Question for Ryan and supporters of the Tax Bill

[The Derp]

You bet. No losses at all. DURR

So now you're being a true troll and misrepresenting what I said just so you can preserve whatever's left of that pile of shit you call an ego. I never said GSE's didn't lose anything. I said what they lost was a consequence of the housing bubble you morons inflated with your shitty, no-standard subprime loans. And you inflated that bubble specifically to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of tax cuts, when it was really growing as a result of debt. That's why Bush tied his tax cuts to the growth of the housing market as he campaigned in 2004.

Subprimes? Is that the stuff that the government was forcing Fannie and Freddie to buy?

Only beginning in 2004 and only because Bush was desperate to inflate a housing bubble.

Of course, conforming loans perform very well.
It's a shame that morons on both sides of the aisle decided to force them to buy crap.

Not both sides, your side. You guys forced the GSE's to buy the loans that would ultimately tank the economy when you reversed the HUD rule in 2004. The loans that caused the collapse were the ones issued between 2004-7...when you all controlled all three branches of government, and thus the regulators who were supposed to enforce lending standards.

The mortgage mess was entirely the fault of you Conservatives who were desperate to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of tax cuts, when it was really growing as a result of debt.

 

[The Derp]

You can't read or interpret that graph. You;re looking at the bubble BURST. NOT the 6 or 8 years of WRITING those loans.

You fucking stupid idiot...the chart goes back all the way to 1998 and shows 90-day or more delinquency rates. You seem to be projecting here; you are the one who can't read a chart.

And anything NOT subprime (GSE or otherwise) never moved much at all.

?????? How do you get that from the chart above? And what does this half-written, half-English sentence even mean? What didn't "move much at all"? Delinquency rates? What? What are you babbling about, specifically. I get the sense you're speaking in vague, ambiguous generalities in order to give yourself wiggle room in the parameters of the debate just so you don't have to admit you're full of shit.

GET OVER YOURSELF.

Subprime is subprime. The ARMs were just a way to MEET the Federal quotas. Once issued, the problem moved to investors, not the banks. And Fannie helped HIDE the junk for everybody.. The diff between ARMs and non-ARMs is probably because they stopped writing them when the "scam was up"..

WRONG! There is no "federal quota" for subprimes. There were goals that Bush changed in 2004 to push GSE's to buying riskier loans, but nowhere is it written in any legislation that a bank has to hand out certain numbers of loans, and I challenge you to link to and copy the exact text from any bill that does. I'll save you a lot of time, though, there is no legislation anywhere that forces banks to hand out a certain number of loans to certain people. You've never been able to cite the specific legislative text to support this and you never will...because no such text exists.

WRONG! There is no "federal quota" for subprimes.

His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

Moron.

None of the loans prior to 2004 caused the crisis.

 

[badger2]

In post #153, Buffet's conundrum is also capital's conundrum, which reveals an intimate relationship to the schizophrenic process that constantly sets, then is forced to repel, its own limits.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You bet. No losses at all. DURR

So now you're being a true troll and misrepresenting what I said just so you can preserve whatever's left of that pile of shit you call an ego. I never said GSE's didn't lose anything. I said what they lost was a consequence of the housing bubble you morons inflated with your shitty, no-standard subprime loans. And you inflated that bubble specifically to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of tax cuts, when it was really growing as a result of debt. That's why Bush tied his tax cuts to the growth of the housing market as he campaigned in 2004.

Subprimes? Is that the stuff that the government was forcing Fannie and Freddie to buy?

Only beginning in 2004 and only because Bush was desperate to inflate a housing bubble.

Of course, conforming loans perform very well.
It's a shame that morons on both sides of the aisle decided to force them to buy crap.

Not both sides, your side. You guys forced the GSE's to buy the loans that would ultimately tank the economy when you reversed the HUD rule in 2004. The loans that caused the collapse were the ones issued between 2004-7...when you all controlled all three branches of government, and thus the regulators who were supposed to enforce lending standards.

The mortgage mess was entirely the fault of you Conservatives who were desperate to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of tax cuts, when it was really growing as a result of debt.

