Obama's Socialism Exposed

[PoliticalChic]

Pay no taxes? You're insane.

Exxon's 2009 income statement shows $15B of taxes on $35B of profit - and that doesn't include the huge amount of at the pump taxes collected on gasoline.

And Chevron paid $8B on $18.6B for the same period.

I wanted to add a rep, it wouldn't let me.

I hope you don't mind if I amplify this one:

The antibusiness crowd loves stories about how much Big Oil is stealing from the American people! On the contrary, in 2006, the oil industry paid $81 billion in income tax, and while Exxon’s earnings increased 89% from 2003 to 2007, their income taxes increased 170%. Exxon: Profit Pirate or Tax Victim?

The non-thinking segment of the public has been conditioned to hate the oil industry. Very few realize the extent to which they are subsidized by this industry. “According to the [Exxon] company's income statement, the amount of taxes it paid in 2008 was 2.5 times as much as its net profit. The $45.2 billion profit figure makes a snappy headline, but the $116.2 billion in taxes that it paid is relegated to a footnote—if that. Exxon's tax bill breaks down like this: income taxes, $36.5 billion; sales-based taxes, $34.5 billion; "all other" taxes, $45.2 billion.” Exxon, Big Oil Profits Evil Only Until You Weigh Their Tax Bills - US News and World Report

If Exxon’s 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filer’s share would be $1,259/year. Still hate Exxon? The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million

Did you get the joke yet? Here are some of the ones playing the joke: Leahy: “how can you [executives] justify such exorbitant profit on the backs of the middle-class and hard-working families?”
Markey: “On April’s Fool’s Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on American families by Big Oil.”
Boxer: “Working people struggle with high gas prices and your sacrifice, gentleman [executive] appears to be nothing.”
Durbin: “Oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy.” While all of the above are Democrats, the Republicans appear to be no better.
But, maybe it’s their patriotic duty to pay more taxes. My answer: Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel, Tom Daschle.

 

[MaggieMae]

1. You know, Vanquished, my fav part of debating with lefties is how you guys reveal your insecurities...
"...you thought you'd slide the twisty part past us ..."

C'mon, don't be afraid of standing up by yourself....if you have confidence in your opinion, than the 'us' stuff wouldn't be necessary.

That's why conservatives do so much better in debates, we're used to dealing with the liberal echo chamber that you grew up in.

2. Next, the "ACORN controls the banking sector? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!
Socialism without goverment control? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!"

Now, I'll evisorate your attack on the premise that ACORN was not a major factor in the mortgage meltdown:
a. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

b. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

c. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.
Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009


Did that wipe the "BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!"
off your keyboard?
I guess she who laughs last laughs best, huh?

3. "definitions only work when the meaning is shared by everyone."
Didn't you notice how the Egypt crisis has led to a new definition of 'democracy' vis-a-vis the Muslim Brotherhood?

Those not too bright are often stuck when conditions change...and I guess that indicates you, huh?

Oh, and the answer to the change in the definition of socialism is in the post just before yours.

Now, write soon, hear?

Low income/minority borrowers have not comprised a significant percentage of the sum total of the mortgage crisis.

She didn't say they did. They were the wedge that caused lending standards to be lowered for everyone, thus fueling a speculative bubble.

But, of course, intellectual honesty is not your strong suit.

PC most certainly did make that allegation:
The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers. Quoted from this page.

The subprime lending frenzy which created the bubble didn't begin until AFTER this became law:

President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003

 

[boedicca]

Low income/minority borrowers have not comprised a significant percentage of the sum total of the mortgage crisis.

She didn't say they did. They were the wedge that caused lending standards to be lowered for everyone, thus fueling a speculative bubble.

But, of course, intellectual honesty is not your strong suit.

PC most certainly did make that allegation:
The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers. Quoted from this page.

The subprime lending frenzy which created the bubble didn't begin until AFTER this became law:

President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003

I don't see MINORITY in her quote that you emboldened. You are trying to makie this a racist issue. Very poor form.

 

[MaggieMae]

You can do better than that...don't hide behind nebulous blather...

Hookay..

Sure.

