Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Dad2three]

[

So you can't provide a link showing jobs created by tax cuts

Looks like Reagan's tax cuts did okay.

Why don't you do an honest side by side comparison. you start Obama off in his first year but you don't jump in on Ronnie Raygun until his second.

See the words "Post Recession Growth"? LOL!

Yes, Dubya/GOP put US in a much wider and deeper hole, and the GOP have worked since day 1 to make Obama a 1 termer and refuse to get out and help push the car out of the ditch they drove US into!!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Obama a 1 termer and refuse to get out and help push the car out of the ditch they drove US into!!!!

Of course thats 100% idiotic. Please name one liberal policy that would not makes things worse. How will you learn if you are afraid to try.

 

[Dad2three]

Obama a 1 termer and refuse to get out and help push the car out of the ditch they drove US into!!!!

Of course thats 100% idiotic. Please name one liberal policy that would not makes things worse. How will you learn if you are afraid to try.

Taxing the top 2% at higher rates. Simple.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama a 1 termer and refuse to get out and help push the car out of the ditch they drove US into!!!!

Of course thats 100% idiotic. Please name one liberal policy that would not makes things worse. How will you learn if you are afraid to try.

Taxing the top 2% at higher rates. Simple.

What rate?

Why would that make things better?

 

[dnsmith35]

"In fact neither was correct. The tax cuts were relatively neutral to the economy and the recession was caused by the housing balloon/crash, not the tax cuts."

LOL,

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

Do you realize how stupid that statement was? There was a recession. There was also many deficits. In fact their have been deficits every fiscal year since Eisenhower. Apples and oranges....Recession and Deficits. Study economics, you are embarrassing yourself.

Weird, and yet the CBO said almost 1/3rd of the deficits from 2001-2010 WERE attributable to Dubya's tax cuts for the rich. Go figure!

The CBO may be correct. We were talking about THE RECESSION DUMBASS. DUBYA'S TAX CUTS DID NOT CAUSE THE RECESSION, THEY CAUSED THE DEFICITS. If you had red my comments you would know that; OR CAN YOU READ?

BTW, thanks for all the various graphs and charts about Sub Prime Loans. They further proved my point.

 

[Dad2three]

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

Clinton would like to erase his part in it too, as well as Carter. The CRA was Carter's millstone, but Clinton used it to start the housing price inflation in 1997. (What is good for the goose is good for the gander)

What's this got to do with Dubya's subprime crisis?

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

 

[Dad2three]

Of course thats 100% idiotic. Please name one liberal policy that would not makes things worse. How will you learn if you are afraid to try.

Taxing the top 2% at higher rates. Simple.

What rate?

Why would that make things better?

First, getting the Buffet rule, the GOP is blocking, min 30% fed tax on $1+ million incomes, would bring in $160+ billion over 10 years, according to CBO estimates


Going to 45% top rate for $200,000+ incomes would bring in over $100 billion a year

Lowering the Corp tax rate (to 28%) and getting rid of loopholes, and using the extra revenues as Obama proposed, would fund infrastructure projects

Think creating jobs and lowering the deficit would help?

 

[Dad2three]

Do you realize how stupid that statement was? There was a recession. There was also many deficits. In fact their have been deficits every fiscal year since Eisenhower. Apples and oranges....Recession and Deficits. Study economics, you are embarrassing yourself.

Weird, and yet the CBO said almost 1/3rd of the deficits from 2001-2010 WERE attributable to Dubya's tax cuts for the rich. Go figure!

The CBO may be correct. We were talking about THE RECESSION DUMBASS. DUBYA'S TAX CUTS DID NOT CAUSE THE RECESSION, THEY CAUSED THE DEFICITS. If you had red my comments you would know that; OR CAN YOU READ?

BTW, thanks for all the various graphs and charts about Sub Prime Loans. They further proved my point.

Got it, YOU are an ignorant tool that isn't honest. ONE MORE TIME

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html



Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?




Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?


… after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. …

When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:

Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Obama a 1 termer and refuse to get out and help push the car out of the ditch they drove US into!!!!

Of course thats 100% idiotic. Please name one liberal policy that would not makes things worse. How will you learn if you are afraid to try.

Taxing the top 2% at higher rates. Simple.

its simple? well then why did you forget to explain how it would make things better??

