Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[Rigby5]

What social experiment was being done here in the US like you said.

I laugh when you bring up Venezuela & ignore the ,any successes.

which socialist countries have been economic successes? Which capitalist countries have been economic failures?

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

Its quite obvious that you have no idea what the two systems consist of or what they are based on. Stop wasting our time here.

I know exactly what all the systems are based on, and there are not just two of them, but an infinite set of principles that can be orthogonal in some ways, and coincident in others. It is not nearly as simple as you claim, and it is likely all you know about is Stalinism, which any knowledgeable person knows is a form of capitalism called "State Capitalism".
From what little you have written, likely you know nothing about economics or politics at all.
Socialism is from our genetic code in our DNA, and is what allows any social animal to survive, like Meerkats.

Socialism may be in our genetic code, Meerkats too, but they don't pay taxes. So they would have that in common with illegals.

Not sure I understand, because the whole point of socialism is an inherent responsibility to the group. Before currency, that meant mutual defense, bringing food to those temporarily unable to fend for themselves, etc. These days of currency, that means taxes. Taxes are EXACTLY what is socialist about modern government. And illegals likely do not only pay taxes, but increase production, which also increases tax revenue.

 

[Thinker101]

which socialist countries have been economic successes? Which capitalist countries have been economic failures?

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

Its quite obvious that you have no idea what the two systems consist of or what they are based on. Stop wasting our time here.

I know exactly what all the systems are based on, and there are not just two of them, but an infinite set of principles that can be orthogonal in some ways, and coincident in others. It is not nearly as simple as you claim, and it is likely all you know about is Stalinism, which any knowledgeable person knows is a form of capitalism called "State Capitalism".
From what little you have written, likely you know nothing about economics or politics at all.
Socialism is from our genetic code in our DNA, and is what allows any social animal to survive, like Meerkats.

Socialism may be in our genetic code, Meerkats too, but they don't pay taxes. So they would have that in common with illegals.

Not sure I understand, because the whole point of socialism is an inherent responsibility to the group. Before currency, that meant mutual defense, bringing food to those temporarily unable to fend for themselves, etc. These days of currency, that means taxes. Taxes are EXACTLY what is socialist about modern government. And illegals likely do not only pay taxes, but increase production, which also increases tax revenue.

And when the coyote shows up al that inherent responsibility is out the window.

 

[Rigby5]

Call me simplistic, but I'm still too stuck on the immorality of "Work hard, and then give me 2/3 of everything you make" to even consider discussing the details of it as though any arrangement could make it okay.

What could make it ok is if you get enough benefits back from your tax payments, so that it improves your life enough.
Currently we don't really get much of anything back from our taxes in the US.
That is because almost all our taxes go to illegal and unnecessary foreign wars or troop deployments.
If instead our taxes went for free health care, free college tuition for our children, reduction of poverty/crime, better housing, etc., then it would be well worth it.
The amount of tax is not the main point, but what you get back in return.
Here we get nothing, so any tax at all is annoying.
In Europe they like paying taxes, because they benefit from them.

"Tax and Spend" can be good or bad, depending on what the money is spent on.

 

[Rigby5]

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

Its quite obvious that you have no idea what the two systems consist of or what they are based on. Stop wasting our time here.

I know exactly what all the systems are based on, and there are not just two of them, but an infinite set of principles that can be orthogonal in some ways, and coincident in others. It is not nearly as simple as you claim, and it is likely all you know about is Stalinism, which any knowledgeable person knows is a form of capitalism called "State Capitalism".
From what little you have written, likely you know nothing about economics or politics at all.
Socialism is from our genetic code in our DNA, and is what allows any social animal to survive, like Meerkats.

Socialism may be in our genetic code, Meerkats too, but they don't pay taxes. So they would have that in common with illegals.

Not sure I understand, because the whole point of socialism is an inherent responsibility to the group. Before currency, that meant mutual defense, bringing food to those temporarily unable to fend for themselves, etc. These days of currency, that means taxes. Taxes are EXACTLY what is socialist about modern government. And illegals likely do not only pay taxes, but increase production, which also increases tax revenue.

And when the coyote shows up al that inherent responsibility is out the window.

No, that is the point. The great ape, alpha male, will take on the marauding leopard, sacrificing himself, so that the females and young can escape. The Meerkats gang up on the canine intruder, even at the risk of their own life.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I already did prove it. Clearly Bush added over $5 trillion to the national debt.

Clearly, no one denied he added $4.9 trillion to the total public debt.

View attachment 240066

View attachment 240067

And no one denied that Obama added $9.3 trillion.

View attachment 240068
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)


Now, if you can prove your claim...…

The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.

We can continue.

This is not as clear as I would like it, but does indicate that previous was funding was done in a supplemental way and not through the annual budget.

Updated - The Obameter: End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war

{...
Money in budgets, but supplementals aren't going away
By Lukas Pleva on Thursday, September 16th, 2010 at 10:38 a.m.

It's been a while since we last reviewed President Obama's campaign pledge to end the use of supplemental budgets for funding wars. Supplementals provide money that comes on top of funds from annual budgets. During the campaign, Obama criticized this method of funding and promised to include war costs in the budget proposals that the White House submits to Congress at the beginning of every year.