Which form of government is not some form of Collectivism?

And please keep your answer to at least one thread page. There's no extra credit for lots of words.

One based on the language of the Constitution.

You mean the clause in the original that said only white property owners could vote and then was quickly amended because they forgot about the Declaration of Independence which claimed all men are created equal, and then as time went on the wealthier classes seemed to forget both?

 

[MaggieMae]

No he didn't you moron.

No?

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Here, let me help you with that, BB....

1. "Since 1980, U.S. marginal tax rates fell some 40 percent on income and 75 percent on capital gains and dividends, and the American economy added close to 36 million jobs. During the same time period, Europe and Japan created scarcely any net new employment outside of government. American companies now constitute 57 percent of global market capitalization, and the U.S. commands close to one half of the world’s economic assets. America, responsible for one fifth of global GDP in 1980, produced one third of global GDP in 2003. That is Ronald Reagan’s legacy.

2. What is crucial is not the absolute level of government but the size of government compared to the size of the private sector. In every country that enacted tax rate reductions, the absolute growth of the private sector enormously outpaced the growth of government.

3. The growth of the private sector is measured not merely by output but also by assets. In the 25 years since Reagan assumed office, U.S. household assets have more than tripled, to a current record of $52 trillion. Driven by a surging stock market, America’s increase in private wealth dwarfs the increases in debt that cause such agony for one-handed economists in Washington, who dutifully gauge the swell of liabilities but seem blinded to the mountainous growth of assets.

4. By cutting tax rates, Reagan was able to fund a 50 percent increase in defense spending. This expansion of the military was crucial to winning the Cold War. Social spending also grew by some 25 percent—although I should hasten to add that Reagan sharply reduced the nation’s debt by negotiating a Social Security Commission regime that extended the age of retirement and cut back the implicit liabilities in the Social Security program by some six trillion dollars. These reforms radically improved the fiscal position of the government compared to the 1970s, when real Social Security liabilities doubled.

a. Reagan knew that all government spending ultimately depends on the output and assets of the private sector. While the federal budget deficit (exclusive of Social Security) swelled under Reagan in absolute terms as he confronted the Soviet Union in the Cold War, the federal debt shrunk sharply as a share of national assets.

5. Meanwhile, with the top tax rate dropping from 50 to 28 percent under Reagan, tax contributions by the top five percent of earners rose from nine to 18 percent of the total, while contributions from the bottom 20 percent dropped from six to two percent. The top 50 percent of taxpayers paid 94.5 percent of the federal income taxes. Lower tax rates resulted in much larger tax payments by the rich. Reagan’s economic policies proved to be so popular that they were extended, for the most part, under President Clinton and a Republican Congress.

6. Beginning in 1980 with a GDP at one fifth of the global total, the U.S. had attained a national output of $11 trillion by 2003, fully one third of a global GDP of $33 trillion. This is an awesome and unprecedented change. In the entire history of the peacetime world economy, nothing like it has ever happened. Coming after President Carter’s “malaise” in the 1970s, the American ascent is directly attributable to the program of low marginal tax rates, deregulation of energy prices, collapse of inflation, expansion of trade, and active globalization launched by Ronald Reagan.

7.The reason for tax cuts is not to allow the rich to keep their money. It is to enable entrepreneurs to invest money by making their investments profitable. Through the investment process, entrepreneurs give money to others, in their own or other businesses. By earning the money, they learned how to identify the people best able to increase its worth. They learned how to use the money in ways that respond to the needs of their customers. They mastered the magic of lowering prices in order to increase revenues. And they reached out to the largest untapped markets of the world economy, which are always the domains of billions of currently poor people struggling to gain wealth.a. High tax rates stop poor people from getting rich. "https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2004&month=08

Well we know that #7 didn't work. Wages were flat or reduced; benefits cut. So what DID the rich do with their windfall? With CEO compensation 400 times that of the average worker, it's not hard to figure it out.

 

[boedicca]

Well we know that #7 didn't work. Wages were flat or reduced; benefits cut. So what DID the rich do with their windfall? With CEO compensation 400 times that of the average worker, it's not hard to figure it out.

