Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Toddsterpatriot]

What that means is HUD made them buy a certain percentage of crappier loans, but didn't give them credit for loans with "abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay"

Right, which meant they wouldn't buy those loans if they're not getting credit for them. And they didn't buy those loans. Which is why GSE loan performance was 6 times better than that of private labels from 2005-7. Only 4% of GSE-backed loans defaulted from 2005-7, whereas 26% of private label-backed loans defaulted from 2005-7. It's inconvenient facts like that, which seem to unravel any argument you make.

In 2004, as regulators warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending.

So submitting an editorial absent of facts is not going to help you here. GSE loan performance was 6 times better than private label loan performance during the bubble. When you look at this chart, what is it you see? Because I see GSE delinquencies a fraction of that of the private labels. Do you have a problem reading charts? I know it can be complex because of all the colors. I don't want to overwhelm you. How can you come to the conclusion that GSE's bear any blame for the mortgage bubble when the chart below shows their delinquency rate is a fraction of those from private labels.

Wow! The government required them to buy over half their mortgages from the crappy end of the pool.

So, as usual, you ignore the facts. And the facts show that the GSE-backed loans (the ones you are talking about here) defaulted at rates that were a fraction of what private-label loans were defaulting. That's what the facts say. So you say GSE's were responsible for the housing bubble, yet GSE loans performed no better or worse than they did prior to the bubble. That's what the data says. So here is another example of reality clashing with Conservative fantasy. The fantasy is that GSE's were responsible for the delinquent loans that caused the bubble to pop, whereas the reality is that GSE loan performance was exponentially better than that of private labels, and saw delinquency rates no better or worse than prior to the bubble. Hence, GSE's were not responsible for the collapse. Also, GSE market share was cut from 70% of the market in 2003 to 40% of the market by 2005:

I expect an apology
I'm sorry, I thought you were smarter than a 5th grader.....I was wrong.

I'm smarter than you, that's for fucking sure. Also, not sloppy like you either.

Right, which meant they wouldn't buy those loans if they're not getting credit for them.

They had already made the loans. Per your source.

And they didn't buy those loans.

They did, at the end of the bubble, to the tune of 56% of their purchases.

So submitting an editorial absent of facts is not going to help you here

HUD didn't make them buy more weak mortgages? LOL!
P.S. it's from your own source. Moron.

How can you come to the conclusion that GSE's bear any blame for the mortgage bubble

Over half their purchases were weak mortgages. You think that leaves them blameless?
Do you understand supply and demand? LOL!

Also, GSE market share was cut from 70% of the market in 2003 to 40% of the market by 2005:

They were recovering from their accounting scandals. They ramped up their purchases just in time to catch more of the foamy top of the bubble.

"They had already made the loans"

Sorry Cupcake GSE's don't make loans


GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance

There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs. Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market. The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else.


Or check out the FHFA study that compares, on an apples-to-apples basis, GSEs loan originations with those for private label securitizations. The study segments loans four ways, by ARMs-versus-fixed-rate, as well as by vintage, by FICO score and by loan-to-value ratio. In almost every one of 1800 different comparisons covering years 2001 through 2008, GSE loan performance was exponentially better. On average, GSE fixed-rate loans performed four times better, and GSE ARMs performed five times better.

GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance

Sorry Cupcake GSE's don't make loans

You got me, they had already bought the mortgages.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right, which meant they wouldn't buy those loans if they're not getting credit for them.
They had already made the loans. Per your source.

No, that is not per my source. You're saying they made the loans before they made the loans! Did they make those loans from 2001-2004? Nope. Again, your sophistry is showing.

And they didn't buy those loans.
They did, at the end of the bubble, to the tune of 56% of their purchases.

At the end of the bubble, the poor loans had already been made and defaulted. And GSE loan performance was no better or worse than prior to the bubble. So GSE's made good loans, private labels (your guys) made shitty ones. You have been unable to reconcile the facts that show GSE loan performance remained the same throughout the Bush Mortgage Bubble, whereas private label performance got much, much worse. You don't reconcile that because doing so would undermine your argument that the loans GSE's made were the ones responsible for the collapse. The loan performance data shows that is not the case at all, and GSE loan performance during the bubble was the same as it was prior to the bubble.

