Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'll bet the spending increase in 2009 was bigger.

Bigger how? Proportionally to the economy? Again, this is yet another example of you being vague and generalized, as to give yourself wiggle room later for you to shift the goalposts. Accuracy is not something you are terribly concerned with, which is fine. The major difference between 2008 and 1983 was that in 1983, getting credit was easy. That's why household debt spiked when the taxes were cut. Middle class families went into debt because their wages didn't grow. The economy grew, but only because of the credit bubble that was forming (and would eventually pop with the S&L's collapsing by the end of the decade, thus wiping out any gains). In 2008-9, credit was not easy to get. The credit markets were frozen and the attempt to defrost them via TARP and the Fed Discount Window did not end up trickling down to consumers as theorized. The idea was that the Fed would buy up all that bad debt, thus freeing funds for banks to resume lending. Only the banks didn't resume lending. So what did they do with the money they get for the bad debt? Paid it to themselves by way of executive compensation, or dividends which benefit majority shareholders and Board of Directors, not consumers.

The spending Obama did in 2009 was primarily revenue-neutral tax cuts for the middle class, state aid so the dumb ones that had BBA's could balance their budgets, and about $130B in infrastructure spending.

Add much higher capital requirements and a shit ton of additional regulations, banks lend less.

What regulations? I keep hearing about these phantom negotiations, but most of Dodd-Frank is tied up in the courts. Are you referring to the CFPB? How exactly has that resulted in banks lending less? You mean making banks accountable hurts banks? Wow. Shocking assessment there, professor.

As far as we know, the regulations for banks to lend to consumers hasn't changed. But the banks willingness to lend to consumers has. The banks make more money taking funds meant for loans, and pouring it into secondary markets where they are essentially gambling. I think that if a bank is going to do that, then we should tax those profits as we would any other income. After all, they tax gambling winnings in Las Vegas, yet people still go there to gamble. So taxing Wall Street gambling won't result in less Wall Street gambling. Because, why would it? If you sit on the Board of Directors of a TBTF bank, and you see that you can get more bang for your buck gambling in the secondary markets while giving yourself dividends and compensation with what you don't gamble with, why on earth would you lend to consumers????? The interest they pay is going to be far, far less than the gains you see gambling or in dividends. This is why I argue that the USPS should become a bank. The profit motive for current banks wholly determines their willingness to lend to consumers. If they are going to make more gambling in the market than they are handing out business loans, they are going to go for the gambling. Every time.

You need banks to loan for economic growth, so let's beat up on banks. LOL!

The problem is the banks aren't loaning, and not because they're victims (hardly). Because they're greedy and are run by the same folks who are the majority shareholders and Board of Directors. So what I say is fuck those banks. Turn the USPS into a bank, offer basic checking and savings services, offer small loan services, no ATM fees, free checking, and thousands of locations across the US, even in rural areas not served by TBTF banks (or are served and raked over the coals by them). Problem solved. Why not offer consumers that choice? Why do the choices have to be only greedy banks who don't give a shit?

It's true, you didn't know what Fed Funds meant. DURR.

No, it was you trying to allow yourself room to move the goalposts. Pretty transparent. Whatever. I can let it go. Maybe be more detail-oriented next time?

Reagan's GDP growth in Q2, 1983 was 9.4%. What was Obama's best rate after he raised taxes?

Reagan did not grow GDP 9.4% in 1983. That is a lie. You have to skew the numbers pretty unconventionally to get that number. Which you've done. Then you misrepresent those numbers.

Bigger how? Proportionally to the economy?

Of course.

The idea was that the Fed would buy up all that bad debt, thus freeing funds for banks to resume lending.

The Fed didn't buy any bad debt.

The spending Obama did in 2009 was primarily revenue-neutral tax cuts for the middle class

What's a "revenue neutral tax cut"?

What regulations? I keep hearing about these phantom negotiations, but most of Dodd-Frank is tied up in the courts.

Dodd-Frank didn't add a bunch of bank regulations because it's "tied up in the courts"? LOL!

The problem is the banks aren't loaning, and not because they're victims

Raise their capital requirements, sue them for previous lending, fine them for previous lending, watch them lose hundreds of billions on defaulting mortgages and then wonder why lending lags. DURR.

This is why I argue that the USPS should become a bank.

Awesome idea. Take a money losing monstrosity and add a money losing bank. What could go wrong?

No, it was you trying to allow yourself room to move the goalposts.

Yes, by saying 'Fed Funds" instead of "Federal Funds Rate", I was cleverly hiding what I really meant from someone with a wide understanding of markets. LOL!

Are you failing your ECON 101 class?
Can't figure out how young you have to be to not know what Fed Funds means.

Reagan did not grow GDP 9.4% in 1983. That is a lie.

Right there in the chart from the Fed.

You have to skew the numbers pretty unconventionally to get that number.

Did you click the link? It's the Fed. Go to their site. Lots of cool data.
Feel free to post some that shows Obama's GDP growth was better than Reagan's.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

o you have no reason why a company with more money is more likely to be greedy than one with less.

Do you know what the word "greed" means? And what companies are you talking about? Or is this just another vague, generalized statement designed to give yourself wiggle room to redefine parameters? You do that a lot, you know.

The corporate repatriation we did in 2004 resulted in 20,000 jobs lost. And that rate was lower than the one Trump is currently proposing. So if it didn't work 13 years ago, why would it magically start working today?

Do you know what the word "greed" means?