This is complete and utter crap. An eensy tiny minority fall into that category. Most businesses are small or medium ones with much lower compensation levels.

The BLS survey data by job category shows a mean annual compensation level of $167,280 for chief executives (this includes all c-level managers).

Compare that to an annual mean for all workers of $43,460, and the ratio is 3.85 - a far cry from the outlier stat of 400 that applies to so few people that is it not statistically significant.

May 2009 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hookay..

Sure.

Which form of government is not some form of Collectivism?

And please keep your answer to at least one thread page. There's no extra credit for lots of words.

One based on the language of the Constitution.

You mean the clause in the original that said only white property owners could vote and then was quickly amended because they forgot about the Declaration of Independence which claimed all men are created equal, and then as time went on the wealthier classes seemed to forget both?

1. The Constitution also includes the amendments...so it seems disingenuous of you to refer to "...only white property owners could vote..."
One must wonder why the claim to fame of the left is the fact that they sought to correct an evil, but it was some two and a half generations ago.

2. On the other hand, it should be noted that it was the Democrat Party that was filled with racists and klan members prior to that.
Shall we call it even?

a. How about Bill Clinton’s remarks about the black candidate for the presidency:
“[A]s Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill’s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”
Teddy's anger - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com


3. Now, as for my post re: the Constitution, which was limited to one sentence by Sally, part of my meaning was to 'voice' disapproval of the extra-constitutional add-ons in our bureaucracy laden government, especially those that are specifically assigned to the states.

4. "Early 20th-century Progressives, inspired by European social democracies, rejected the Constitution's plan for limited government, advocating social engineering schemes instead. Rule by government experts was the order of the day. As people and politicians succumbed to those ideas, especially in the states, courts would often block the schemes in the name of constitutional liberty. When Progressives later took their agenda to the federal level, however, and the Supreme Court continued to block it, President Franklin D. Roosevelt unveiled his infamous plan to pack the court with six new members."
Roger Pilon: Congress Rediscovers the Constitution - WSJ.com

a. . Interview on WJR radio, Detroit of Bankruptcy Lawyer Tom Lauria by Beckman, re: the White House attempt to strong arm investors in Chrysler to drop their contractual rights to be paid first in a bankruptcy.
a. These “1st Lien Lenders” took a chance on Chrysler, accepting a low rate of return in exchange for high security.
b. Clients include pensioners, teacher’s unions, etc. in Pirello-Weinberg, Oppenheimer Funds, Stairway Capital.
c. The White House is demanding concessions and an abrogation of the contract, and have been directly threatened by the White House, if they didn’t give in.
d. The Lenders have offered to accept 50%, and the White House is demanding that they accept 29%
e. This becomes a Constitutional issue, as Contract and Property rights should be sacrosanct. Lauria contends that as our government is composed of three independent branches, and the Executive is now taking over the role of the Judiciary.
News/Talk 760 WJR
White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm's Reputation* - Political Punch

b. . There are 538 votes cast by the Electoral College…the three extra are those of the district of Washington, D.C.
Of course, Article II, section 2, reserves electoral votes for states….


5. George Washington had four cabinet departments. Since then we’ve added fourteen new departments, and reduced by two (Navy Department became part of Defense, and US Post Office became a quasi-corporation). How many are in line with constitutional requirements, and how many could be dispersed as state functions?

a. Department of Energy could be eliminated; President Carter created it to minimize our dependence on foreign oil, and to regulate oil prices. Good job? This department is tasked with maintaining and producing nuclear weapons. Why? What does the Pentagon do? And management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve could, as Clinton suggested, become an outside entity. It also disperses ‘stimulus package’ funds. And it runs an appliance-rebate program, and ‘Weatherization Assistance Program,” and for this it received an additional $37 billion in ‘stimulus’ money, doubling its annual budget.

b. Department of Education is, of course, unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the states. So where is the impetus for its creation? Unions. The National Education Association (NEA) “In 1972, the massive union formed a political action committee…released ‘Needed: A Cabinet Department of Education’ in 1975, but its most significant step was to endorse a presidential candidate- Jimmy Carter- for the first time in the history of the organization.” D.T. Stallngs, “A Brief History of the Department of Education: 1979-2002,” p. 3.
When formed, its budget was $13.1 billion (in 2007 dollars) and it employed 450 people. IN 2010, the estimated budget is $107 billion, and there are 4,800 employees. http://crunchycon.nationalreview.co...-department-education-not-radical/mona-charen
“In November 1995, when the federal government shut down over a budget crisis, 89.4 percent of the department’s employees were deemed ‘nonessential’ and sent home.” Beck and Balfe, “Broke,” p.304

I would like to write more, but I know you're going to start scolding.

