2/3 of US Corporations Pay No Income Tax

[Skull Pilot]

With Corporate American's ability to contribute any amount to political campaigns, you can be sure they will buy enough congressman to insure further tax cuts and more loopholes for big business.

Just like unions have been doing for decades.

 

[Immanuel]

With Corporate American's ability to contribute any amount to political campaigns, you can be sure they will buy enough congressman to insure further tax cuts and more loopholes for big business.

Just like unions have been doing for decades.

But you must have forgotten! Unions do it for the good of the American people.

Did I really just type that bullshit?

Immie

 

[georgephillip]

With Corporate American's ability to contribute any amount to political campaigns, you can be sure they will buy enough congressman to insure further tax cuts and more loopholes for big business.

Just like unions have been doing for decades.

Was it Labor Unions or FIRE sector corporations that inflated and crashed an $8 trillion housing bubble?

Was it Labor or Wall Street that reaped the profit from the ensuing taxpayer-funded bailout?

Who lost their jobs and houses?

 

[Big Fitz]

corporate tax reform is in order....since many of the big guns do not pay any corporate tax at all or a very small percentage and NOT the 35% federal corp. tax marginal rate....- several because they have moved profits to their overseas operations, or for other various reasons....to shelter them from taxes in the USA, while they are still paying taxes in their foreign locations to foreign governments....for what profit they have moved there....then we need to be more competitive on our corporate tax rates so that these corporations bring their money back to the usa, and get taxed by us...

I truly believe we would collect more taxes in the long run and bring more corporate money home, and also encourage other international corporations to bring their businesses here if we had an uncomplicated 10 or 15% flat fed corporate tax rate....shoot even a 20% flat rate could bring some of the money and overseas operations home...

What about the fact that it is citizens, NOT corporations, that pay ALL taxes is it that you do not understand?
Why is that so hard for you to accept?
Where do corporations get ALL OF THEIR $$$?
HOW DO corporations get their $$$?
How much $$ do corporations have to FRONT to get profits?
Who benefits from corporate profits the most? Could that be EMPLOYEES AND SHAREHOLDERS?
If a corporation pays MORE TAXES WHO DOES IT HURT THE MOST?
Could that be SHAREHOLDERS?
Well DUH!

No. All taxes increase are not passed on to customers. It all depends on the market the business operates in. Where some competitors are not subject to those taxes, the business may have to just eat those costs. Also in some markets the prices can't be increase.

Wrong. Taxes are factored into the price of product or services provided. Taxes are a cost of doing business and must be added to the cost, or they will go out of business. This is the way business operates.

If I make a widget that sells for 10 bucks, but costs me 9 to manufacture, but then raise the tax to where it now costs me 11 bucks to manufacture, I'm losing money. So, I increase prices by 2 bucks and keep my rather minor profit margin of 10%, although now its really dropped to about 8% thanks to the government. Every MBA and student who took economics and retained this information knows this.

 

[Big Fitz]

With Corporate American's ability to contribute any amount to political campaigns, you can be sure they will buy enough congressman to insure further tax cuts and more loopholes for big business.

Just like unions have been doing for decades.

Was it Labor Unions or FIRE sector corporations that inflated and crashed an $8 trillion housing bubble?

Was it Labor or Wall Street that reaped the profit from the ensuing taxpayer-funded bailout?

Who lost their jobs and houses?

The housing bubble was enabled by the US Government in the 'affordable housing' scam that forced banks to refuse to 'redline' those who could not afford homes, making them write bad loans that were then 'guaranteed' with taxpayer money. If the government had not made the edict that 'everyone should have their own home' under Carter, then expanded it under Clinton (thanks Bawney Fwank, Chris Dudd and Franklin Raines among others); we would not have had speculators going after the easy money created by taxpayer bailouts that should have NEVER existed. A false market was created on false fundamentals that could not be maintained forever caused the crash. They promoted the moral hazard and we all got burned, except those in government (Chris "Countrywide" Dodd, Franklin '50 million investment package' Raines) who knew what they were really doing.