Do you know what the word "logic" means?
Do you know what the word "proof" means?

The corporate repatriation we did in 2004 resulted in 20,000 jobs lost.

Do you know what the word "resulted" means?
Companies don't need to repatriate funds to lay off employees.
So why would a firm that brought back $1 billion, for example, be more likely to layoff workers than the
same company that left the money in Asia or Europe?

Walk thru the logical steps.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you have no reason why a company with more money is more likely to be greedy than one with less.Thanks for admitting your failure.

You understand the difference between revenues and profits, right? And that they are mutually exclusive things, yes? You get that, don't you?

You understand the difference between revenues and profits, right?

You understand the difference between correlation and causation, right?

And that they are mutually exclusive things,

"Mutually exclusive" is a statistical term describing two or more events that cannot occur simultaneously.

Mutually Exclusive

Revenues and profits cannot occur simultaneously?

Wow, you are actually getting dumber the longer you post.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

stupid lie of course!!! bank shareholders lost millions so had most incentive in world not to fail then and now!!! Plus, banks were too big to fail. Their failure would have cause a Great Depression and were doing exactly that when the Fed rescued them and the entire world's economic system!!

The bank shareholders lost millions? I guess it depends what kind of shareholder you were. If you were a majority shareholder, you most likely sat on the Board of Directors and were made whole either by TARP, or by the Fed's Discount Window. Both of which came with no strings attached. If you were a minority shareholder with a diversified portfolio, then you probably did get screwed. Unlike Wall Street banks, the auto industry bailout screwed over shareholders...yet the bailout kept people employed and the industry afloat as it changed direction to adapt to new energies and demands. Wall Street, on the other hand, did not change one iota. They continue trafficking in the same kind of fraud they did pre-collapse. Which is why the government should stop bailing out Wall Street and offer consumers a Public alternative to private banking; namely converting the Post Office into a government-backed S&L (not dissimilar from what they do in North Dakota) that is subject to regulatory oversight, can provide basic savings, checking, and small loan servicing, while offering consumers a choice that isn't a for-profit too-big-to-fail bank that everyone fucking hates. Plus, the infrastructure is already there. You've got the Post Offices already built. A few minor tweaks and they can easily be turned into S&L banks.

I would certainly transfer my accounts from SunTrust to the USPS if the USPS offered basic savings & checking.

The bank shareholders lost millions? I guess it depends what kind of shareholder you were. If you were a majority shareholder,

You have a list of banks with "majority shareholders"?

you most likely sat on the Board of Directors and were made whole either by TARP, or by the Fed's Discount Window.

How did TARP or the Fed Discount Window "make them whole"?

the auto industry bailout screwed over shareholders...

And bondholders and it lost the Treasury billions!
Unlike the bank bailout that was profitable to the Treasury.

Wall Street, on the other hand, did not change one iota.

Almost every major bank got rid of their CEO.

They continue trafficking in the same kind of fraud they did pre-collapse.

You mean they kept lending to people who couldn't afford the house they were buying? Nah.

I would certainly transfer my accounts from SunTrust to the USPS if the USPS offered basic savings & checking.

Nothing says big profits to a bank quite like tiny accounts with low/no fees.

 

[The Derp]

Of course

But you don't know that. This mythical "spending" you think Obama did, what spending was that? Most of the stimulus was a revenue-neutral middle class tax cut, and aid to states. Only about 17% of the ARRA was actual spending by the federal government on stimulus infrastructure programs, which you could see all over the country because they had signs saying these improvements were because of the ARRA. Even Conservatives were screeching about those signs, while denying what those signs were saying even happened. So again, what we have here is the Conservative Masturbatory Complex...where you get trapped in a perpetual circle of self-gratification that does nothing other than prevent debate from moving forward. I've even written one of my famous one-act plays to show exactly how. This one I call Toddsterpatriot's Musings on Flinging Poo at the Wall:

ACT ONE

Toddsterpatriot: The stimulus created no jobs.

Normal Person: Ummm, yes it did...there was even a sign on my street saying the construction holding up traffic is because of the ARRA.

Toddsterpatriot: I oppose the government spending on signs to advertise work they are doing.

Normal Peson: So they did do work from the ARRA?

Toddsterpatiot: No shovel ready jobs! Where were they?

Normal Person: Did you read the big sign next to the project saying the project is because of the ARRA?

Toddsterpatriot: <Russian Active Measure> <Post-bot malfunction>

Normal Person: What a tool.

Fin

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course

But you don't know that. This mythical "spending" you think Obama did, what spending was that? Most of the stimulus was a revenue-neutral middle class tax cut, and aid to states. Only about 17% of the ARRA was actual spending by the federal government on stimulus infrastructure programs, which you could see all over the country because they had signs saying these improvements were because of the ARRA. Even Conservatives were screeching about those signs, while denying what those signs were saying even happened. So again, what we have here is the Conservative Masturbatory Complex...where you get trapped in a perpetual circle of self-gratification that does nothing other than prevent debate from moving forward. I've even written one of my famous one-act plays to show exactly how. This one I call Toddsterpatriot's Musings on Flinging Poo at the Wall:

ACT ONE

Toddsterpatriot: The stimulus created no jobs.

Normal Person: Ummm, yes it did...there was even a sign on my street saying the construction holding up traffic is because of the ARRA.

Toddsterpatriot: I oppose the government spending on signs to advertise work they are doing.

Normal Peson: So they did do work from the ARRA?