I said what they lost was a consequence of the housing bubble you morons inflated with your shitty, no-standard subprime loans.

I didn't mandate the GSEs buy crappy subprimes....that was Clinton, Barney Frank and then Bush piled on.

Only beginning in 2004 and only because Bush was desperate to inflate a housing bubble.

His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

Moron.

Not both sides, your side. You guys forced the GSE's to buy the loans

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000

Fucking moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can't read or interpret that graph. You;re looking at the bubble BURST. NOT the 6 or 8 years of WRITING those loans.

You fucking stupid idiot...the chart goes back all the way to 1998 and shows 90-day or more delinquency rates. You seem to be projecting here; you are the one who can't read a chart.

And anything NOT subprime (GSE or otherwise) never moved much at all.

?????? How do you get that from the chart above? And what does this half-written, half-English sentence even mean? What didn't "move much at all"? Delinquency rates? What? What are you babbling about, specifically. I get the sense you're speaking in vague, ambiguous generalities in order to give yourself wiggle room in the parameters of the debate just so you don't have to admit you're full of shit.

GET OVER YOURSELF.

Subprime is subprime. The ARMs were just a way to MEET the Federal quotas. Once issued, the problem moved to investors, not the banks. And Fannie helped HIDE the junk for everybody.. The diff between ARMs and non-ARMs is probably because they stopped writing them when the "scam was up"..

WRONG! There is no "federal quota" for subprimes. There were goals that Bush changed in 2004 to push GSE's to buying riskier loans, but nowhere is it written in any legislation that a bank has to hand out certain numbers of loans, and I challenge you to link to and copy the exact text from any bill that does. I'll save you a lot of time, though, there is no legislation anywhere that forces banks to hand out a certain number of loans to certain people. You've never been able to cite the specific legislative text to support this and you never will...because no such text exists.

WRONG! There is no "federal quota" for subprimes.

His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

Moron.

None of the loans prior to 2004 caused the crisis.

Loans bought in 2005, 2006, 2007 didn't fall under Clinton's 50% quota?

That's funny.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You can't read or interpret that graph. You;re looking at the bubble BURST. NOT the 6 or 8 years of WRITING those loans.

You fucking stupid idiot...the chart goes back all the way to 1998 and shows 90-day or more delinquency rates. You seem to be projecting here; you are the one who can't read a chart.

And anything NOT subprime (GSE or otherwise) never moved much at all.

?????? How do you get that from the chart above? And what does this half-written, half-English sentence even mean? What didn't "move much at all"? Delinquency rates? What? What are you babbling about, specifically. I get the sense you're speaking in vague, ambiguous generalities in order to give yourself wiggle room in the parameters of the debate just so you don't have to admit you're full of shit.

GET OVER YOURSELF.

Subprime is subprime. The ARMs were just a way to MEET the Federal quotas. Once issued, the problem moved to investors, not the banks. And Fannie helped HIDE the junk for everybody.. The diff between ARMs and non-ARMs is probably because they stopped writing them when the "scam was up"..

WRONG! There is no "federal quota" for subprimes. There were goals that Bush changed in 2004 to push GSE's to buying riskier loans, but nowhere is it written in any legislation that a bank has to hand out certain numbers of loans, and I challenge you to link to and copy the exact text from any bill that does. I'll save you a lot of time, though, there is no legislation anywhere that forces banks to hand out a certain number of loans to certain people. You've never been able to cite the specific legislative text to support this and you never will...because no such text exists.

WRONG! There is no "federal quota" for subprimes.

His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

Moron.

None of the loans prior to 2004 caused the crisis.

Loans bought in 2005, 2006, 2007 didn't fall under Clinton's 50% quota?

That's funny.

You're dishonest Todd, a lie by omissiom is an effort to mislead the reader, for the record:

"At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can't read or interpret that graph. You;re looking at the bubble BURST. NOT the 6 or 8 years of WRITING those loans.

You fucking stupid idiot...the chart goes back all the way to 1998 and shows 90-day or more delinquency rates. You seem to be projecting here; you are the one who can't read a chart.

And anything NOT subprime (GSE or otherwise) never moved much at all.

?????? How do you get that from the chart above? And what does this half-written, half-English sentence even mean? What didn't "move much at all"? Delinquency rates? What? What are you babbling about, specifically. I get the sense you're speaking in vague, ambiguous generalities in order to give yourself wiggle room in the parameters of the debate just so you don't have to admit you're full of shit.

GET OVER YOURSELF.

Subprime is subprime. The ARMs were just a way to MEET the Federal quotas. Once issued, the problem moved to investors, not the banks. And Fannie helped HIDE the junk for everybody.. The diff between ARMs and non-ARMs is probably because they stopped writing them when the "scam was up"..

WRONG! There is no "federal quota" for subprimes. There were goals that Bush changed in 2004 to push GSE's to buying riskier loans, but nowhere is it written in any legislation that a bank has to hand out certain numbers of loans, and I challenge you to link to and copy the exact text from any bill that does. I'll save you a lot of time, though, there is no legislation anywhere that forces banks to hand out a certain number of loans to certain people. You've never been able to cite the specific legislative text to support this and you never will...because no such text exists.

WRONG! There is no "federal quota" for subprimes.

His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

Moron.

None of the loans prior to 2004 caused the crisis.

Loans bought in 2005, 2006, 2007 didn't fall under Clinton's 50% quota?

That's funny.

You're dishonest Todd, a lie by omissiom is an effort to mislead the reader, for the record:

"At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration.

Yup.
Bush took Clinton's and Frank's bad idea and made it worse.
And for the record, that entire section is in my post #164........no omission

 

[Wry Catcher]

You fucking stupid idiot...the chart goes back all the way to 1998 and shows 90-day or more delinquency rates. You seem to be projecting here; you are the one who can't read a chart.

?????? How do you get that from the chart above? And what does this half-written, half-English sentence even mean? What didn't "move much at all"? Delinquency rates? What? What are you babbling about, specifically. I get the sense you're speaking in vague, ambiguous generalities in order to give yourself wiggle room in the parameters of the debate just so you don't have to admit you're full of shit.

GET OVER YOURSELF.


WRONG! There is no "federal quota" for subprimes. There were goals that Bush changed in 2004 to push GSE's to buying riskier loans, but nowhere is it written in any legislation that a bank has to hand out certain numbers of loans, and I challenge you to link to and copy the exact text from any bill that does. I'll save you a lot of time, though, there is no legislation anywhere that forces banks to hand out a certain number of loans to certain people. You've never been able to cite the specific legislative text to support this and you never will...because no such text exists.

WRONG! There is no "federal quota" for subprimes.

His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

Moron.

None of the loans prior to 2004 caused the crisis.

Loans bought in 2005, 2006, 2007 didn't fall under Clinton's 50% quota?

That's funny.

You're dishonest Todd, a lie by omissiom is an effort to mislead the reader, for the record:

"At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration.

Yup.
Bush took Clinton's and Frank's bad idea and made it worse.
And for the record, that entire section is in my post #164........no omission

Mea culpa, I was wrong you did own up to the 55% quota Bush established.

 

[Political Junky]

Warren Buffet said it this morning on CBS, trickle down does not work. He of all people should know.

Cons keep going back to trickle down, although it always fails. Ignorant right wingers fall for it every time.

 

[grainbely]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

We wouldn't want a couple of trillion to return to the US and be paid out as dividends.

Huh?

How do dividends create jobs?

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Have you read the tax reform bill?

LOL NO ONE HAS, And not one person who voted for it.

How do dividends create jobs?

I just bought a car with some dividends.....no jobs there, eh?

Playing dumb is dishonest.

80% of the value in stocks is owned by the top 10%. So while this boom and the probable repatriation and dividend pay out sound awesome, it's extremely one sided.

 

[grainbely]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

80% of the value in stocks is owned by the top 10%.