 

[Immanuel]

What about the fact that it is citizens, NOT corporations, that pay ALL taxes is it that you do not understand?
Why is that so hard for you to accept?
Where do corporations get ALL OF THEIR $$$?
HOW DO corporations get their $$$?
How much $$ do corporations have to FRONT to get profits?
Who benefits from corporate profits the most? Could that be EMPLOYEES AND SHAREHOLDERS?
If a corporation pays MORE TAXES WHO DOES IT HURT THE MOST?
Could that be SHAREHOLDERS?
Well DUH!

No. All taxes increase are not passed on to customers. It all depends on the market the business operates in. Where some competitors are not subject to those taxes, the business may have to just eat those costs. Also in some markets the prices can't be increase.

Wrong. Taxes are factored into the price of product or services provided. Taxes are a cost of doing business and must be added to the cost, or they will go out of business. This is the way business operates.

If I make a widget that sells for 10 bucks, but costs me 9 to manufacture, but then raise the tax to where it now costs me 11 bucks to manufacture, I'm losing money. So, I increase prices by 2 bucks and keep my rather minor profit margin of 10%, although now its really dropped to about 8% thanks to the government. Every MBA and student who took economics and retained this information knows this.

Yet, it is a fact that there are times when the market will not bare a price increase and the manufacturer must either cut expenses, bare the loss or stop producing for a time. I don't think that happens all that often and when the supply diminishes to a point where demand is not met, something will give, but it could be the case where the consumer simply will not buy when the price goes above a certain point.

Immie

 

[Big Fitz]

No. All taxes increase are not passed on to customers. It all depends on the market the business operates in. Where some competitors are not subject to those taxes, the business may have to just eat those costs. Also in some markets the prices can't be increase.

Wrong. Taxes are factored into the price of product or services provided. Taxes are a cost of doing business and must be added to the cost, or they will go out of business. This is the way business operates.

If I make a widget that sells for 10 bucks, but costs me 9 to manufacture, but then raise the tax to where it now costs me 11 bucks to manufacture, I'm losing money. So, I increase prices by 2 bucks and keep my rather minor profit margin of 10%, although now its really dropped to about 8% thanks to the government. Every MBA and student who took economics and retained this information knows this.

Yet, it is a fact that there are times when the market will not bare a price increase and the manufacturer must either cut expenses, bare the loss or stop producing for a time. I don't think that happens all that often and when the supply diminishes to a point where demand is not met, something will give, but it could be the case where the consumer simply will not buy when the price goes above a certain point.

Immie

Those are also viable options, but I think they happen far less than the price increase. Case in point, oil prices. The profit margin is too thin to absorb the cost because competition is too fierce. So there has been production reduction out there to save them costs, AND that results in prices rising anyway even though the public was SCREAMING for it to go down. But we were just forced to take it.

Costs are passed on, first and foremost. Shutting down or eating the costs are rarely done. Oh there is one other time to eat the increased costs, when in a price war with a competitor, in order to gain market share or shut them down.

 

[washamericom]

Yep, nearly 2/3 of US corporations and 68% of foreign corporation pay no federal income tax.

Enjoying record profits and taxpayer-funded bailouts as the economy slowly recovers from a financial crisis, nearly two-thirds of US corporations don't pay any income taxes, instead opting to abuse tax loopholes and offshore tax havens. According to this study from the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, 83 of the top 100 publicly traded corporations that operate in the US exploit corporate tax havens. Since 2009, America’s most profitable companies such as ExxonMobil, General Electric, Bank of America and Citigroup all paid a grand total of $0 in federal income taxes to Uncle Sam. Tax havens alone account for up to $1 trillion in tax revenue lost every decade, money that could be invested in K-12 education, colleges, public health, job creation and hundreds of other worthy public programs.

But this is not good enough for the GOP. They are urging Obama to seek further corporate tax cuts while cutting 60 billion dollars out of education and programs that serve the poorest of the poor.

Majority of corporations avoid federal income taxes - study - Aug. 12, 2008
US Uncut

How can a report from August 2008 include info from 2009 income taxes?

As to the tax burden paid by these EVUL Corporations, here are links to their income statements for 2009:

Exxon paid $15B in income taxes on $35M of EBIT, a net effective tax rate of 42% (which excludes the vast amount of income and payroll tqxes associated with its employees, and gasoline taxes).