Toddsterpatiot: No shovel ready jobs! Where were they?

Normal Person: Did you read the big sign next to the project saying the project is because of the ARRA?

Toddsterpatriot: <Russian Active Measure> <Post-bot malfunction>

Normal Person: What a tool.

Fin

But you don't know that.

I already showed you that Obama had larger deficits as a percentage of GDP.
Forget already?

This mythical "spending" you think Obama did, what spending was that?

Transfer payments are $1 trillion a year higher than before the crisis.

Most of the stimulus was a revenue-neutral middle class tax cut

What's a "revenue-neutral middle class tax cut"?

 

[The Derp]

What's a "revenue neutral tax cut"?

The fact that you have to ask this question in the first place means you're out of your depth. A "revenue neutral tax cut" is when revenue is generated that is equal to that reduced as a result of tax cut. Most middle-class tax cuts are revenue-neutral, though lately they have been augmented with credit to bridge the gap that now exists due to stagnant wages. Which again, is why you see household debt shoot up every single time taxes are cut.

Dodd-Frank didn't add a bunch of bank regulations because it's "tied up in the courts"? LOL!

So this is just a case of you not being informed. It's not the first time you've vomited up nonsense on a subject of which you have no insight, and it probably won't be the last time you do that either.

Raise their capital requirements, sue them for previous lending, fine them for previous lending, watch them lose hundreds of billions on defaulting mortgages and then wonder why lending lags. DURR.

They weren't sued or fined for previous lending. They were sued and fined for committing fraud. Why? Because they are natural fraudsters and must be policed. Letting the "free market" work the way you want in Finance always results in economic collapse. Always. And they didn't lose billions on defaulting mortgages. The Federal Reserve and TARP bought all that toxic debt up. They shifted the bad assets onto the Fed's books, freeing up funds for TBTF banks to loan out to consumers. Only the banks didn't loan out to consumers. They kept it for themselves. So their stock rises, which makes the majority shareholders and Board of Directors (and senior executives with deferred compensation) wealthy, but does nothing for the rest of us. The banks are even larger now than they were before the collapse. So it's not like the TBTF banks suffered. Quite the contrary. They were coddled by a Congress that put no strings on the bailout (at the insistence of Conservatives and Bush), and the Federal Reserve who offered them near-zero interest loans they could pay back, you know, whenever they felt like it. No presh, bae!

Awesome idea. Take a money losing monstrosity and add a money losing bank. What could go wrong?.

Losing monstrosity? Huh? Do you even know what the Post Office does? The only reason it is a "money loser" is because of the way you stupid Conservatives changed the pension funding. So again, what we have here is another exercising of the Conservative Masturbatory Complex; wherein you create a problem, then complain about the problem you created. You should just change your avatar to a monkey jacking off at the zoo, because that's the intellectual equivalent of your posts. Seriously, go fuck yourself. You're already do it on the boards.

Yes, by saying 'Fed Funds" instead of "Federal Funds Rate", I was cleverly hiding what I really meant from someone with a wide understanding of markets. LOL!

I know exactly what you were trying to do. You were using "Fed Funds" so you could quickly switch to Federal funding to make it an issue about federal outlays and not Federal Reserve interest rates. Because we were talking about both within the context of 1983. So you did that on purpose because you wanted to give yourself an escape hatch. It's fine. I already know you are insecure. That's why I said you should be more detail-oriented, if you even can be. Details are usually where the Conservative arguments fall apart, so it's in your interests to keep things vague and general. But whatever...I stopped caring.

Right there in the chart from the Fed.

Missing appropriate context. Specifically the context of which dollars it's being counted as. You are not using chained dollars. So that's why your number is skewed upward.

BTW - Reagan doubled the deficit and tripled the debt. Where was all this deficit concern then? Oh right, you only care about that stuff when a Democrat is President.

 

[The Derp]

Feel free to post some that shows Obama's GDP growth was better than Reagan's.

STRAW MAN ALERT! I never said it was! So this post of yours here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about with you clowns. You don't know anything, and because you are the center of your own universe, if you don't know something, that means no one does. Like how president-ing is hard, or health care is complicated. So you have to foist fake positions on people, of things they never even said, because otherwise your ego would take a hit. Such a snowflake!

I never said Obama's GDP growth was better than Reagan's. What I said was that Reagan's GDP growth is attributed to increased borrowing and consumer debt, and increase federal spending. If Obama had done the same, he would have had the same growth. But he didn't. It's only Republican Presidents who force consumers to go into debt in order to live...as we saw in the chart showing household debt spiking every time taxes are cut. Coincidence? I don't believe in coincidences.

 

[The Derp]

Do you know what the word "logic" means?
Do you know what the word "proof" means?

Do you!?!?!?!? Your posts sure don't seem to indicate that. Wealthy corporations, when allowed to repatriate at a lower rate, do so for no other reason than greed. And that is proven in the fact that when we did repatriation the last time, 20,000 jobs were lost.

So that's your proof. Actual job loss.

Do you know what the word "resulted" means?

DO YOU??????? Right, companies don't need to repatriate funds to lay off employees. But they did so anyway in 2004. They did so because it would increase their profit margins, though not increase their revenues. So they are always trying to maximize profits for their majority shareholders and Board of Directors. The whole excuse for the 2004 Tax Repatriation was that corporations would bring the money back and...magically inject it into the economy somehow. How? No one knows for sure because they didn't do it. Instead, they cut jobs.

So why would a firm that brought back $1 billion, for example, be more likely to layoff workers than the same company that left the money in Asia or Europe?

If doing so increases their profit margin, they will. And you're increasing their profit margin by repatriating those profits, which are then augmented by cuts to labor. Remember, a business' purpose is to make profit.

And the repatriation was voluntary. So corporations only did so to maximize profits. You are working from the assumption that business acts benevolently or has morality. It doesn't. Some businesses took advantage of the repatriation, some did not. What didn't happen as a result of that repatriation was any measurable revenue growth, thus defeating the need to "invest" to meet demand that isn't there. And because these corporations are accountable to majority shareholders and Boards of Directors, they must show an increase in profits. They accomplish that by slashing jobs, as wages are the primary expense for most businesses.

So that's how those businesses killed 20,000 jobs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's a "revenue neutral tax cut"?

The fact that you have to ask this question in the first place means you're out of your depth. A "revenue neutral tax cut" is when revenue is generated that is equal to that reduced as a result of tax cut. Most middle-class tax cuts are revenue-neutral, though lately they have been augmented with credit to bridge the gap that now exists due to stagnant wages. Which again, is why you see household debt shoot up every single time taxes are cut.

Dodd-Frank didn't add a bunch of bank regulations because it's "tied up in the courts"? LOL!

So this is just a case of you not being informed. It's not the first time you've vomited up nonsense on a subject of which you have no insight, and it probably won't be the last time you do that either.

Raise their capital requirements, sue them for previous lending, fine them for previous lending, watch them lose hundreds of billions on defaulting mortgages and then wonder why lending lags. DURR.

They weren't sued or fined for previous lending. They were sued and fined for committing fraud. Why? Because they are natural fraudsters and must be policed. Letting the "free market" work the way you want in Finance always results in economic collapse. Always. And they didn't lose billions on defaulting mortgages. The Federal Reserve and TARP bought all that toxic debt up. They shifted the bad assets onto the Fed's books, freeing up funds for TBTF banks to loan out to consumers. Only the banks didn't loan out to consumers. They kept it for themselves. So their stock rises, which makes the majority shareholders and Board of Directors (and senior executives with deferred compensation) wealthy, but does nothing for the rest of us. The banks are even larger now than they were before the collapse. So it's not like the TBTF banks suffered. Quite the contrary. They were coddled by a Congress that put no strings on the bailout (at the insistence of Conservatives and Bush), and the Federal Reserve who offered them near-zero interest loans they could pay back, you know, whenever they felt like it. No presh, bae!

Awesome idea. Take a money losing monstrosity and add a money losing bank. What could go wrong?.

Losing monstrosity? Huh? Do you even know what the Post Office does? The only reason it is a "money loser" is because of the way you stupid Conservatives changed the pension funding. So again, what we have here is another exercising of the Conservative Masturbatory Complex; wherein you create a problem, then complain about the problem you created. You should just change your avatar to a monkey jacking off at the zoo, because that's the intellectual equivalent of your posts. Seriously, go fuck yourself. You're already do it on the boards.

Yes, by saying 'Fed Funds" instead of "Federal Funds Rate", I was cleverly hiding what I really meant from someone with a wide understanding of markets. LOL!

I know exactly what you were trying to do. You were using "Fed Funds" so you could quickly switch to Federal funding to make it an issue about federal outlays and not Federal Reserve interest rates. Because we were talking about both within the context of 1983. So you did that on purpose because you wanted to give yourself an escape hatch. It's fine. I already know you are insecure. That's why I said you should be more detail-oriented, if you even can be. Details are usually where the Conservative arguments fall apart, so it's in your interests to keep things vague and general. But whatever...I stopped caring.

Right there in the chart from the Fed.

Missing appropriate context. Specifically the context of which dollars it's being counted as. You are not using chained dollars. So that's why your number is skewed upward.

BTW - Reagan doubled the deficit and tripled the debt. Where was all this deficit concern then? Oh right, you only care about that stuff when a Democrat is President.

A "revenue neutral tax cut" is when revenue is generated that is equal to that reduced as a result of tax cut. Most middle-class tax cuts are revenue-neutral

That's funny!
Do you have any proof?

So this is just a case of you not being informed.

So inform me.
How much of Dodd-Frank wasn't implemented because of the courts? Link?
Unless this is another case where you made shit up?
In that case, don't provide any links.

And they didn't lose billions on defaulting mortgages.

They did. It was in all the papers.

The Federal Reserve and TARP bought all that toxic debt up.

So much fail in such a small sentence.
TARP didn't buy debt, it bought preferred stock
The Fed didn't buy any toxic debt.

The Fed only bought high quality, guaranteed debt.
The kind of debt that didn't miss an interest payment....ever.
That didn't default on principal.....ever.

Only the banks didn't loan out to consumers. They kept it for themselves.

They didn't keep it for themselves, they paid it back.

So their stock rises, which makes the majority shareholders and Board of Directors (and senior executives with deferred compensation) wealthy

If they "kept it for themselves", how did they make money to make their stock rise?
Walk thru the steps.

Losing monstrosity? Huh? Do you even know what the Post Office does?

Besides lose money?

You were using "Fed Funds" so you could quickly switch to Federal funding

I said they cut the "Fed Funds Rate", so I could say they cut spending?
When did Obama cut spending? Weak.

Missing appropriate context. Specifically the context of which dollars it's being counted as.

It says "Real GDP".