 

[Dad2three]

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

Clinton would like to erase his part in it too, as well as Carter. The CRA was Carter's millstone, but Clinton used it to start the housing price inflation in 1997. (What is good for the goose is good for the gander)

NOTHING ON YOUR FALSE PREMISE HUH:

"Are you really that ignorant? Why do you believe the private sector loans had anything to do with it? Did they control the interest? Did they guarantee the loans? Of course the lenders were private. The government does not make home loans, but the control the interest and they use Fannie and Freddie to guarantee the loans and effectively force private lenders to follow their policies.

Why don't you really study what happened instead of blowing propagandist gas into the wind?"



LOL

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.

More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.


The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes


The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[Dad2three]

Of course thats 100% idiotic. Please name one liberal policy that would not makes things worse. How will you learn if you are afraid to try.

Taxing the top 2% at higher rates. Simple.

its simple? well then why did you forget to explain how it would make things better??

I did, sorry you are to willfully ignorant o see it!

 

[dnsmith35]

RIght, so that's why we have the same amount of wealth now that we had 100 years ago . . . . . er, wait.

Keep being willfully ignorant of the context of the article wing nutter!

You know what? I resent your putting my name in a quote line of bullshit you posted. You are not just economics challenged, or stupid, you are a vicious insulting boob. Fix it!

 

[Dad2three]

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

Clinton would like to erase his part in it too, as well as Carter. The CRA was Carter's millstone, but Clinton used it to start the housing price inflation in 1997. (What is good for the goose is good for the gander)

OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN’T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.



Q Why would Bush’s regulators let banks lower their lending standards?

A. Federal regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision work for Bush and he was pushing his “Ownership Society” programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bush’s regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. 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 Invesntment 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.

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Taxing the top 2% at higher rates. Simple.

its simple? well then why did you forget to explain how it would make things better??

I did, sorry you are to willfully ignorant o see it!

actually stealing money at the point of a gun from our most productive citizens for govt to waste harms rather than helps the economy. Do you grasp the logic? THe more govt the more waste and the more crippled the private sector is by taxes. IF you tax venture capital you get fewer new ventures and fewer new jobs. Do you understand?

 

[Dad2three]

RIght, so that's why we have the same amount of wealth now that we had 100 years ago . . . . . er, wait.

Keep being willfully ignorant of the context of the article wing nutter!

You know what? I resent your putting my name in a quote line of bullshit you posted. You are not just economics challenged, or stupid, you are a vicious insulting boob. Fix it!

What bullshit are you whining about now Bubba?

 

[Dad2three]

its simple? well then why did you forget to explain how it would make things better??

I did, sorry you are to willfully ignorant o see it!

actually stealing money at the point of a gun from our most productive citizens for govt to waste harms rather than helps the economy. Do you grasp the logic? THe more govt the more waste and the more crippled the private sector is by taxes. IF you tax venture capital you get fewer new ventures and fewer new jobs. Do you understand?

Sure, sure. When the US had MUCH higher marginal rates AND much higher effective rates on those 'job creators', 1945-1980 the US economy sucked right?

 

[Dad2three]

Do you realize how stupid that statement was? There was a recession. There was also many deficits. In fact their have been deficits every fiscal year since Eisenhower. Apples and oranges....Recession and Deficits. Study economics, you are embarrassing yourself.

Weird, and yet the CBO said almost 1/3rd of the deficits from 2001-2010 WERE attributable to Dubya's tax cuts for the rich. Go figure!

The CBO may be correct. We were talking about THE RECESSION DUMBASS. DUBYA'S TAX CUTS DID NOT CAUSE THE RECESSION, THEY CAUSED THE DEFICITS. If you had red my comments you would know that; OR CAN YOU READ?

BTW, thanks for all the various graphs and charts about Sub Prime Loans. They further proved my point.

BUT YOU said the tax cuts were neutral? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Again, JFK 1964!LBJ got JFK's proposal passed. Anytime you cut corporate taxes and taxes for the rich it is supply side economics. Economics 1 (which came before 101 as any fool with a brain knows.)

So you can't provide a link showing jobs created by tax cuts and you want to argue the demand side tax cuts were really supply side? lol

Kennedy, and his chief economist Walter Heller, saw the tax cut as a demand-side cut aimed at creating old-fashioned Keynesian stimulus in a sluggish economy. Indeed, what Kennedy really wanted was to stimulate the economy through government spending, but he didn’t have the votes in Congress for that. So he went with the tax cut instead. The giveaway that Kennedy's wasn’t really a supply-side tax cut was that the cuts were greater in the middle and at the bottom than at the top. If you want to stimulate consumer purchasing, you’re better off concentrating income-tax cuts in the middle and at the bottom. If you want to stimulate investment, you’re better off concentrating income-tax cuts at the top—or, if that’s politically impossible, you make the cuts the same across the board.