XOM Income Statement | Exxon Mobil Corporation Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance

General Electric, run by Obama's close pal Immelt actually had tax credits, and a big decrease in revenue.

GE Income Statement | General Electric Company Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance

Bank of America likewise had a tax credit, likely due to all the machinations of TARP. It's MASSIVE NET PROFIT MARGIN was less than 3%.

BAC Income Statement | Bank of America Corporation Com Stock - Yahoo! Finance

Citigroup had a net pre-tax loss of $8B - so no huge profits here.

C Income Statement | Citigroup, Inc. Common Stock Stock - Yahoo! Finance

this is a good example of why boedicca rules the board.
plain simple logic and truth

 

[georgephillip]

Just like unions have been doing for decades.

Was it Labor Unions or FIRE sector corporations that inflated and crashed an $8 trillion housing bubble?

Was it Labor or Wall Street that reaped the profit from the ensuing taxpayer-funded bailout?

Who lost their jobs and houses?

The housing bubble was enabled by the US Government in the 'affordable housing' scam that forced banks to refuse to 'redline' those who could not afford homes, making them write bad loans that were then 'guaranteed' with taxpayer money. If the government had not made the edict that 'everyone should have their own home' under Carter, then expanded it under Clinton (thanks Bawney Fwank, Chris Dudd and Franklin Raines among others); we would not have had speculators going after the easy money created by taxpayer bailouts that should have NEVER existed. A false market was created on false fundamentals that could not be maintained forever caused the crash. They promoted the moral hazard and we all got burned, except those in government (Chris "Countrywide" Dodd, Franklin '50 million investment package' Raines) who knew what they were really doing.

You can't separate the actions of big government and big business (Wall Street) when assessing blame for bubbles and bailouts. Trying to lay the majority of blame on the CRA, as opposed to Bush's "Ownership Society, raises troubling some troubling questions:

Why did 345 mortgage brokers who were not covered by CRA legislation implode while the vast majority of CRA covered banks remained healthy?

Why weren't the biggest foreclosure areas in Harlem, Chicago's South side, LA's south-central or Philly's inner city instead of non-CRA regions like suburban southern California, Las Vegas, Arizona and South Florida?

Elected Republicans, Democrats and Goldman Sachs bear the blame for the collapse of housing and the bailout that followed.

Public unions and other middle class workers don't.

CRA Thought Experiment

 

[Gadawg73]

With Corporate American's ability to contribute any amount to political campaigns, you can be sure they will buy enough congressman to insure further tax cuts and more loopholes for big business.

Just like unions have been doing for decades.

Was it Labor Unions or FIRE sector corporations that inflated and crashed an $8 trillion housing bubble?

Was it Labor or Wall Street that reaped the profit from the ensuing taxpayer-funded bailout?

Who lost their jobs and houses?

Irresponsible citizens that signed loan documents.
Who twisted their arms?

 

[Gadawg73]

Was it Labor Unions or FIRE sector corporations that inflated and crashed an $8 trillion housing bubble?

Was it Labor or Wall Street that reaped the profit from the ensuing taxpayer-funded bailout?

Who lost their jobs and houses?

The housing bubble was enabled by the US Government in the 'affordable housing' scam that forced banks to refuse to 'redline' those who could not afford homes, making them write bad loans that were then 'guaranteed' with taxpayer money. If the government had not made the edict that 'everyone should have their own home' under Carter, then expanded it under Clinton (thanks Bawney Fwank, Chris Dudd and Franklin Raines among others); we would not have had speculators going after the easy money created by taxpayer bailouts that should have NEVER existed. A false market was created on false fundamentals that could not be maintained forever caused the crash. They promoted the moral hazard and we all got burned, except those in government (Chris "Countrywide" Dodd, Franklin '50 million investment package' Raines) who knew what they were really doing.

You can't separate the actions of big government and big business (Wall Street) when assessing blame for bubbles and bailouts. Trying to lay the majority of blame on the CRA, as opposed to Bush's "Ownership Society, raises troubling some troubling questions:

Why did 345 mortgage brokers who were not covered by CRA legislation implode while the vast majority of CRA covered banks remained healthy?