What is the 'Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP)'
Real gross domestic product (GDP) is an inflation-adjusted measure that reflects the value of all goods and services produced by an economy in a given year, expressed in base-year prices, and is often referred to as "constant-price," "inflation-corrected" GDP or "constant dollar GDP." Unlike nominal GDP, real GDP can account for changes in price level and provide a more accurate figure of economic growth.

Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

It's kind of like "Fed Funds", your ignorance of the meaning is more proof of your idiocy and inexperience.

BTW - Reagan doubled the deficit and tripled the debt.

BTW - Obama had larger deficits than Reagan.
Not only in current dollars, which means not-adjusted for inflation, but also as a percentage of GDP.

Federal Surplus or Deficit [-] as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Click the link, Reagan's largest was 5.71% of GDP in 1983.

Federal Surplus or Deficit [-] as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Click the link.
Obama's were much higher in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Feel free to post some that shows Obama's GDP growth was better than Reagan's.

STRAW MAN ALERT! I never said it was! So this post of yours here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about with you clowns. You don't know anything, and because you are the center of your own universe, if you don't know something, that means no one does. Like how president-ing is hard, or health care is complicated. So you have to foist fake positions on people, of things they never even said, because otherwise your ego would take a hit. Such a snowflake!

I never said Obama's GDP growth was better than Reagan's. What I said was that Reagan's GDP growth is attributed to increased borrowing and consumer debt, and increase federal spending. If Obama had done the same, he would have had the same growth. But he didn't. It's only Republican Presidents who force consumers to go into debt in order to live...as we saw in the chart showing household debt spiking every time taxes are cut. Coincidence? I don't believe in coincidences.

STRAW MAN ALERT! I never said it was!

Reagan cut taxes....great GDP.

Obama raised taxes....crappy GDP.

Must be a coincidence.

What I said was that Reagan's GDP growth is attributed to increased borrowing and consumer debt, and increase federal spending.

Obama had more Federal spending and his GDP sucked.
Maybe he should have spent on the military?

It's only Republican Presidents who force consumers to go into debt in order to live...

Yeah, I never borrowed money with Dems in office......DURR.

 

[The Derp]

You have a list of banks with "majority shareholders"?

Any publicly traded bank has a Board of Directors, and you get to be on the Board of Directors if you are a majority shareholder be3cause in a corporate structure, generally the Board of Directors are the majority shareholders (who often also hold senior executive positions like President, CEO, COO). Have you ever worked for a corporation before? Have you ever worked before? That's probably the first, most important question.

YHow did TARP or the Fed Discount Window "make them whole"?

TARP and the Fed's Discount Window bought the toxic debt from the TBTF banks so they could resume lending. That was the goal. The reality was something entirely different because Bush and Paulson placed no conditions on the banks for the bailouts they got. Removing the toxic debt off the books of Wall Street and putting them on the Fed is what "made [the banks] whole".

And bondholders and it lost the Treasury billions!

Well, no not exactly. But no one cares about the bondholders and frankly, fuck them anyway. And I don't know how you say it lost the Treasury billions when the auto industry is stronger now than ever before, and the resulting federal revenues that come from the taxes on the profits of the auto companies continue to occur today. So it was an investment in the US auto industry and it pays off every time someone buys a car, and pays taxes on that sale.

Unlike the bank bailout that was profitable to the Treasury.

Unlike the auto bailout, consumers got nothing from the bank bailout.

Almost every major bank got rid of their CEO.

Which banks were those? Jamie Dimon is still the head of JP Morgan Chase, LLoyd Blankfien is still head of Goldman Sachs, John Stumpf was head of Wells Fargo until 2016, etc. this is easily researched stuff. No excuse for lying.

You mean they kept lending to people who couldn't afford the house they were buying? Nah.

No, I mean they continue to lie about the value of assets they sell in the secondary markets. They still continue with robosigning policies for loans. Wells Fargo was just caught committing fraud for what -the fourth or fifth time? What was the reason this time? Oh right, they were opening up accounts for customers without the customers' knowledge in order to boost revenues to make the company look more profitable than it actually is. It's that kind of fraud that you all want to protect for some reason. I think it's a matter of ego now. I think you know you're full of shit, but have too much pride to admit it. Whatever. You're the "me generation", so I don't expect any of you to even hold yourselves to account for anything.

Nothing says big profits to a bank quite like tiny accounts with low/no fees.

Exactly. So if the only way a massive bank can maintain profits is to gouge its customers, why even have the fucking bank at all? Why not just open a non-profit alternative with thousands of access points throughout the nation that doesn't have to jack up rates on customers to satisfy a handful of majority shareholders? No compelling answer has been given. The USPS already does a lot of the heavy lifting for FedEx and UPS as it is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you know what the word "logic" means?
Do you know what the word "proof" means?

Do you!?!?!?!? Your posts sure don't seem to indicate that. Wealthy corporations, when allowed to repatriate at a lower rate, do so for no other reason than greed. And that is proven in the fact that when we did repatriation the last time, 20,000 jobs were lost.

So that's your proof. Actual job loss.

Do you know what the word "resulted" means?

DO YOU??????? Right, companies don't need to repatriate funds to lay off employees. But they did so anyway in 2004. They did so because it would increase their profit margins, though not increase their revenues. So they are always trying to maximize profits for their majority shareholders and Board of Directors. The whole excuse for the 2004 Tax Repatriation was that corporations would bring the money back and...magically inject it into the economy somehow. How? No one knows for sure because they didn't do it. Instead, they cut jobs.