So submitting an editorial absent of facts is not going to help you here

HUD didn't make them buy more weak mortgages? LOL!

There were no weak mortgages you shitbag. GSE loan performance throughout the Bush Mortgage Bubble was the same as it was prior to the Bush Mortgage Bubble. THAT IS WHAT THE FACTS SHOW YOU ASSHOLE.

So why is it that you absolutely refuse to accept the facts? Is your ego that fragile that you have to literally ignore things that undermine your belief system? Are you that much of a snowflake? Get over yourself.

How can you come to the conclusion that GSE's bear any blame for the mortgage bubble
Over half their purchases were weak mortgages. You think that leaves them blameless?!

They weren't "weak" mortgages. Why? Because they didn't default at rates higher than before the bubble. Again, that's in the chart that you seem determined to ignore because it destroys everything you are arguing here. So here's another instance of Conservative fantasy clashing with reality. Conservatives think that because private labels issued garbage subprimes, that means all subprimes are garbage. But the GSE loan performance shows that isn't the case at all. You seem unable to reconcile that, which is why you are flaming out big time on this thread. You are struggling to support your claim that the mortgages the GSE's made were "weak". They weren't. GSE mortgages had the same delinquency rates during the bubble than prior to it...and in some cases, the delinquency rate was lower than before the bubble. Which means the mortgages GSE's were buying were not weak, as the borrowers didn't enter delinquency at rates higher than before the bubble.

When faced with these facts, you choose to ignore them. Which makes you an ignoramus.

Also, GSE market share was cut from 70% of the market in 2003 to 40% of the market by 2005:
They were recovering from their accounting scandals. They ramped up their purchases just in time to catch more of the foamy top of the bubble.

No. You are wrong. First of all, whatever was going on in the accounting at the GSEs had no bearing on the number of subprime loans GSE's backed. The reason the GSE market share dropped to 40% by 2005 was because private labels were increasing their subprime originations. From 1993-2003, there were 1.1 million subprimes issued, which comes to about 110,000 a year. From 2004-2006, there were 800,000 subprimes issued, which comes to about 266,000 a year. So what reduced GSE market share was the amount of subprime loans that private labels were issuing. More than double the number there was before. In 3 years, Conservatives issued nearly as many subprimes as were issued in the ten years prior.

You're just making things up as you go.

No, that is not per my source.

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

From Post #1077

Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

Moron.

At the end of the bubble,

In 2006, 56%. Durr.

There were no weak mortgages you shitbag.

The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?

Have you always been a fucktard? Is it the result of a recent brain injury? I'm truly curious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No it doesn't. Cutting taxes doesn't increase demand.
Why not?

Because to pay for tax cuts (since they don't pay for themselves), spending is cut which forces consumers to spend more out of pocket on health care and education. Which is exactly what happened in Kansas with their state colleges. Conservatives cut taxes, deficits appeared, spending was cut to close deficits, tuition costs rise, students and parents have to borrow more to make up for the increase in tuition.

Cutting taxes only leads to deficits and debt. Nothing else.

There's certainly no economic, fiscal, or academic argument to make in their favor.
It increases the money in people's pockets. That's a good thing.

It doesn't do that. What it does is force people to go into debt because now they have to borrow more to pay for increased costs thanks to spending cuts to pay for tax cuts (since tax cuts don't pay for themselves and never will). Which is exactly what happened the last 37 years of doing this shit. You are in denial, substituting your emotions and theory for fact.

Cutting taxes results in most consumers having to spend more out of pocket for things like education and health care.
Cutting my federal taxes has nothing to do with my local property taxes of the cost of my healthcare.