Why weren't the biggest foreclosure areas in Harlem, Chicago's South side, LA's south-central or Philly's inner city instead of non-CRA regions like suburban southern California, Las Vegas, Arizona and South Florida?

Elected Republicans, Democrats and Goldman Sachs bear the blame for the collapse of housing and the bailout that followed.

Public unions and other middle class workers don't.

CRA Thought Experiment

You are exactly right. The biggest foreclosures were in the $$$ areas.
No government agency or program FORCED ANYONE TO BORROW ANY $$$$
Not ONE DIME.
And those people have NO ONE to blame but THEMSELVES.

 

[Big Fitz]

Was it Labor Unions or FIRE sector corporations that inflated and crashed an $8 trillion housing bubble?

Was it Labor or Wall Street that reaped the profit from the ensuing taxpayer-funded bailout?

Who lost their jobs and houses?

The housing bubble was enabled by the US Government in the 'affordable housing' scam that forced banks to refuse to 'redline' those who could not afford homes, making them write bad loans that were then 'guaranteed' with taxpayer money. If the government had not made the edict that 'everyone should have their own home' under Carter, then expanded it under Clinton (thanks Bawney Fwank, Chris Dudd and Franklin Raines among others); we would not have had speculators going after the easy money created by taxpayer bailouts that should have NEVER existed. A false market was created on false fundamentals that could not be maintained forever caused the crash. They promoted the moral hazard and we all got burned, except those in government (Chris "Countrywide" Dodd, Franklin '50 million investment package' Raines) who knew what they were really doing.

You can't separate the actions of big government and big business (Wall Street) when assessing blame for bubbles and bailouts. Trying to lay the majority of blame on the CRA, as opposed to Bush's "Ownership Society, raises troubling some troubling questions:

Why did 345 mortgage brokers who were not covered by CRA legislation implode while the vast majority of CRA covered banks remained healthy?

Why weren't the biggest foreclosure areas in Harlem, Chicago's South side, LA's south-central or Philly's inner city instead of non-CRA regions like suburban southern California, Las Vegas, Arizona and South Florida?

Elected Republicans, Democrats and Goldman Sachs bear the blame for the collapse of housing and the bailout that followed.

Public unions and other middle class workers don't.

CRA Thought Experiment

It's called using government to enable the moral hazard. If the option was not created by wrongheaded legislation, you would never have had the bubble.

If not for the Community Reinvestment Act, there would never have been the taxpayer guarantees on bad loan risks. If there was not the removal of banking rules preventing many shady types of investment and the breaking up of mortgages to multiple owners, and placing 'side bets' on them we wouldn't have that problem either.

The banks all knew they were risky investments but government too away the risks by guaranteeing the profit with money they didn't have but would have to tax to get. People acted like people after that. The original fault IS government. After that, you have the piling on by thousands who thought to make a fast buck and be opportunistic profiteers.

The banks couldn't pass up guaranteed profits, it was just too tempting.
The loan agent weren't going to pass up the big commissions either.
The home buyers weren't going to pass up the awesome deals either.

Why? Because all expected Uncle Sugar to cover their bets come rain or shine. Yes the private sector is to blame for falling for the temptation, but sorry, the situation was created by unintended consequences from bad legislation.

 

[Care4all]

ONLY in CRA areas, was where the govt encouraged banks to find a way to make housing loans affordable.

THIS WAS LESS THAN 10% of ALL of the subprime/bad loans that busted with the crash.

90% of all the shady loans that the mortgage companies and banks produced were to people NOT IN Community reinvestment act zones.

The government DID NOT force these Banks to make their piece of crap loans nor did the government force these banks to put these risky loans in to Mortgage Backed Securities, and nor did the govt force Moody and other Agency rating companies to give these VERY INSECURE LOANS that the banks all on their lonesome did, a Triple A Rating

Please inform yourselves on the REAL DEAL SCAM of the Banks....

I am not absolving the government for this crisis....there were many things that our gvt did wrong....

But they are NOT to blame for Wall Street's fiasco of giving no job, no reference loans to people they KNEW could not pay them back....other than the lack of regulators doing their job and some of the deragulation they did in previous years that ALLOWED this crap to happen.