So why would a firm that brought back $1 billion, for example, be more likely to layoff workers than the same company that left the money in Asia or Europe?

If doing so increases their profit margin, they will. And you're increasing their profit margin by repatriating those profits, which are then augmented by cuts to labor. Remember, a business' purpose is to make profit.

And the repatriation was voluntary. So corporations only did so to maximize profits. You are working from the assumption that business acts benevolently or has morality. It doesn't. Some businesses took advantage of the repatriation, some did not. What didn't happen as a result of that repatriation was any measurable revenue growth, thus defeating the need to "invest" to meet demand that isn't there. And because these corporations are accountable to majority shareholders and Boards of Directors, they must show an increase in profits. They accomplish that by slashing jobs, as wages are the primary expense for most businesses.

So that's how those businesses killed 20,000 jobs.

Wealthy corporations, when allowed to repatriate at a lower rate, do so for no other reason than greed.

Right. Bring money back to the US.....greed. It's so clear now.
They should leave the money overseas. Less greed over there.

Right, companies don't need to repatriate funds to lay off employees. But they did so anyway in 2004.

Awful, just awful.
Now tell me why one led to the other.
And explain why leaving the money in Europe or Asia would have saved those jobs.

And the repatriation was voluntary. So corporations only did so to maximize profits

The money earned in the past overseas was already counted in their profits.
Repatriating money increases their tax outlay. How does that maximize profits?

You are working from the assumption that business acts benevolently or has morality.

Nope. Never have, never will.

 

[The Derp]

That's funny! Do you have any proof?

You need proof that middle-class tax cuts are generally revenue-neutral? Really? That's a bizarre thing to ask because it's what Conservatives have been saying for 37 years. I'd expect you to already know how they're revenue neutral.

How much of Dodd-Frank wasn't implemented because of the courts? Link? Unless this is another case where you made shit up? In that case, don't provide any links.

First of all, I'm not a Conservative, so I don't make shit up. Secondly, yes, much of Dodd-Frank is tied up in the courts. Again, any casual observer of real news knows this and has known this since 2010. I can't help it if you've been sticking your head in the sand since then. That's your problem, not mine.

They did. It was in all the papers.

Yes, and then the papers shortly thereafter all said they got a bailout. Which they did. They are now even bigger than they were back then. So they didn't lose in the end...they were bailed out. A loss would mean they actually bore the loss. They didn't. We did because we bailed them out.

So much fail in such a small sentence. TARP didn't buy debt, it bought preferred stock

TARP literally stands for "Troubled Asset Relief Program". TARP allowed the Treasury Department to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of "troubled assets," defined as "(A) residential or commercial obligations will be bought, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and (B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress."

It is literally the first thing the legislation mentions. Preferred stock are not troubled assets. Seriously, dude. Are you trying to be obtuse or is this just an act or performance art?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have a list of banks with "majority shareholders"?

Any publicly traded bank has a Board of Directors, and you get to be on the Board of Directors if you are a majority shareholder be3cause in a corporate structure, generally the Board of Directors are the majority shareholders (who often also hold senior executive positions like President, CEO, COO). Have you ever worked for a corporation before? Have you ever worked before? That's probably the first, most important question.

YHow did TARP or the Fed Discount Window "make them whole"?

TARP and the Fed's Discount Window bought the toxic debt from the TBTF banks so they could resume lending. That was the goal. The reality was something entirely different because Bush and Paulson placed no conditions on the banks for the bailouts they got. Removing the toxic debt off the books of Wall Street and putting them on the Fed is what "made [the banks] whole".

And bondholders and it lost the Treasury billions!

Well, no not exactly. But no one cares about the bondholders and frankly, fuck them anyway. And I don't know how you say it lost the Treasury billions when the auto industry is stronger now than ever before, and the resulting federal revenues that come from the taxes on the profits of the auto companies continue to occur today. So it was an investment in the US auto industry and it pays off every time someone buys a car, and pays taxes on that sale.

Unlike the bank bailout that was profitable to the Treasury.

Unlike the auto bailout, consumers got nothing from the bank bailout.

Almost every major bank got rid of their CEO.

Which banks were those? Jamie Dimon is still the head of JP Morgan Chase, LLoyd Blankfien is still head of Goldman Sachs, John Stumpf was head of Wells Fargo until 2016, etc. this is easily researched stuff. No excuse for lying.

You mean they kept lending to people who couldn't afford the house they were buying? Nah.

No, I mean they continue to lie about the value of assets they sell in the secondary markets. They still continue with robosigning policies for loans. Wells Fargo was just caught committing fraud for what -the fourth or fifth time? What was the reason this time? Oh right, they were opening up accounts for customers without the customers' knowledge in order to boost revenues to make the company look more profitable than it actually is. It's that kind of fraud that you all want to protect for some reason. I think it's a matter of ego now. I think you know you're full of shit, but have too much pride to admit it. Whatever. You're the "me generation", so I don't expect any of you to even hold yourselves to account for anything.

Nothing says big profits to a bank quite like tiny accounts with low/no fees.

Exactly. So if the only way a massive bank can maintain profits is to gouge its customers, why even have the fucking bank at all? Why not just open a non-profit alternative with thousands of access points throughout the nation that doesn't have to jack up rates on customers to satisfy a handful of majority shareholders? No compelling answer has been given. The USPS already does a lot of the heavy lifting for FedEx and UPS as it is.

and you get to be on the Board of Directors if you are a majority shareholder

Damn you're stupid.
What investor owns more than 50% of the shares of a bank?
Give me a list.

in a corporate structure, generally the Board of Directors are the majority shareholders

Wrong.