 

[MaggieMae]

Pay no taxes? You're insane.

Exxon's 2009 income statement shows $15B of taxes on $35B of profit - and that doesn't include the huge amount of at the pump taxes collected on gasoline.

And Chevron paid $8B on $18.6B for the same period.

Then I guess Forbes lies too.

What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes - Forbes.com

 

[boedicca]

Hookay..

Sure.

Which form of government is not some form of Collectivism?

And please keep your answer to at least one thread page. There's no extra credit for lots of words.

One based on the language of the Constitution.

You mean the clause in the original that said only white property owners could vote and then was quickly amended because they forgot about the Declaration of Independence which claimed all men are created equal, and then as time went on the wealthier classes seemed to forget both?

When you play the race card, you concede defeat.

Just sayin'.

 

[boedicca]

Pay no taxes? You're insane.

Exxon's 2009 income statement shows $15B of taxes on $35B of profit - and that doesn't include the huge amount of at the pump taxes collected on gasoline.

And Chevron paid $8B on $18.6B for the same period.

Then I guess Forbes lies too.

What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes - Forbes.com

Did you bother to read the article?

Mind you, not all global megacorps enjoy such low tax rates. Try to muster some pity for Big Oil. ExxonMobil ( XOM - news - people ) in its 2009 annual report to the SEC, recorded a larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company last year, some $17.6 billion, or 47% of pretax earnings. Exxon's peers Chevron ( CVX - news - people ) and ConocoPhillips ( COP - news - people ) likewise recorded similarly high effective tax rates. The oil companies are oddities among the multinationals because many of the oil-rich countries where they do business levy even higher taxes than the U.S.


This article concerns multi-national companies with overseas operations. Of course they are going to take advantage of PERFECTLY LEGAL tax treaties to avoid double taxation on foreign income.

 

[MaggieMae]

I know I'm having an effect when you guys start to quibble over style of posting rather than content.

I've asked you many times to express your own opinion instead of a collection of right wing ideologues' opinions.

But you know they're interesting and you love reading them.

Why don't you do one at a time? That way, responding is much easier and doesn't fill up an entire page when copied. It also gives someone like me a chance to find and post a valid counterpoint. If I tried to do several all at once, and then you responded to those, and back and forth, I think the window would eventually truncate.

 

[MaggieMae]

I've asked you many times to express your own opinion instead of a collection of right wing ideologues' opinions.

But you know they're interesting and you love reading them.

but they are not, nor does it make you smart..

shit now i sound like cali girl....slaps myself

 

[PoliticalChic]

No?

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Here, let me help you with that, BB....

1. "Since 1980, U.S. marginal tax rates fell some 40 percent on income and 75 percent on capital gains and dividends, and the American economy added close to 36 million jobs. During the same time period, Europe and Japan created scarcely any net new employment outside of government. American companies now constitute 57 percent of global market capitalization, and the U.S. commands close to one half of the world’s economic assets. America, responsible for one fifth of global GDP in 1980, produced one third of global GDP in 2003. That is Ronald Reagan’s legacy.

2. What is crucial is not the absolute level of government but the size of government compared to the size of the private sector. In every country that enacted tax rate reductions, the absolute growth of the private sector enormously outpaced the growth of government.

3. The growth of the private sector is measured not merely by output but also by assets. In the 25 years since Reagan assumed office, U.S. household assets have more than tripled, to a current record of $52 trillion. Driven by a surging stock market, America’s increase in private wealth dwarfs the increases in debt that cause such agony for one-handed economists in Washington, who dutifully gauge the swell of liabilities but seem blinded to the mountainous growth of assets.