 

[xsited1]

ONLY in CRA areas, was where the govt encouraged banks to find a way to make housing loans affordable.

THIS WAS LESS THAN 10% of ALL of the subprime/bad loans that busted with the crash.

90% of all the shady loans that the mortgage companies and banks produced were to people NOT IN Community reinvestment act zones.

The government DID NOT force these Banks to make their piece of crap loans nor did the government force these banks to put these risky loans in to Mortgage Backed Securities, and nor did the govt force Moody and other Agency rating companies to give these VERY INSECURE LOANS that the banks all on their lonesome did, a Triple A Rating

Please inform yourselves on the REAL DEAL SCAM of the Banks....

I am not absolving the government for this crisis....there were many things that our gvt did wrong....

But they are NOT to blame for Wall Street's fiasco of giving no job, no reference loans to people they KNEW could not pay them back....other than the lack of regulators doing their job and some of the deragulation they did in previous years that ALLOWED this crap to happen.

That's not exactly true. Banks are heavily regulated. If you don't get a good score on your audit, you'll have trouble and could be shut down. The government does not have to force any bank to give out bad loans, but you run the risk of getting a bad audit score if you don't give out enough "affordable loans." Regardless, you throw a wrench in a big engine and it shuts down.

Unfortunately, future regulators will assume that the problem is an "excess of capitalism," not an unintended consequence of an old mistake in the regulation of capitalism. What you're suggesting will just make matters worse.

I invite you to read this book for more information:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Caused-Financial-Crisis-Jeffrey-Friedman/dp/0812221184]Amazon.com: What Caused the Financial Crisis (9780812221183): Jeffrey Friedman, Richard A. Posner: Books[/ame]


Here's a little article that will get you started:

Causes of the Crisis: Three Myths about the Crisis: Bonuses, Irrationality, and Capitalism

 

[asterism]

ONLY in CRA areas, was where the govt encouraged banks to find a way to make housing loans affordable.

THIS WAS LESS THAN 10% of ALL of the subprime/bad loans that busted with the crash.

90% of all the shady loans that the mortgage companies and banks produced were to people NOT IN Community reinvestment act zones.

The government DID NOT force these Banks to make their piece of crap loans nor did the government force these banks to put these risky loans in to Mortgage Backed Securities, and nor did the govt force Moody and other Agency rating companies to give these VERY INSECURE LOANS that the banks all on their lonesome did, a Triple A Rating

Please inform yourselves on the REAL DEAL SCAM of the Banks....

I am not absolving the government for this crisis....there were many things that our gvt did wrong....

But they are NOT to blame for Wall Street's fiasco of giving no job, no reference loans to people they KNEW could not pay them back....other than the lack of regulators doing their job and some of the deragulation they did in previous years that ALLOWED this crap to happen.

I've heard this before....

I seem to remember being told that no banks were forced to take bailout money. When the government sets the terms and the rules, the businesses subject to those rules generally follow the letter of the law. This was all brought up in 2003-2005 when Barney Frank of the house financial services committee said that there wasn't a problem. The problem wasn't that certain loans were bad while others were good, it was that the entire methodology for determining eligibility was flawed. That methodology and government backing came from the expanded CRA as well as repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

 

[Care4all]

ONLY in CRA areas, was where the govt encouraged banks to find a way to make housing loans affordable.

THIS WAS LESS THAN 10% of ALL of the subprime/bad loans that busted with the crash.

90% of all the shady loans that the mortgage companies and banks produced were to people NOT IN Community reinvestment act zones.

The government DID NOT force these Banks to make their piece of crap loans nor did the government force these banks to put these risky loans in to Mortgage Backed Securities, and nor did the govt force Moody and other Agency rating companies to give these VERY INSECURE LOANS that the banks all on their lonesome did, a Triple A Rating

Please inform yourselves on the REAL DEAL SCAM of the Banks....

I am not absolving the government for this crisis....there were many things that our gvt did wrong....

But they are NOT to blame for Wall Street's fiasco of giving no job, no reference loans to people they KNEW could not pay them back....other than the lack of regulators doing their job and some of the deragulation they did in previous years that ALLOWED this crap to happen.