TARP and the Fed's Discount Window bought the toxic debt from the TBTF banks

The Fed Discount Window doesn't buy debt. TARP didn't buy debt.
You're truly clueless.

But no one cares about the bondholders and frankly, fuck them anyway.

I know! Pension funds, small investors, retirees living off their bond interest...fuck 'em!
Typical liberal.

And I don't know how you say it lost the Treasury billions

Because it lost the Treasury billions.

Bailout List: Banks, Auto Companies, and More | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

Click the link.

GM cost us nearly $11.4 billion in TARP losses.
Chrysler $1.2 billion.

Jamie Dimon is still the head of JP Morgan Chase

Yup. Most of the other major depository institutions replaced their CEOs

LLoyd Blankfien is still head of Goldman Sachs,

Investment bank.

No, I mean they continue to lie about the value of assets they sell in the secondary markets.

What assets? Who buys them?

Why not just open a non-profit alternative with thousands of access points throughout the nation that doesn't have to jack up rates on customers to satisfy a handful of majority shareholders?

Exactly!!!
Why not add a money losing bank to the Post Office?

 

[The Derp]

They didn't keep it for themselves, they paid it back.

So I'm just imagining the $5B in bonuses handed out to Wall Street executives following the economic collapse?

If they "kept it for themselves", how did they make money to make their stock rise? Walk thru the steps.

They made their stock rise by buying it back with the very bailout funds we gave them! You think their stock rose because they were good businesses? HAHAHAHA! That's a good one.

Besides lose money?

The Post Office is not for profit, so it doesn't need or should make money. Furthermore, they lose money because they service the routes UPS and FedEx cannot because of costs, and they are forced to budget in pension liabilities decades in advance thanks to Conservatives who don't know how to do a budget. So UPS and FedEx rely heavily on the USPS to deliver to areas in the country that make no economically feasible sense for those private companies. You remember that scene in the movie Cast Away where Tom Hanks drives his FedEx truck to the middle of nowhere to deliver a package to that lady? In the movie, he worked for FedEx. In reality, that delivery would be made by a USPS employee, in a USPS truck. Because FedEx doesn't service rural areas because it's not cost effective to do so. So they rely on the USPS to do that. Oh also, the USPS is one of the biggest entities that hires veterans. So by killing the USPS, you are also killing thousands of jobs currently filled with veterans.

BTW - Obama had larger deficits than Reagan.

In gross numbers, sure. But Obama didn't grow the deficit. Reagan did. Obama cut the deficit by about 60%, Reagan grew it by 200%. Furthermore, not sure why you care so much about the deficit or debt, since neither have much to do with the economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's funny! Do you have any proof?

You need proof that middle-class tax cuts are generally revenue-neutral? Really? That's a bizarre thing to ask because it's what Conservatives have been saying for 37 years. I'd expect you to already know how they're revenue neutral.

How much of Dodd-Frank wasn't implemented because of the courts? Link? Unless this is another case where you made shit up? In that case, don't provide any links.

First of all, I'm not a Conservative, so I don't make shit up. Secondly, yes, much of Dodd-Frank is tied up in the courts. Again, any casual observer of real news knows this and has known this since 2010. I can't help it if you've been sticking your head in the sand since then. That's your problem, not mine.

They did. It was in all the papers.

Yes, and then the papers shortly thereafter all said they got a bailout. Which they did. They are now even bigger than they were back then. So they didn't lose in the end...they were bailed out. A loss would mean they actually bore the loss. They didn't. We did because we bailed them out.

So much fail in such a small sentence. TARP didn't buy debt, it bought preferred stock

TARP literally stands for "Troubled Asset Relief Program". TARP allowed the Treasury Department to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of "troubled assets," defined as "(A) residential or commercial obligations will be bought, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and (B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress."

It is literally the first thing the legislation mentions. Preferred stock are not troubled assets. Seriously, dude. Are you trying to be obtuse or is this just an act or performance art?

You need proof that middle-class tax cuts are generally revenue-neutral? Really?

Yes. Really.

Walk thru the steps for once.
Say the middle class gets a $200 billion annual tax cut.
How does that give the US Treasury a new $200 billion per year?

Secondly, yes, much of Dodd-Frank is tied up in the courts.

These arguments have earned some sympathy from the federal judiciary. Courts in Denver and Washington have recently declared some aspects of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act to be unconstitutional on separation of powers grounds.

But these declarations have been almost entirely empty of content. The courts have fallen over themselves to assure everyone that the unconstitutional agency powers should continue to be exercised almost exactly as before.

"agency powers should continue to be exercised almost exactly as before"

Weird, sounds like not tied up at all.
And considering the billions already spent to comply and the lending that didn't happen because of it, lots of damage has already been done.
Can't wait for it to be rolled back.

A loss would mean they actually bore the loss.

Banks lost hundreds of billions. You should read a financial statement....LOL!
Just kidding. Beyond your understanding.

TARP literally stands for "Troubled Asset Relief Program". TARP allowed the Treasury Department to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of "troubled assets,"

And then they changed it....before they bought a thing.
It was also in all the papers.
Are you even in college yet?

It is literally the first thing the legislation mentions. Preferred stock are not troubled assets.