No, when you cut federal taxes what ends up happening is that you run massive deficits, then you posture over the deficits your tax cuts created and propose cuts to pay for them because tax cuts don't pay for themselves and never have. And it would absolutely have an effect if Medicaid were cut, which is what Conservatives are proposing. Cutting Medicaid will increase out of pocket costs for the 49,000,000 people on the program, most of whom are elderly and disabled people on fixed incomes. So why do you hate people so much that you want to make them go into debt because they got sick?

Because to pay for tax cuts (since they don't pay for themselves), spending is cut

The spending is never cut. That's why we have deficits. DURR.

No, when you cut federal taxes what ends up happening is that you run massive deficits

See, you admit they don't cut spending.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

People who aren't collecting welfare

But if they're paying the same rates they paid before, then those people would be collecting welfare.

Nope, the new employees don't collect welfare.
Now that WalMart isn't being subsidized, how much do welfare payments decrease?

State TANF Spending in FY 2015. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program is a $16.5 billion block grant to states, territories, and eligible tribes to provide assistance to low-income families and support a range of services to improve employment and other child and family outcomes.

SAME AMOUNT IT WAS IN 1995 AFTER "WELFARE REFORM" CUPCAKE

How States Use Federal and State Funds Under the TANF Block Grant


Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

Yes, I love that moronic "study".
When WalMart fires all the welfare recipients, we'll save billions on welfare.
How many billions?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope, the new employees don't collect welfare.

Why not? Is it because Walmart is paying them more? If they are paying them the same, then those workers would collect the same welfare the other workers collected that you just fired.

They're all young people living at home or workers who have higher paid spouses.

How much does the government save now that the welfare collecting former employees are now entirely dependent on welfare?
Is it a $6 billion savings? More? Spell it out!

So we'll save $6 billion? More?

 

[JonKoch]

What that means is HUD made them buy a certain percentage of crappier loans, but didn't give them credit for loans with "abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay"

Right, which meant they wouldn't buy those loans if they're not getting credit for them. And they didn't buy those loans. Which is why GSE loan performance was 6 times better than that of private labels from 2005-7. Only 4% of GSE-backed loans defaulted from 2005-7, whereas 26% of private label-backed loans defaulted from 2005-7. It's inconvenient facts like that, which seem to unravel any argument you make.

In 2004, as regulators warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending.

So submitting an editorial absent of facts is not going to help you here. GSE loan performance was 6 times better than private label loan performance during the bubble. When you look at this chart, what is it you see? Because I see GSE delinquencies a fraction of that of the private labels. Do you have a problem reading charts? I know it can be complex because of all the colors. I don't want to overwhelm you. How can you come to the conclusion that GSE's bear any blame for the mortgage bubble when the chart below shows their delinquency rate is a fraction of those from private labels.

Wow! The government required them to buy over half their mortgages from the crappy end of the pool.

So, as usual, you ignore the facts. And the facts show that the GSE-backed loans (the ones you are talking about here) defaulted at rates that were a fraction of what private-label loans were defaulting. That's what the facts say. So you say GSE's were responsible for the housing bubble, yet GSE loans performed no better or worse than they did prior to the bubble. That's what the data says. So here is another example of reality clashing with Conservative fantasy. The fantasy is that GSE's were responsible for the delinquent loans that caused the bubble to pop, whereas the reality is that GSE loan performance was exponentially better than that of private labels, and saw delinquency rates no better or worse than prior to the bubble. Hence, GSE's were not responsible for the collapse. Also, GSE market share was cut from 70% of the market in 2003 to 40% of the market by 2005:

I expect an apology
I'm sorry, I thought you were smarter than a 5th grader.....I was wrong.

I'm smarter than you, that's for fucking sure. Also, not sloppy like you either.

Right, which meant they wouldn't buy those loans if they're not getting credit for them.

They had already made the loans. Per your source.

And they didn't buy those loans.

They did, at the end of the bubble, to the tune of 56% of their purchases.

So submitting an editorial absent of facts is not going to help you here

HUD didn't make them buy more weak mortgages? LOL!
P.S. it's from your own source. Moron.

How can you come to the conclusion that GSE's bear any blame for the mortgage bubble

Over half their purchases were weak mortgages. You think that leaves them blameless?
Do you understand supply and demand? LOL!