I've heard this before....

I seem to remember being told that no banks were forced to take bailout money. When the government sets the terms and the rules, the businesses subject to those rules generally follow the letter of the law. This was all brought up in 2003-2005 when Barney Frank of the house financial services committee said that there wasn't a problem. The problem wasn't that certain loans were bad while others were good, it was that the entire methodology for determining eligibility was flawed. That methodology and government backing came from the expanded CRA as well as repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

yes, you are right about the methodology being crap, BUT you are wrong that this was Wall Street's reaction due to CRA....it had NOTHING to do with CRA.....

Do a search on a documentary called "House of Cards"....and watch it when you get time....it blew my mind....and our gvt was not absolved in this mess either....but it was not the CRA....

Care

 

[xsited1]

ONLY in CRA areas, was where the govt encouraged banks to find a way to make housing loans affordable.

THIS WAS LESS THAN 10% of ALL of the subprime/bad loans that busted with the crash.

90% of all the shady loans that the mortgage companies and banks produced were to people NOT IN Community reinvestment act zones.

The government DID NOT force these Banks to make their piece of crap loans nor did the government force these banks to put these risky loans in to Mortgage Backed Securities, and nor did the govt force Moody and other Agency rating companies to give these VERY INSECURE LOANS that the banks all on their lonesome did, a Triple A Rating

Please inform yourselves on the REAL DEAL SCAM of the Banks....

I am not absolving the government for this crisis....there were many things that our gvt did wrong....

But they are NOT to blame for Wall Street's fiasco of giving no job, no reference loans to people they KNEW could not pay them back....other than the lack of regulators doing their job and some of the deragulation they did in previous years that ALLOWED this crap to happen.

I've heard this before....

I seem to remember being told that no banks were forced to take bailout money. When the government sets the terms and the rules, the businesses subject to those rules generally follow the letter of the law. This was all brought up in 2003-2005 when Barney Frank of the house financial services committee said that there wasn't a problem. The problem wasn't that certain loans were bad while others were good, it was that the entire methodology for determining eligibility was flawed. That methodology and government backing came from the expanded CRA as well as repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

yes, you are right about the methodology being crap, BUT you are wrong that this was Wall Street's reaction due to CRA....it had NOTHING to do with CRA.....

Do a search on a documentary called "House of Cards"....and watch it when you get time....it blew my mind....and our gvt was not absolved in this mess either....but it was not the CRA....

Care

There you go again. You never seem to want to know the truth. Strange.

 

[Care4all]

I've heard this before....

I seem to remember being told that no banks were forced to take bailout money. When the government sets the terms and the rules, the businesses subject to those rules generally follow the letter of the law. This was all brought up in 2003-2005 when Barney Frank of the house financial services committee said that there wasn't a problem. The problem wasn't that certain loans were bad while others were good, it was that the entire methodology for determining eligibility was flawed. That methodology and government backing came from the expanded CRA as well as repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

yes, you are right about the methodology being crap, BUT you are wrong that this was Wall Street's reaction due to CRA....it had NOTHING to do with CRA.....

Do a search on a documentary called "House of Cards"....and watch it when you get time....it blew my mind....and our gvt was not absolved in this mess either....but it was not the CRA....

Care

There you go again. You never seem to want to know the truth. Strange.

prove it! prove. without using a biased source that CRA was responsible....

you can't

i already know this, because you or anyone else have not....and can not show any statistics to support your claim, Xsited....numbers speak...and they do not, in any way, support your assertion on the CRA.

simple as that xsited.

care

 

[Rambunctious]

Yep, nearly 2/3 of US corporations and 68% of foreign corporation pay no federal income tax.

Enjoying record profits and taxpayer-funded bailouts as the economy slowly recovers from a financial crisis, nearly two-thirds of US corporations don't pay any income taxes, instead opting to abuse tax loopholes and offshore tax havens. According to this study from the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, 83 of the top 100 publicly traded corporations that operate in the US exploit corporate tax havens. Since 2009, America’s most profitable companies such as ExxonMobil, General Electric, Bank of America and Citigroup all paid a grand total of $0 in federal income taxes to Uncle Sam. Tax havens alone account for up to $1 trillion in tax revenue lost every decade, money that could be invested in K-12 education, colleges, public health, job creation and hundreds of other worthy public programs.