Holy Fuck, you're stupid.

On Nov. 12, 2008, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson announced a dramatic shift in the strategy to deal with the rolling financial crisis. Rather than use the $700 billion TARP funds to buy troubled assets from banks, as originally promised, he would dole it out in the form of cash; capital injections in exchange for preferred stock. Kind of like shots of speed. Six weeks before, Paulson had gotten down on one knee to beg House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to support the original plans. But conditions had changed, Paulson argued. The economy was getting worse and he wasn't going to apologize for adapting.

TARP: The Bank Bailout, One Year Later

It's clear you knew nothing about this topic before you started posting.

Based on your posts, you haven't learned much since.

 

[The Derp]

ou understand the difference between correlation and causation, right?

I do, but you don't. Because you do nothing but make that argument with regard to tax cuts. You try to credit economic growth to tax rate cuts, but there's no proof to that. So you make a correlation is causation argument, and try to assume that starting position of yours is valid (it's not). So let's start with your insistence that cutting taxes leads to growth. How are you even reaching that conclusion when there is no direct economic link between growth and the tax rate you can make? So your position starts out flawed. You can't un-flaw something that is flawed at its core; such is the case with pretty much everything you believe.

"Mutually exclusive" is a statistical term describing two or more events that cannot occur simultaneously. Revenues and profits cannot occur simultaneously?

You can increase profits without increasing revenues. You can also increase revenues without increasing profits.

The equation is:

Profit = Tax Rate x (Revenues - Expenses)

If you lower the Tax Rate, you are increasing your profit, but you are not increasing your revenues. Which means your business stagnates and does not grow, even though you see more profit. You confuse profit with growth. Revenues go with growth, not profits. This is always the fundamental flaw in every single Conservative argument. They simply do not understand the distinction, either willfully or ignorantly. I've stopped trying to guess if you're liars or just really, really stupid. I think it's a bit of both.

 

[The Derp]

I already showed you that Obama had larger deficits as a percentage of GDP.
Forget already?

Well, that's because we were in a recession and in a recession, GDP contracts. So of course you're going to see larger deficits-as-a-percentage-of-GDP if your GDP is declining. Because, math.

Transfer payments are $1 trillion a year higher than before the crisis.

So again, here's an example of you being vague and general so you can wiggle around the parameters later. Transfer payments of what? What are you talking about? You're not a very detail-oriented person. You're quite sloppy, actually. That's reflective of a poor work ethic.

What's a "revenue-neutral middle class tax cut"?

Where the amount of revenue generated by increased spending offsets the drop in revenue from the tax cut. For the middle class, it is almost always revenue-neutral. Unfortunately, it's also almost always growth-neutral too. It's something that makes people "feel good", but ultimately has little impact on the economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They didn't keep it for themselves, they paid it back.

So I'm just imagining the $5B in bonuses handed out to Wall Street executives following the economic collapse?

If they "kept it for themselves", how did they make money to make their stock rise? Walk thru the steps.

They made their stock rise by buying it back with the very bailout funds we gave them! You think their stock rose because they were good businesses? HAHAHAHA! That's a good one.

Besides lose money?

The Post Office is not for profit, so it doesn't need or should make money. Furthermore, they lose money because they service the routes UPS and FedEx cannot because of costs, and they are forced to budget in pension liabilities decades in advance thanks to Conservatives who don't know how to do a budget. So UPS and FedEx rely heavily on the USPS to deliver to areas in the country that make no economically feasible sense for those private companies. You remember that scene in the movie Cast Away where Tom Hanks drives his FedEx truck to the middle of nowhere to deliver a package to that lady? In the movie, he worked for FedEx. In reality, that delivery would be made by a USPS employee, in a USPS truck. Because FedEx doesn't service rural areas because it's not cost effective to do so. So they rely on the USPS to do that. Oh also, the USPS is one of the biggest entities that hires veterans. So by killing the USPS, you are also killing thousands of jobs currently filled with veterans.

BTW - Obama had larger deficits than Reagan.

In gross numbers, sure. But Obama didn't grow the deficit. Reagan did. Obama cut the deficit by about 60%, Reagan grew it by 200%. Furthermore, not sure why you care so much about the deficit or debt, since neither have much to do with the economy.

So I'm just imagining the $5B in bonuses handed out to Wall Street executives following the economic collapse?

They paid back their loans, that means they didn't keep the loans for themselves.

They made their stock rise by buying it back with the very bailout funds we gave them!

After they paid back their TARP loans, after they issued new stock, after they rebuilt their capital positions, after they added even more capital, after their assets recovered, after the economy recovered, years later....the Fed allowed some banks to raise dividends and buy back stock.

Years and years after the loans were repaid. Years.

The Post Office is not for profit, so it doesn't need or should make money.

So why is it a good idea to add an unprofitable bank?

In gross numbers, sure.

Finally! An honest admission.
Gross numbers, net numbers, percentage of GDP.
Any way you look at it.

But Obama didn't grow the deficit.

Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Debt was 30.8% of GDP when Reagan took office, 49.6% when GHW Bush took office.

Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

77.4% when Obama took office, 105.8% in Oct 2016.

Damn, that's a lot of debt!!!

At least Obama's deficit was lower when he left. LOL!

Federal Surplus or Deficit [-] as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Oh, wait, Reagan's last year deficit was less as a percentage of GDP than Obama's.
2.95% in 1988, versus 3.16% in 2016.