Also, GSE market share was cut from 70% of the market in 2003 to 40% of the market by 2005:

They were recovering from their accounting scandals. They ramped up their purchases just in time to catch more of the foamy top of the bubble.

"They had already made the loans"

Sorry Cupcake GSE's don't make loans


GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance

There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs. Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market. The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else.


Or check out the FHFA study that compares, on an apples-to-apples basis, GSEs loan originations with those for private label securitizations. The study segments loans four ways, by ARMs-versus-fixed-rate, as well as by vintage, by FICO score and by loan-to-value ratio. In almost every one of 1800 different comparisons covering years 2001 through 2008, GSE loan performance was exponentially better. On average, GSE fixed-rate loans performed four times better, and GSE ARMs performed five times better.

GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance

Sorry Cupcake GSE's don't make loans

You got me, they had already bought the mortgages.

The ones Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies required Cupcake? You know when Dubya dropped Clinton's 2000 rule on subprimes and then Dubya REQUIRING F/F to go from 50% to 56% AND buy $440 billion in MBS's?

 

[The Derp]

but increasing jobs and growing GDP would be "paying for themselves" in increased economic activity,
You caught me, they partially pay for themselves.

But do they even do that? We don't know. There's no real way to quantify it. It certainly didn't happen when Bush cut taxes, and it certainly didn't happen when Brownback cut them either. So I am questioning the premise that they even partially pay for themselves. Seen no evidence to support that claim. What we do know is that they produce deficits and increase household debt. Neither of those would indicate they "pay for themselves" even partially.

What you've failed to prove is that cutting taxes actually does those things.
Except when taxes are cut.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so. Bush cut taxes and then lost 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years (841,000 after 4 years). There exists no evidence to support the claim that cutting taxes creates jobs or grows GDP. It's purely fantasy. Cutting taxes just results in higher costs for middle and lower income folks because they have to make up for the revenue deficit by cutting spending in states where there is a BBA. So just like what happened in Kansas, state institutions have to raise fees to cover the funding gap.

So you support a policy that you admittedly have no idea of its economic impact
Except for the increased growth and additional jobs.

Which you are unable to connect to tax cuts. And which didn't happen anyway. Bush cut taxes in 2001, by 2004 he lost 841,000 private sector jobs. By 2008, he lost 460,000 private sector jobs. You keep saying tax cuts increase growth but even you admitted that growth isn't the full cost of those tax cuts, and that you have no idea if they even have an effect. Your faith is that they do...but that's just faith. Faith is not a guiding economic philosophy. There is plenty of evidence showing that when taxes are cut, household debt increases. We saw it happen during Reagan and then during Bush the Dumber. It sounds to me like your governing economic belief system is crossing your fingers and saying a prayer to God.

then in the next breath you promise they create jobs and grow GDP, which would mean you think they do pay for themselves.
It's true, they partially pay for themselves. Even Obama admitted that.

You haven't proven they partially pay for themselves. And did Obama really say that, or are you pretending he did? We already know you make things up as you go, exercise sophistry, and are generally dishonest in how you debate. So what did Obama really say vs. what you claim he said?

Even though after all the tax cuts over the last 37 years, household debt has skyrocketed
It's true, in a growing economy, people borrow more.

But I thought you opposed debt? So this is a flip-flop on your part. Try to get some consistency in your message, pal. If what you say is true, that tax cuts give people more money to spend, then why would household debt skyrocket? That would mean people don't have more money to spend, and have to go into debt in order to spend. So what are they going into debt for? Education and Health care. Two things that are always cut first. 60% of all personal bankruptcies prior to the ACA were medical related. With an expanded Medicaid, that figure would have been much lower.

Budget rules that exist for a reason.
Yes, to favor spending and discourage tax cuts.

Same rules apply for spending as for tax cuts; if it increases the deficit, it needs 60 votes. So stop whining, snowflake, and get better policy.

Cutting taxes doesn't seem to make any economic sense.
Not to someone like you who thinks all government spending is good and all private spending is a waste.