Here?s Why Ryan Is No JFK | New Republic

Kennedy maintained a 70% top rate on unearned dividend income, treating it much like wages and salaries;

And Kennedy, it is conveniently forgotten by supply-siders, actually tried to enact a higher dividend-tax rate on incomes over $180,000, an initiative that failed passage


Time has validated that stimulative approach, whereas recent history has largely discredited the competing notion that federal tax cuts on upper-end incomes really spur investment and create jobs. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993, and a boom followed; George W. Bush lowered them substantially in 2001, and two million jobs were subsequently lost.

03.13.oleary



The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter


Kennedy has been correctly called the first Keynesian president (of which more in a moment). Reagan was the first chief executive disciple of supply-side economics, the tax-cut monomania that now dominates the GOP. Over the years, however, a strange connection has grown up between the two men, at least in the minds of some on the right. Because JFK advocated a tax cut to stimulate the economy, conservatives have adopted him as an early prophet of the supply-side religion.


The notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a powerful myth, but it is a myth. Context is key. Conservatives love to quote a speech Kennedy gave at the Economic Club of New York in December 1962.


Another important piece of context is the thinking behind the tax cuts. Kennedy's economic policies were rooted in a Keynesian belief in the stimulative effects of budget deficits.

Kennedy was the first to advocate planned deficits in a time of neither war nor economic emergency. The aim was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand, driving the economy from the bottom up.

Republicans, by contrast, argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong." That balanced-budget fixation was the ruling GOP philosophy until the rise of supply-side economics,


The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter - US News

So you can't provide a link showing jobs created by tax cuts

Looks like Reagan's tax cuts did okay.

Nope, probably his tripling the debt and he had a top rate of 50% for first 6 years remember, YET still had to increase revenues, go figure!!!

 

[dnsmith35]

You mean supply side tax cuts don't grow the pie? ANYONE with half a brain knows that Bubba!

Well then, maybe you are finally learning something. Now all you have to do is recognize that the definitions I submitted to you with links, proves that reducing corporate tax rates and top brackets more than lower brackets is a supply side tax cut, JUST LIKE THE TAX CUT OF 1964 ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY JFK WAS A SUPPLY SIDE TAX CUT.

I grow tired of trying to educate you because you are simply can not be educated, you are as dumb as a post about economics. That is what listening to left wing extremist propaganda will do to you.

Ignorant tool. NOPE

it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

It is quite irrelevant what Okun said. Any fool with even a modicum of brain power knows that cutting top marginal brackets more than the lower brackets while cutting corporate taxes are TYPICAL SUPPLY SIDE TAX CUTS. It takes an abject idiot to believe they are demand side cuts. Demand side cuts are typically putting money into the hands of the least wealthy with the opinion that because they are poor they will spend it all.

Someone brought up Eisenhower yesterday. In spite of his being GOP, he helped create a great economy BECAUSE HE SET OUT TO BUILD A SUPER INFRASTRUCTURE. Not that stimulated the economy. JFK did positive things to the economy because he understood that by using supply side tax cuts he stimulated CORPORATE AMERICA AND GAVE A 21% TAX CUT TO THE RICH SUCH THAT THEY WOULD INVEST, HIRE WORKERS, AND IMPROVE THE ECONOMY. What he called it was irrelevant; it was supply side. Do you need some more definitions of what Supply Side and Demand Side really are?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Taxing the top 2% at higher rates. Simple.

What rate?

Why would that make things better?

First, getting the Buffet rule, the GOP is blocking, min 30% fed tax on $1+ million incomes, would bring in $160+ billion over 10 years, according to CBO estimates


Going to 45% top rate for $200,000+ incomes would bring in over $100 billion a year

Lowering the Corp tax rate (to 28%) and getting rid of loopholes, and using the extra revenues as Obama proposed, would fund infrastructure projects

Think creating jobs and lowering the deficit would help?

First, getting the Buffet rule, the GOP is blocking, min 30% fed tax on $1+ million incomes, would bring in $160+ billion over 10 years, according to CBO estimates

$16 billion a year will fix things? LOL!

Going to 45% top rate for $200,000+ incomes would bring in over $100 billion a year

The government spent $3454 billion last year. Will $116 billion more land us in utopia? Why?

Think creating jobs and lowering the deficit would help?

Lowering the deficit? I thought Obama was going to spend the extra revenue?
Creating jobs? Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost?