U.S. government had no financial stake in the failure of Enron or WorldCom. But because of Fannie’s implicit subsidy from the federal government, taxpayers are on the hook if its capital cushion is insufficient to absorb big losses. Private profit, public risk. That’s quite a confidence game — and it’s time to call it.

Moe- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have failed and you, the tax payers, ARE bailing them out. I just wanted to make that loud and clear.

Fan and Fred also couldn’t prosper for as long as they have without the support of the political left, both in Congress and the intellectual class. This includes Mr. Frank and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) on Capitol Hill, as well as Mr. Krugman and the Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein in the press. Their claim is that the companies are essential for homeownership. Yet as studies have shown, about half of the implicit taxpayer subsidy for Fan and Fred is pocketed by shareholders and management. According to the Federal Reserve, the half that goes to homeowners adds up to a mere seven basis points on mortgages. In return for this, Fannie was able to pay no fewer than 21 of its executives more than $1 million in 2002, and in 2003 Mr. Raines pocketed more than $20 million. Fannie’s left-wing defenders are underwriters of crony capitalism, not affordable housing. - See more at: Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Failure: The Lies, the Cover Ups and the Making of a Disaster | Loan Calculators

 

[dnsmith35]

Yeah, because before Walmart and McD's we had $10 hamburgers and $60 shirts *shaking head*

Before the inflation which has taken place since McDonalds and Walmart were created maybe, but now? $10 hamburgers and $60 shirts are likely less than they would be. Hint, I had to pay $60 for a simple dress shirt in May. I was not pulling that price out of my rear. It appears you have your head firmly implanted in your excremental orifice....and you wonder where the smell comes from

I've paid as much as $85 for a dress shirt, but normally I buy them at Sam's Club or Costco for $18-$25.

Yep! We were talking about what would happen if we got rid of the Walmart/Sams type of stores.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

under Obama's horrible policies, 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs have been created since hitting Bush's bottom March 2010

and yet under Obama unemployment is still 50% higher than it was for decades before the recession? Obama's record is worst since Great Depression.

Nope, you mean the hole Dubya/GOP left US in is worse, AND even though the TPGOP has fought him EVERY step of the way, MORE THAN 10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS HAVE BEEN CREATED SINCE HITTING DUBYA'S BOTTOM, MARCH 2010

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


You'd think, after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator policies, the US economy would've been booming? ANYONE?

Yup, Obama added 5.5 million jobs and it only took $6.26 trillion in new debt, $1,138,000 million per job.

Reagan added 14.7 million jobs and he added $1.76 trillion in new debt, $119,727 per job.
Oh yeah, beat the Soviet Union. How's that Russia reset working out for ya?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

what a drag to scroll through

too bad a few supposedly smaht individuals couldn't take it into the bull ring where points could be made in a structured order?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All a bunch of right wing garbage, I'm shocked.

Yes, capital gains were cut to 15% under Dubya, besides benefiting the MOST wealthy among US 9top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends) , how does 20% it is today hurt job creation?


EFFECTIVE rates SUSTAINED haven't been this low since before the GOP great depression!!!

Marginal rates, heck even that socialist Reagan had the top rate at 50% for 6 years


NO RECENT TAX INCREASE HAS STUNTED GROWTH, PROOF? Look at Clinton's 1993 tax increases where he created 3 new brackets and took the top rate from 31% to 39.6%, the economy lost jobs right?

lol

Dubya's tax cuts benefited the RICHEST ($1+ MILLION ) the most, BUT that doesn't refute the FACT that NO ONE in the GOP fought to stop the payroll tax holiday from increasing, first time in decades the GOP supported increasing taxes, of course it hit those on the bottom 90% NOT those 'job creators'


CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

Jan 1979 65,636,000
Jan 1981 74,677,000

INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS

Jan 1981 74,677,000
Jan 1989 89,394,000

14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

YEAH, CUTTING TAXES CREATES JOBS *Shaking head*

top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends)

This error was funny the last time you said it. Or is it a lie?

Marginal rates, heck even that socialist Reagan had the top rate at 50% for 6 years

There were a lot more loopholes and tax shelters as well.

Look at Clinton's 1993 tax increases

Now explain why taking more money from taxpayers creates jobs or increases growth.

Dubya's tax cuts benefited the RICHEST ($1+ MILLION ) the most

And benefited the middle class more than the SocSec "holiday".

CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS

Makes you wonder why his misery index was so high?

Bubba, ASK me I'll provide

It was CAP GAINS however

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes


There were a lot more loopholes and tax shelters as well.


YEP

the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009
DOUBLE YOUR INCOME AND PAY HAL;F THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES? LOL

Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP (UPDATE)



Now explain why taking more money from taxpayers creates jobs or increases growth.