So your straw man arguments are getting even weaker the more we get into this. The reason cutting taxes doesn't make economic sense is that they do not increase revenue or jobs above the baseline. All they do is create deficits and debt; both government and individual...government runs bigger deficits, and individuals go into debt. That's what happens every time taxes have been cut over the last 37 years.

So again, there's that word "if"...meaning you want to make an argument in the realm of hypothetical.
Until a $100 billion tax cut is passed, of course it's hypothetical. So why are you afraid to answer the question?

I'm not afraid to answer anything. You're the one who refuses to answer questions. You're the one who even refuses to accept facts when they are presented to you. You do that because you cannot argue in real terms on this subject (or any other, it seems). Everything you argue has to be in this hypothetical, insulated world where you can control all the circumstances. In other words, a fantasy. We cut taxes by more than that just 16 years ago, and the result was a loss of 841,000 private sector jobs after 4 years, 460,000 private sector jobs lost after 8, the erasing of a surplus, 4 record deficits including the largest deficit of all time, the doubling of the debt, a mortgage bubble that Bush and the Conservatives (including you) have tied to the tax cuts, the worst economic growth in 80 years, and an inevitable economic collapse. That's the legacy of tax cuts.

Again, you are working from the assumption that consumption does not increase if there is a wage increase and that is just not true.
Nope. I'm working from the assumption that you don't look at both sides of the ledger and that your understanding of business and economics is shit.

You're just flaming out, is what you're doing. An increase in revenues from increased sales because people have more money to spend offsets any labor costs that come from a wage increase. We know this because we saw it happen 3 years ago, in the states that raised their MW starting January 1st, 2014.

 

[JonKoch]

Right, which meant they wouldn't buy those loans if they're not getting credit for them.
They had already made the loans. Per your source.

No, that is not per my source. You're saying they made the loans before they made the loans! Did they make those loans from 2001-2004? Nope. Again, your sophistry is showing.

And they didn't buy those loans.
They did, at the end of the bubble, to the tune of 56% of their purchases.

At the end of the bubble, the poor loans had already been made and defaulted. And GSE loan performance was no better or worse than prior to the bubble. So GSE's made good loans, private labels (your guys) made shitty ones. You have been unable to reconcile the facts that show GSE loan performance remained the same throughout the Bush Mortgage Bubble, whereas private label performance got much, much worse. You don't reconcile that because doing so would undermine your argument that the loans GSE's made were the ones responsible for the collapse. The loan performance data shows that is not the case at all, and GSE loan performance during the bubble was the same as it was prior to the bubble.

So submitting an editorial absent of facts is not going to help you here

HUD didn't make them buy more weak mortgages? LOL!

There were no weak mortgages you shitbag. GSE loan performance throughout the Bush Mortgage Bubble was the same as it was prior to the Bush Mortgage Bubble. THAT IS WHAT THE FACTS SHOW YOU ASSHOLE.

So why is it that you absolutely refuse to accept the facts? Is your ego that fragile that you have to literally ignore things that undermine your belief system? Are you that much of a snowflake? Get over yourself.

How can you come to the conclusion that GSE's bear any blame for the mortgage bubble
Over half their purchases were weak mortgages. You think that leaves them blameless?!

They weren't "weak" mortgages. Why? Because they didn't default at rates higher than before the bubble. Again, that's in the chart that you seem determined to ignore because it destroys everything you are arguing here. So here's another instance of Conservative fantasy clashing with reality. Conservatives think that because private labels issued garbage subprimes, that means all subprimes are garbage. But the GSE loan performance shows that isn't the case at all. You seem unable to reconcile that, which is why you are flaming out big time on this thread. You are struggling to support your claim that the mortgages the GSE's made were "weak". They weren't. GSE mortgages had the same delinquency rates during the bubble than prior to it...and in some cases, the delinquency rate was lower than before the bubble. Which means the mortgages GSE's were buying were not weak, as the borrowers didn't enter delinquency at rates higher than before the bubble.

When faced with these facts, you choose to ignore them. Which makes you an ignoramus.

Also, GSE market share was cut from 70% of the market in 2003 to 40% of the market by 2005:
They were recovering from their accounting scandals. They ramped up their purchases just in time to catch more of the foamy top of the bubble.

No. You are wrong. First of all, whatever was going on in the accounting at the GSEs had no bearing on the number of subprime loans GSE's backed. The reason the GSE market share dropped to 40% by 2005 was because private labels were increasing their subprime originations. From 1993-2003, there were 1.1 million subprimes issued, which comes to about 110,000 a year. From 2004-2006, there were 800,000 subprimes issued, which comes to about 266,000 a year. So what reduced GSE market share was the amount of subprime loans that private labels were issuing. More than double the number there was before. In 3 years, Conservatives issued nearly as many subprimes as were issued in the ten years prior.

You're just making things up as you go.

No, that is not per my source.

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

From Post #1077

Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

Moron.

At the end of the bubble,

In 2006, 56%. Durr.

There were no weak mortgages you shitbag.

The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?

Have you always been a fucktard? Is it the result of a recent brain injury? I'm truly curious.

Sorry Cupcake, the GSE bough the best of he best, highest tranches in the bunch which is why they outperformed the private guys who bought the crap during Dubya pushing the Banksters subprime bubble.

They were done under by Dubya "believing" markets self regulate and Dubya's policy towards F/F



Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment bank's capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.


THINK F/F LIVE IN A BUBBLE AND AREN'T EFFECTED BY BAD GOP POLICY LIKE THE REST OF US ARE CUPCAKE?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession

 

[GHook93]

Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.

I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.

Tax the poor? Are you serious. It is the middle and upper class that get hit with the taxes. I say quit killing the middle class with taxes. We pay the buck of the budget killing property taxes and unlike the lower class we pay income taxes! The poor get food, housing, school, medical and many other subsidies.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[JonKoch]

People who aren't collecting welfare

But if they're paying the same rates they paid before, then those people would be collecting welfare.

Nope, the new employees don't collect welfare.
Now that WalMart isn't being subsidized, how much do welfare payments decrease?

State TANF Spending in FY 2015. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program is a $16.5 billion block grant to states, territories, and eligible tribes to provide assistance to low-income families and support a range of services to improve employment and other child and family outcomes.

SAME AMOUNT IT WAS IN 1995 AFTER "WELFARE REFORM" CUPCAKE

How States Use Federal and State Funds Under the TANF Block Grant


Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

Yes, I love that moronic "study".
When WalMart fires all the welfare recipients, we'll save billions on welfare.
How many billions?

Or you Klowns could get off the casino capitalism the US has used for 40+ years where all the benefits go to the richest Cupcake?

 

[JonKoch]

Nope, the new employees don't collect welfare.

Why not? Is it because Walmart is paying them more? If they are paying them the same, then those workers would collect the same welfare the other workers collected that you just fired.

They're all young people living at home or workers who have higher paid spouses.

How much does the government save now that the welfare collecting former employees are now entirely dependent on welfare?
Is it a $6 billion savings? More? Spell it out!

So we'll save $6 billion? More?

Giving people living wages vs requiring them to live off the Gov't Cupcake?

 

[JonKoch]

People who aren't collecting welfare

But if they're paying the same rates they paid before, then those people would be collecting welfare.

Nope, the new employees don't collect welfare.
Now that WalMart isn't being subsidized, how much do welfare payments decrease?

State TANF Spending in FY 2015. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program is a $16.5 billion block grant to states, territories, and eligible tribes to provide assistance to low-income families and support a range of services to improve employment and other child and family outcomes.

SAME AMOUNT IT WAS IN 1995 AFTER "WELFARE REFORM" CUPCAKE

How States Use Federal and State Funds Under the TANF Block Grant


Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

Yes, I love that moronic "study".
When WalMart fires all the welfare recipients, we'll save billions on welfare.
How many billions?

Perhaps just get the welfare queen Walton's off the public teet and pay enough to support their workers Buttercup?

 

[The Derp]

So we'll save $6 billion? More?

No, you won't save anything if Walmart hires workers at the same rates they did before. So all those new Walmart workers, who get paid the same wages as the ones before, would all qualify for welfare.

You get that, right?

 

[The Derp]

The ones Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies required Cupcake? You know when Dubya dropped Clinton's 2000 rule on subprimes and then Dubya REQUIRING F/F to go from 50% to 56% AND buy $440 billion in MBS's?

It should be noted, though, that even with the GSE's buying those subprimes, delinquency rates for GSE's remained virtually the same (and even went down a couple years). So not all subprimes were equal in their suckiness.

 

[JonKoch]

Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.

I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.

Tax the poor? Are you serious. It is the middle and upper class that get hit with the taxes. I say quit killing the middle class with taxes. We pay the buck of the budget killing property taxes and unlike the lower class we pay income taxes! The poor get food, housing, school, medical and many other subsidies.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You mean those " lucky duckies" in the bottom half of America who receive 11% of ALL US income, down from 18% in 1980 pre Reaganomics? That's almost $5,000 more per family, think that would help?

 

[JonKoch]

The ones Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies required Cupcake? You know when Dubya dropped Clinton's 2000 rule on subprimes and then Dubya REQUIRING F/F to go from 50% to 56% AND buy $440 billion in MBS's?

It should be noted, though, that even with the GSE's buying those subprimes, delinquency rates for GSE's remained virtually the same (and even went down a couple years). So not all subprimes were equal in their suckiness.

GSE's got the best of the best "tranches" in their bundles, they got paid off first in default

 

[The Derp]

There were no weak mortgages you shitbag.
The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?

First of all, they were already government-sponsored (What the "G" and "S" stand for in "GSE"). Secondly, the delinquency rates for subprimes connected to GSE's was unchanged from pre-mortgage bubble levels. In fact, in some cases, the delinquency rate was lower than it was pre-bubble, and as much as 6x better than the delinquency rate of private labels.

What that means is that the loans the GSE's had from 2004-7 performed the same (or better) than the loans they had prior. That's what the facts show. So you are trying to lay blame on the GSE's because of their market share, but you are ignoring the loan performance of GSE-backed loans. Are you intentionally ignoring them? It sure seems to be the case.

So why are you ignoring the GSE loan performance? Easy; because it undermines your attempt to pin blame on the GSE's for the negligence Conservatives had when it came to policing lending standards among private labels.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.

I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.

Tax the poor? Are you serious. It is the middle and upper class that get hit with the taxes. I say quit killing the middle class with taxes. We pay the bulk of the budget killing property taxes and unlike the lower class we pay income taxes! The poor get food, housing, school, medical and many other subsidies.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Don't Let the Liberal/Conservative Axis Spin You Dizzy

The "poor" are puppets of the guillotine-fodder HeirHeads. Eliminate birth privileges and this whole nightmare will be over.

 

[danielpalos]

But they're not going to do any of that unless there is demand.
There's no demand and you insist they shell out more for employee expenses?

Raising wages increases demand, which leads to job growth, because people have more money to spend. That's what we saw happen in 2014, when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages. We will see the same thing happen again this year because 19 states raised their MW on January 1st.

Raising wages increases demand,

So does cutting taxes.

because people have more money to spend.

See, we agree.

supply side economics only supplies. demand side economics, demands. tax cuts don't demand anything and who benefits most, from tax cuts.

increasing the minimum wage will enable more people to spend more money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

but increasing jobs and growing GDP would be "paying for themselves" in increased economic activity,
You caught me, they partially pay for themselves.

But do they even do that? We don't know. There's no real way to quantify it. It certainly didn't happen when Bush cut taxes, and it certainly didn't happen when Brownback cut them either. So I am questioning the premise that they even partially pay for themselves. Seen no evidence to support that claim. What we do know is that they produce deficits and increase household debt. Neither of those would indicate they "pay for themselves" even partially.

What you've failed to prove is that cutting taxes actually does those things.
Except when taxes are cut.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so. Bush cut taxes and then lost 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years (841,000 after 4 years). There exists no evidence to support the claim that cutting taxes creates jobs or grows GDP. It's purely fantasy. Cutting taxes just results in higher costs for middle and lower income folks because they have to make up for the revenue deficit by cutting spending in states where there is a BBA. So just like what happened in Kansas, state institutions have to raise fees to cover the funding gap.

So you support a policy that you admittedly have no idea of its economic impact
Except for the increased growth and additional jobs.

Which you are unable to connect to tax cuts. And which didn't happen anyway. Bush cut taxes in 2001, by 2004 he lost 841,000 private sector jobs. By 2008, he lost 460,000 private sector jobs. You keep saying tax cuts increase growth but even you admitted that growth isn't the full cost of those tax cuts, and that you have no idea if they even have an effect. Your faith is that they do...but that's just faith. Faith is not a guiding economic philosophy. There is plenty of evidence showing that when taxes are cut, household debt increases. We saw it happen during Reagan and then during Bush the Dumber. It sounds to me like your governing economic belief system is crossing your fingers and saying a prayer to God.

then in the next breath you promise they create jobs and grow GDP, which would mean you think they do pay for themselves.
It's true, they partially pay for themselves. Even Obama admitted that.

You haven't proven they partially pay for themselves. And did Obama really say that, or are you pretending he did? We already know you make things up as you go, exercise sophistry, and are generally dishonest in how you debate. So what did Obama really say vs. what you claim he said?

Even though after all the tax cuts over the last 37 years, household debt has skyrocketed
It's true, in a growing economy, people borrow more.

But I thought you opposed debt? So this is a flip-flop on your part. Try to get some consistency in your message, pal. If what you say is true, that tax cuts give people more money to spend, then why would household debt skyrocket? That would mean people don't have more money to spend, and have to go into debt in order to spend. So what are they going into debt for? Education and Health care. Two things that are always cut first. 60% of all personal bankruptcies prior to the ACA were medical related. With an expanded Medicaid, that figure would have been much lower.

Budget rules that exist for a reason.
Yes, to favor spending and discourage tax cuts.

Same rules apply for spending as for tax cuts; if it increases the deficit, it needs 60 votes. So stop whining, snowflake, and get better policy.

Cutting taxes doesn't seem to make any economic sense.
Not to someone like you who thinks all government spending is good and all private spending is a waste.

So your straw man arguments are getting even weaker the more we get into this. The reason cutting taxes doesn't make economic sense is that they do not increase revenue or jobs above the baseline. All they do is create deficits and debt; both government and individual...government runs bigger deficits, and individuals go into debt. That's what happens every time taxes have been cut over the last 37 years.

So again, there's that word "if"...meaning you want to make an argument in the realm of hypothetical.
Until a $100 billion tax cut is passed, of course it's hypothetical. So why are you afraid to answer the question?

I'm not afraid to answer anything. You're the one who refuses to answer questions. You're the one who even refuses to accept facts when they are presented to you. You do that because you cannot argue in real terms on this subject (or any other, it seems). Everything you argue has to be in this hypothetical, insulated world where you can control all the circumstances. In other words, a fantasy. We cut taxes by more than that just 16 years ago, and the result was a loss of 841,000 private sector jobs after 4 years, 460,000 private sector jobs lost after 8, the erasing of a surplus, 4 record deficits including the largest deficit of all time, the doubling of the debt, a mortgage bubble that Bush and the Conservatives (including you) have tied to the tax cuts, the worst economic growth in 80 years, and an inevitable economic collapse. That's the legacy of tax cuts.

Again, you are working from the assumption that consumption does not increase if there is a wage increase and that is just not true.
Nope. I'm working from the assumption that you don't look at both sides of the ledger and that your understanding of business and economics is shit.

You're just flaming out, is what you're doing. An increase in revenues from increased sales because people have more money to spend offsets any labor costs that come from a wage increase. We know this because we saw it happen 3 years ago, in the states that raised their MW starting January 1st, 2014.

But I thought you opposed debt?

I opposed debt? Like it violates the Koran?