4. By cutting tax rates, Reagan was able to fund a 50 percent increase in defense spending. This expansion of the military was crucial to winning the Cold War. Social spending also grew by some 25 percent—although I should hasten to add that Reagan sharply reduced the nation’s debt by negotiating a Social Security Commission regime that extended the age of retirement and cut back the implicit liabilities in the Social Security program by some six trillion dollars. These reforms radically improved the fiscal position of the government compared to the 1970s, when real Social Security liabilities doubled.

a. Reagan knew that all government spending ultimately depends on the output and assets of the private sector. While the federal budget deficit (exclusive of Social Security) swelled under Reagan in absolute terms as he confronted the Soviet Union in the Cold War, the federal debt shrunk sharply as a share of national assets.

5. Meanwhile, with the top tax rate dropping from 50 to 28 percent under Reagan, tax contributions by the top five percent of earners rose from nine to 18 percent of the total, while contributions from the bottom 20 percent dropped from six to two percent. The top 50 percent of taxpayers paid 94.5 percent of the federal income taxes. Lower tax rates resulted in much larger tax payments by the rich. Reagan’s economic policies proved to be so popular that they were extended, for the most part, under President Clinton and a Republican Congress.

6. Beginning in 1980 with a GDP at one fifth of the global total, the U.S. had attained a national output of $11 trillion by 2003, fully one third of a global GDP of $33 trillion. This is an awesome and unprecedented change. In the entire history of the peacetime world economy, nothing like it has ever happened. Coming after President Carter’s “malaise” in the 1970s, the American ascent is directly attributable to the program of low marginal tax rates, deregulation of energy prices, collapse of inflation, expansion of trade, and active globalization launched by Ronald Reagan.

7.The reason for tax cuts is not to allow the rich to keep their money. It is to enable entrepreneurs to invest money by making their investments profitable. Through the investment process, entrepreneurs give money to others, in their own or other businesses. By earning the money, they learned how to identify the people best able to increase its worth. They learned how to use the money in ways that respond to the needs of their customers. They mastered the magic of lowering prices in order to increase revenues. And they reached out to the largest untapped markets of the world economy, which are always the domains of billions of currently poor people struggling to gain wealth.a. High tax rates stop poor people from getting rich. "https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2004&month=08

Well we know that #7 didn't work. Wages were flat or reduced; benefits cut. So what DID the rich do with their windfall? With CEO compensation 400 times that of the average worker, it's not hard to figure it out.

1. As a test of the left wing nonsense, how about we use the "gates test." When the gates around a nation are lifted, do folks rush in, or out?

2. When Haitian refugees flee their island, do they aim for Cuba (53 miles), Turks and Caicos (110 miles), Jamaica (124 miles), the Cayman Islands ( 440 miles), or Florida (523 miles ) ? Why is that?

3. How about a 'witness' who is a NYTimes columnist:
"I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: possibility.

You know possibility when you breathe it. For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/opinion/04iht-edcohen.2.20587034.html

 

[MaggieMae]

Pay no taxes? You're insane.

Exxon's 2009 income statement shows $15B of taxes on $35B of profit - and that doesn't include the huge amount of at the pump taxes collected on gasoline.

And Chevron paid $8B on $18.6B for the same period.

I wanted to add a rep, it wouldn't let me.

I hope you don't mind if I amplify this one:

The antibusiness crowd loves stories about how much Big Oil is stealing from the American people! On the contrary, in 2006, the oil industry paid $81 billion in income tax, and while Exxon’s earnings increased 89% from 2003 to 2007, their income taxes increased 170%. Exxon: Profit Pirate or Tax Victim?

The non-thinking segment of the public has been conditioned to hate the oil industry. Very few realize the extent to which they are subsidized by this industry. “According to the [Exxon] company's income statement, the amount of taxes it paid in 2008 was 2.5 times as much as its net profit. The $45.2 billion profit figure makes a snappy headline, but the $116.2 billion in taxes that it paid is relegated to a footnote—if that. Exxon's tax bill breaks down like this: income taxes, $36.5 billion; sales-based taxes, $34.5 billion; "all other" taxes, $45.2 billion.” Exxon, Big Oil Profits Evil Only Until You Weigh Their Tax Bills - US News and World Report

If Exxon’s 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filer’s share would be $1,259/year. Still hate Exxon? The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million

Did you get the joke yet? Here are some of the ones playing the joke: Leahy: “how can you [executives] justify such exorbitant profit on the backs of the middle-class and hard-working families?”
Markey: “On April’s Fool’s Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on American families by Big Oil.”
Boxer: “Working people struggle with high gas prices and your sacrifice, gentleman [executive] appears to be nothing.”
Durbin: “Oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy.” While all of the above are Democrats, the Republicans appear to be no better.
But, maybe it’s their patriotic duty to pay more taxes. My answer: Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel, Tom Daschle.

So since you've done all the research on Exxon, did you find the part that says exactly what they need and use government subsidies for? I've heard it's for R&D, but their lobbyists sure pay big campaign contributions to make sure green energy stays in the box.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've asked you many times to express your own opinion instead of a collection of right wing ideologues' opinions.

But you know they're interesting and you love reading them.

Why don't you do one at a time? That way, responding is much easier and doesn't fill up an entire page when copied. It also gives someone like me a chance to find and post a valid counterpoint. If I tried to do several all at once, and then you responded to those, and back and forth, I think the window would eventually truncate.

You are certainly free to respond to any that strike your fancy.

 

[MaggieMae]

She didn't say they did. They were the wedge that caused lending standards to be lowered for everyone, thus fueling a speculative bubble.

But, of course, intellectual honesty is not your strong suit.

PC most certainly did make that allegation:
The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers. Quoted from this page.

The subprime lending frenzy which created the bubble didn't begin until AFTER this became law:

President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003

I don't see MINORITY in her quote that you emboldened. You are trying to makie this a racist issue. Very poor form.

Horseshit. There are plenty of poor white minorities. Take a trip across the mid section of the country sometime and all you'll see are broken down communities with white residents living in trailer parks.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well we know that #7 didn't work. Wages were flat or reduced; benefits cut. So what DID the rich do with their windfall? With CEO compensation 400 times that of the average worker, it's not hard to figure it out.

This is complete and utter crap. An eensy tiny minority fall into that category. Most businesses are small or medium ones with much lower compensation levels.

The BLS survey data by job category shows a mean annual compensation level of $167,280 for chief executives (this includes all c-level managers).

Compare that to an annual mean for all workers of $43,460, and the ratio is 3.85 - a far cry from the outlier stat of 400 that applies to so few people that is it not statistically significant.

May 2009 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates

So that even further proves that PC's #7 isn't true.
7.The reason for tax cuts is not to allow the rich to keep their money. It is to enable entrepreneurs to invest money by making their investments profitable. Through the investment process, entrepreneurs give money to others, in their own or other businesses. By earning the money, they learned how to identify the people best able to increase its worth. They learned how to use the money in ways that respond to the needs of their customers. They mastered the magic of lowering prices in order to increase revenues. And they reached out to the largest untapped markets of the world economy, which are always the domains of billions of currently poor people struggling to gain wealth.a. High tax rates stop poor people from getting rich.

How many small businesses had to close up shop when the economic tsunami hit? If they were rolling in newly funded capital from the top earners (larger companies), they would have been able to withstand bankruptcy, or near bankruptcy.

 

[boedicca]

PC most certainly did make that allegation:
The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers. Quoted from this page.

The subprime lending frenzy which created the bubble didn't begin until AFTER this became law:

President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003

I don't see MINORITY in her quote that you emboldened. You are trying to makie this a racist issue. Very poor form.

Horseshit. There are plenty of poor white minorities. Take a trip across the mid section of the country sometime and all you'll see are broken down communities with white residents living in trailer parks.

You sad dishonest hack.

NYC inserted race into it, and you jumped right on the band wagon.

Low income/minority borrowers have not comprised a significant percentage of the sum total of the mortgage crisis.

 

[MaggieMae]

One based on the language of the Constitution.

You mean the clause in the original that said only white property owners could vote and then was quickly amended because they forgot about the Declaration of Independence which claimed all men are created equal, and then as time went on the wealthier classes seemed to forget both?

1. The Constitution also includes the amendments...so it seems disingenuous of you to refer to "...only white property owners could vote..."
One must wonder why the claim to fame of the left is the fact that they sought to correct an evil, but it was some two and a half generations ago.

2. On the other hand, it should be noted that it was the Democrat Party that was filled with racists and klan members prior to that.
Shall we call it even?

a. How about Bill Clinton’s remarks about the black candidate for the presidency:
“[A]s Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill’s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”
Teddy's anger - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com


3. Now, as for my post re: the Constitution, which was limited to one sentence by Sally, part of my meaning was to 'voice' disapproval of the extra-constitutional add-ons in our bureaucracy laden government, especially those that are specifically assigned to the states.

4. "Early 20th-century Progressives, inspired by European social democracies, rejected the Constitution's plan for limited government, advocating social engineering schemes instead. Rule by government experts was the order of the day. As people and politicians succumbed to those ideas, especially in the states, courts would often block the schemes in the name of constitutional liberty. When Progressives later took their agenda to the federal level, however, and the Supreme Court continued to block it, President Franklin D. Roosevelt unveiled his infamous plan to pack the court with six new members."
Roger Pilon: Congress Rediscovers the Constitution - WSJ.com

a. . Interview on WJR radio, Detroit of Bankruptcy Lawyer Tom Lauria by Beckman, re: the White House attempt to strong arm investors in Chrysler to drop their contractual rights to be paid first in a bankruptcy.
a. These “1st Lien Lenders” took a chance on Chrysler, accepting a low rate of return in exchange for high security.
b. Clients include pensioners, teacher’s unions, etc. in Pirello-Weinberg, Oppenheimer Funds, Stairway Capital.
c. The White House is demanding concessions and an abrogation of the contract, and have been directly threatened by the White House, if they didn’t give in.
d. The Lenders have offered to accept 50%, and the White House is demanding that they accept 29%
e. This becomes a Constitutional issue, as Contract and Property rights should be sacrosanct. Lauria contends that as our government is composed of three independent branches, and the Executive is now taking over the role of the Judiciary.
News/Talk 760 WJR
White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm's Reputation* - Political Punch

b. . There are 538 votes cast by the Electoral College…the three extra are those of the district of Washington, D.C.
Of course, Article II, section 2, reserves electoral votes for states….


5. George Washington had four cabinet departments. Since then we’ve added fourteen new departments, and reduced by two (Navy Department became part of Defense, and US Post Office became a quasi-corporation). How many are in line with constitutional requirements, and how many could be dispersed as state functions?

a. Department of Energy could be eliminated; President Carter created it to minimize our dependence on foreign oil, and to regulate oil prices. Good job? This department is tasked with maintaining and producing nuclear weapons. Why? What does the Pentagon do? And management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve could, as Clinton suggested, become an outside entity. It also disperses ‘stimulus package’ funds. And it runs an appliance-rebate program, and ‘Weatherization Assistance Program,” and for this it received an additional $37 billion in ‘stimulus’ money, doubling its annual budget.

b. Department of Education is, of course, unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the states. So where is the impetus for its creation? Unions. The National Education Association (NEA) “In 1972, the massive union formed a political action committee…released ‘Needed: A Cabinet Department of Education’ in 1975, but its most significant step was to endorse a presidential candidate- Jimmy Carter- for the first time in the history of the organization.” D.T. Stallngs, “A Brief History of the Department of Education: 1979-2002,” p. 3.
When formed, its budget was $13.1 billion (in 2007 dollars) and it employed 450 people. IN 2010, the estimated budget is $107 billion, and there are 4,800 employees. http://crunchycon.nationalreview.co...-department-education-not-radical/mona-charen
“In November 1995, when the federal government shut down over a budget crisis, 89.4 percent of the department’s employees were deemed ‘nonessential’ and sent home.” Beck and Balfe, “Broke,” p.304

I would like to write more, but I know you're going to start scolding.