Higher taxes you tend to put money back into your Biz versus taking it out, creating more wealth, expanding your Biz and JOBS. Pretty simple really. Why didn't you know that?

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

Why do you keep confusing capital gains with dividends?
Why do you keep confusing wealth with income?

You're not very good at this.

Higher taxes you tend to put money back into your Biz versus taking it out

If my corporate tax rate is 35% instead of 15%, I'm going to invest less in my business, not more.

The higher rate is going to cause me to create fewer new businesses, not more.
Cause me to hire fewer employees, not more.

You're not very good at this.

 

[Dad2three]

BTW Dad2three,
a Big Mac averages $4.62 in the US. If they were forced to pay their employees what they do in Scandinavia, they would cost close if not more than $10. Is that what you want?

Bubba, GROW A FRKKKING BRAIN. EVERYTHING you've posited has been proven just more right wing garbage.

You mean IF Mc'D's was FORCED to pay a living wage with tax payer subsidies, their Biz model would fail? BOO HOO

NOT like they would adept, like Australia right?

 

[Dad2three]

and yet under Obama unemployment is still 50% higher than it was for decades before the recession? Obama's record is worst since Great Depression.

Nope, you mean the hole Dubya/GOP left US in is worse, AND even though the TPGOP has fought him EVERY step of the way, MORE THAN 10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS HAVE BEEN CREATED SINCE HITTING DUBYA'S BOTTOM, MARCH 2010

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


You'd think, after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator policies, the US economy would've been booming? ANYONE?

Yup, Obama added 5.5 million jobs and it only took $6.26 trillion in new debt, $1,138,000 million per job.

Reagan added 14.7 million jobs and he added $1.76 trillion in new debt, $119,727 per job.
Oh yeah, beat the Soviet Union. How's that Russia reset working out for ya?

Yep, Ronnie tripled US debt, and the policies satarted under Dubya are killing Obama who MIGHT add 80% to his debt. Go look at US debt OCT 1, 2009, his first F/Y

AGAIN, Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies. Weird where were those 'jobs, jobs, jobs'?

 

[Dad2three]

what a drag to scroll through

too bad a few supposedly smaht individuals couldn't take it into the bull ring where points could be made in a structured order?

I tried to take it over to my posts, he refused. Sorry

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[Dad2three]

top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends)

This error was funny the last time you said it. Or is it a lie?

Marginal rates, heck even that socialist Reagan had the top rate at 50% for 6 years

There were a lot more loopholes and tax shelters as well.

Look at Clinton's 1993 tax increases

Now explain why taking more money from taxpayers creates jobs or increases growth.

Dubya's tax cuts benefited the RICHEST ($1+ MILLION ) the most

And benefited the middle class more than the SocSec "holiday".

CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS

Makes you wonder why his misery index was so high?

Bubba, ASK me I'll provide

It was CAP GAINS however

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes


There were a lot more loopholes and tax shelters as well.


YEP

the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009
DOUBLE YOUR INCOME AND PAY HAL;F THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES? LOL

Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP (UPDATE)



Now explain why taking more money from taxpayers creates jobs or increases growth.

Higher taxes you tend to put money back into your Biz versus taking it out, creating more wealth, expanding your Biz and JOBS. Pretty simple really. Why didn't you know that?

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

Why do you keep confusing capital gains with dividends?
Why do you keep confusing wealth with income?

You're not very good at this.

Higher taxes you tend to put money back into your Biz versus taking it out

If my corporate tax rate is 35% instead of 15%, I'm going to invest less in my business, not more.

The higher rate is going to cause me to create fewer new businesses, not more.
Cause me to hire fewer employees, not more.

You're not very good at this.

Got it, you'll CHOOSE to be dishonest, I'm shocked. No really, I am

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bubba, ASK me I'll provide

It was CAP GAINS however

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes


There were a lot more loopholes and tax shelters as well.


YEP

the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009
DOUBLE YOUR INCOME AND PAY HAL;F THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES? LOL

Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP (UPDATE)



Now explain why taking more money from taxpayers creates jobs or increases growth.

Higher taxes you tend to put money back into your Biz versus taking it out, creating more wealth, expanding your Biz and JOBS. Pretty simple really. Why didn't you know that?

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

Why do you keep confusing capital gains with dividends?
Why do you keep confusing wealth with income?

You're not very good at this.

Higher taxes you tend to put money back into your Biz versus taking it out

If my corporate tax rate is 35% instead of 15%, I'm going to invest less in my business, not more.

The higher rate is going to cause me to create fewer new businesses, not more.
Cause me to hire fewer employees, not more.

You're not very good at this.

Got it, you'll CHOOSE to be dishonest, I'm shocked. No really, I am

top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends <------idiot