But this is not good enough for the GOP. They are urging Obama to seek further corporate tax cuts while cutting 60 billion dollars out of education and programs that serve the poorest of the poor.

Majority of corporations avoid federal income taxes - study - Aug. 12, 2008
US Uncut

Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers pay them for them. Higher prices!!!!!!!!!

 

[GWV5903]

The housing bubble was enabled by the US Government in the 'affordable housing' scam that forced banks to refuse to 'redline' those who could not afford homes, making them write bad loans that were then 'guaranteed' with taxpayer money. If the government had not made the edict that 'everyone should have their own home' under Carter, then expanded it under Clinton (thanks Bawney Fwank, Chris Dudd and Franklin Raines among others); we would not have had speculators going after the easy money created by taxpayer bailouts that should have NEVER existed. A false market was created on false fundamentals that could not be maintained forever caused the crash. They promoted the moral hazard and we all got burned, except those in government (Chris "Countrywide" Dodd, Franklin '50 million investment package' Raines) who knew what they were really doing.

You can't separate the actions of big government and big business (Wall Street) when assessing blame for bubbles and bailouts. Trying to lay the majority of blame on the CRA, as opposed to Bush's "Ownership Society, raises troubling some troubling questions:

Why did 345 mortgage brokers who were not covered by CRA legislation implode while the vast majority of CRA covered banks remained healthy?

Why weren't the biggest foreclosure areas in Harlem, Chicago's South side, LA's south-central or Philly's inner city instead of non-CRA regions like suburban southern California, Las Vegas, Arizona and South Florida?

Elected Republicans, Democrats and Goldman Sachs bear the blame for the collapse of housing and the bailout that followed.

Public unions and other middle class workers don't.

CRA Thought Experiment

It's called using government to enable the moral hazard. If the option was not created by wrongheaded legislation, you would never have had the bubble.

If not for the Community Reinvestment Act, there would never have been the taxpayer guarantees on bad loan risks. If there was not the removal of banking rules preventing many shady types of investment and the breaking up of mortgages to multiple owners, and placing 'side bets' on them we wouldn't have that problem either.

The banks all knew they were risky investments but government too away the risks by guaranteeing the profit with money they didn't have but would have to tax to get. People acted like people after that. The original fault IS government. After that, you have the piling on by thousands who thought to make a fast buck and be opportunistic profiteers.

The banks couldn't pass up guaranteed profits, it was just too tempting.
The loan agent weren't going to pass up the big commissions either.
The home buyers weren't going to pass up the awesome deals either.

Why? Because all expected Uncle Sugar to cover their bets come rain or shine. Yes the private sector is to blame for falling for the temptation, but sorry, the situation was created by unintended consequences from bad legislation.

Well said , I will add one more piece and the feds knew it was a catch 22 for the industry, it is called the Equal Housing Act....

In the Sale and Rental of Housing: No one may take any of the following actions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap:

Refuse to rent or sell housing
Refuse to negotiate for housing
Make housing unavailable
Deny a dwelling
Set different terms, conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a dwelling
Provide different housing services or facilities
Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale, or rental
For profit, persuade owners to sell or rent (blockbusting) or
Deny anyone access to or membership in a facility or service (such as a multiple listing service) related to the sale or rental of housing.
In Mortgage Lending: No one may take any of the following actions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap (disability):

Refuse to make a mortgage loan
Refuse to provide information regarding loans
Impose different terms or conditions on a loan, such as different interest rates, points, or fees
Discriminate in appraising property
Refuse to purchase a loan or
Set different terms or conditions for purchasing a loan.
In Addition: It is illegal for anyone to:

Threaten, coerce, intimidate or interfere with anyone exercising a fair housing right or assisting others who exercise that right
Advertise or make any statement that indicates a limitation or preference based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or handicap. This prohibition against discriminatory advertising applies to single-family and owner-occupied housing that is otherwise exempt from the Fair Housing Act.