 

[grainbely]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

It's not the same value of work. You're wrong. Productivity has increased over the last 40 years but wages have gone flat.

 

[grainbely]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

The Corporate tax is a thinly veiled Federal sales tax.

If so, though I don't see your reasoning (corporations are people too?). The fact is the corporate tax is a legal tax and not theft, corporations earn money by using highways, airports sea ports,, streets, yellow zones, police and fire services, etc. etc. All of which are paid for by tax payers.

You do realise that business do not pay corporate taxes. They add this cost to the price of goods and services.

If this were true, the products offered by big conglomerates that have an army of tax attorneys whittle their rate down to 0% would be 35% cheaper than similar product offered by a small startup. It's an interesting point, though.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

We wouldn't want a couple of trillion to return to the US and be paid out as dividends.

Huh?

How do dividends create jobs?

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Have you read the tax reform bill?

LOL NO ONE HAS, And not one person who voted for it.

How do dividends create jobs?

I just bought a car with some dividends.....no jobs there, eh?

Playing dumb is dishonest.

80% of the value in stocks is owned by the top 10%. So while this boom and the probable repatriation and dividend pay out sound awesome, it's extremely one sided.

Playing dumb is dishonest.

I won't hold it against you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

It's not the same value of work. You're wrong. Productivity has increased over the last 40 years but wages have gone flat.

Productivity has increased over the last 40 years but wages have gone flat.

What about employee compensation?

 

[flacaltenn]

Just like with the ACA, Congress doesn't write shit anymore. They pass "fill in the blank" legislation and leave the details to the massive bureaucracy. EASIER for them to CONTROL -- than actually writing the legislation themselves. ALL of those quotas are documented through HUD. The agency that was tasked to manage the desired results.

YOU MADE A CLAIM AND NOW YOU CANNOT BACK IT UP.

You're done here.

I provided links to academic econ sources. So did the Toddster. You're just in deep denial.. And apparently completely unaware of how Congress writes legislation these days.

 

[flacaltenn]

Warren Buffet said it this morning on CBS, trickle down does not work. He of all people should know.

I hear this debate all the time. Trickle down doesn’t work, or trickle down will always work. The truth is trickle down can work, but won’t always work. It depends on the economic environment. The economy is not static, no it is very dynamic and it is effected by many factors. If corporations are paying very high taxes in an rapidly expanding economy where demand for their products is high, then they could be short of money to fund growth to meet the demand. In this case, trickle down could be very effective. Conversely, in a slow or no growth economy, like the economy we have been in for the last decade, then trickle down will not work. Corporations in this environment have not used cash or inexpensive money to grow, they have used it to buy back their own stock (contract), and thus buoy their stock price and expand the wealth gap. A tax cut at this time for corporations will not spur growth, they are not short of cash, they are short of growth opportunities.

YES!!!!! This is the truth..

The truth is trickle down can work, but won’t always work. It depends on the economic environment.

It worked well in the past -- when America produced GOODS. In which case, businesses would expand, Supply chains would be grown, and people got jobs. Those workers would then spend the cash, pay taxes, and MORE demand would be generated.

TODAY -- the worker get a job, spends the cash and NOTHING HAPPENS.. Except more Chinese freighters showing up in Long Beach. Today -- the only place "trickle down" works is in the Service Sector. And you can't "service each other to death" and get prosperity.

So -- Repubs should take a break and re-calculate. For tax breaks to work -- YOU FIRST have to bring the manufacturing back. Which will be reduced by automation. Congress is back in the 1950s thinking.

 

[grainbely]

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

It's not the same value of work. You're wrong. Productivity has increased over the last 40 years but wages have gone flat.

Productivity has increased over the last 40 years but wages have gone flat.

What about employee compensation?

What about it?

 

[martybegan]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

80% of the value in stocks is owned by the top 10%.

You have a link for that?

With the size of pension and 401k funds I doubt that highly.

 

[martybegan]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

It's not the same value of work. You're wrong. Productivity has increased over the last 40 years but wages have gone flat.

Productivity increases are due to equipment provided and purchased by the employer for use by the employees.