I give up. I can't read page after page after page. It all just becomes crap after awhile, and I know that's not how you want it perceived. Will you ever learn?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pay no taxes? You're insane.

Exxon's 2009 income statement shows $15B of taxes on $35B of profit - and that doesn't include the huge amount of at the pump taxes collected on gasoline.

And Chevron paid $8B on $18.6B for the same period.

I wanted to add a rep, it wouldn't let me.

I hope you don't mind if I amplify this one:

The antibusiness crowd loves stories about how much Big Oil is stealing from the American people! On the contrary, in 2006, the oil industry paid $81 billion in income tax, and while Exxon’s earnings increased 89% from 2003 to 2007, their income taxes increased 170%. Exxon: Profit Pirate or Tax Victim?

The non-thinking segment of the public has been conditioned to hate the oil industry. Very few realize the extent to which they are subsidized by this industry. “According to the [Exxon] company's income statement, the amount of taxes it paid in 2008 was 2.5 times as much as its net profit. The $45.2 billion profit figure makes a snappy headline, but the $116.2 billion in taxes that it paid is relegated to a footnote—if that. Exxon's tax bill breaks down like this: income taxes, $36.5 billion; sales-based taxes, $34.5 billion; "all other" taxes, $45.2 billion.” Exxon, Big Oil Profits Evil Only Until You Weigh Their Tax Bills - US News and World Report

If Exxon’s 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filer’s share would be $1,259/year. Still hate Exxon? The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million

Did you get the joke yet? Here are some of the ones playing the joke: Leahy: “how can you [executives] justify such exorbitant profit on the backs of the middle-class and hard-working families?”
Markey: “On April’s Fool’s Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on American families by Big Oil.”
Boxer: “Working people struggle with high gas prices and your sacrifice, gentleman [executive] appears to be nothing.”
Durbin: “Oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy.” While all of the above are Democrats, the Republicans appear to be no better.
But, maybe it’s their patriotic duty to pay more taxes. My answer: Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel, Tom Daschle.

So since you've done all the research on Exxon, did you find the part that says exactly what they need and use government subsidies for? I've heard it's for R&D, but their lobbyists sure pay big campaign contributions to make sure green energy stays in the box.

1. The dirty little hidden secret is that there is no 'Big Oil.' If we are comparing the power of lobbyists, it is Big Green, Big Sierra, those are the ones that see to it that restrictions of all kinds are put on industry, and see to it that huge subsidies are given to fraudulent 'alternative energy' projects, even though thoughtful individuals know that oil is the lifes blood of the nation.

2. The green subsidies are considerable. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in early 2008 that the government subsidizes solar energy at $24.34 per megawatt-hour (MWh) and wind power at $23.37. Yet even with decades of these massive handouts, as well as numerous state-level mandates for utilities to use green power, wind and solar energy contribute less than one-half of 1 percent of our nation’s electricity. Compare the green energy subsidies to the energy sources reviled by environmentalists, such as natural gas (25 cents per MWh in subsidies), coal (44 cents), hydroelectricity (67 cents), and nuclear power ($1.59). With relatively little government largesse, these sources (along with oil, which undergirds transportation) do the heavy lifting in our energy economy.
The Green-Jobs Engine That Can’t by Max Schulz, City Journal Winter 2009

3. The reality is that if electricity created by wind and other renewables were cost competitive, consumers would use more of it without a federal law to force consumption. Recent experience with the mandate for renewable fuels like corn ethanol also suggests significant cost increases as well as technical shortcomings, says Heritage.
Renewable Energy: Free as the Wind? | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.



4. "The professional environmentalists and the Obama Administration are definitely to blame in this one. It is so obvious to anyone with common sense that the environmentalists have forced energy recovery from safe areas to the most dangerous (deep water). They are also responsible, thanks to their strangulation of America's energy industry. The first criminal investigation should be on the efforts to stop the planned burning of the crude and natural gas. As Obama said they have been in charge since day one. He along the environmentalist who put such harsh regulations on the industry should be investigated."

http://www.investors...ulf-Spills.aspx