At the time, we rated the promise In the Works, since Obama's budget for 2010 included the price tag for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were curious to see how things have unfolded since then.

As we said, the president's budget for 2010 included funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. On December 16, 2009, Obama signed a law which provided $101.1 billion "for operations and maintenance and military personnel requirements for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to support preparations to continue withdrawal from Iraq."

Earlier, however, in June, 2009, Obama had also signed a $105.9 billion supplemental spending bill to fund escalating military operations in the Middle East. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said at the time that "this [was] the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan." We'll cut the president some slack on this one. Because of the way the budget process works, the only way for Obama to step up military efforts in his first year was via supplemental funding. The 2009 budget was approved in 2008, when Bush was still President.

Alas, it was not the last supplemental. On February 1, 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged Congress to pass a $33 billion emergency legislation to fund a 30,000 troop-surge in Afghanistan. After repeated requests from Gates and months of debate, the House finally passed the measure on July 27, 2010, sending the bill to President Obama for signature.

We should also note that the White House has already released its budget for 2011. The administration is asking for $159.3 billion in war funding.

We consulted two budget experts, both of whom told us that there is nothing mischievous about using supplementals to fund an unforeseen change in military strategy. Scott Lilly from the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning public policy think tank, said that supplemental funding becomes a problem when you use it to fund initiatives that you can anticipate far in advance. By the time Obama announced the 30,000-troop surge in December 2009, he had already submitted the 2010 budget.

The final ruling is a bit tricky. Obama never actually advocated getting rid of supplementals completely. His promise was to end their abuse, and his criticism centered on using them for year-to-year funding. The 2009 supplemental was an inevitable result of the budget process, and this year's supplemental pays for the 30,000 troop-surge that Obama announced after the 2010 budget had already been submitted. Most important, funding for Iraq and Afghanistan is now included in annual budgets. We'll keep a close eye on this one going forward, but for now, this is a Promise Kept.
...}

After that, I found this one which is likely better:

{...
How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war | Michael Boyle

When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government. This estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may eventually cost as much as $3.7tn when factoring in the long-term costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed.

The most striking fact about the cost of the war in Iraq has been the extent to which it has been kept "off the books" of the government's ledgers and hidden from the American people. This was done by design. A fundamental assumption of the Bush administration's approach to the war was that it was only politically sustainable if it was portrayed as near-costless to the American public and to key constituencies in Washington. The dirty little secret of the Iraq war – one that both Bush and the war hawks in the Democratic party knew, but would never admit – was that the American people would only support a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein if they could be assured that they would pay almost nothing for it.

The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation. By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations.

With the Iraq war treated as an "off the books" expense, the Pentagon was allowed to keep spending on high-end military equipment and cutting-edge technology. In fiscal terms, it was as if the messy wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were never happening.

More fundamentally, the Bush administration masked the cost of the war with deficit spending to ensure that the American people would not face up to its costs while President Bush was in office. Despite their recent discovery of outrage over the national debt, the Republicans followed the advice of Vice-President Dick Cheney that "deficits don't matter" and spent freely on domestic programs throughout the Bush years. The Bush administration encouraged the American people to keep spending and "enjoy life", while the government paid for the occupation of Iraq on a credit card they hoped never to have to repay.
...}

Thanks for the source.
I love it when someone posts a source that refutes their stupid claim

Military war spending is never part of the budget.

It's been a while since we last reviewed President Obama's campaign pledge to end the use of supplemental budgets for funding wars. Supplementals provide money that comes on top of funds from annual budgets. During the campaign, Obama criticized this method of funding and promised to include war costs in the budget proposals that the White House submits to Congress at the beginning of every year.

See the phrase "supplemental budget"? That means it is part of a budget submitted to and approved by Congress. The expense is on the books, adds to the deficit and adds to the debt.

Maybe you'll make more accurate claims in the future?

WRONG! The phrase "supplemental budget" means it definitely was NOT at all part of the annual budget as planned for the year, but something unexpected that came up LATER, and had to be called supplemental. Anything later, after the annual budget predicted expenses has been approved by congress, is NOT part of the budget and is called supplemental.

It is foolish for you to even try to say what obviously can't be true because clearly all the Bush budgets put together do not include even a tiny portion of the $5 trillion Bush is documented as having added to the national debt. And I already linked and quoted how Bush tried to hide his massive debt. As well as the fact Obama was very critical of the process of hiding debt in supplemental allocations, and was embarrassed to have to do it even once.

You clearly did not read any of the links, because they flatly state the opposite of what you now are claiming.

The phrase "supplemental budget" means it definitely was NOT at all part of the annual budget as planned for the year, but something unexpected that came up LATER, and had to be called supplemental.

It was still part of a budget. Still counts toward the deficit. Still counts toward the debt.

And I already linked and quoted how Bush tried to hide his massive debt.

How does a supplemental spending bill hide debt?

No, all the links were quite clear that supplemental requests for money are handled as emergencies that then the president is not liable for. It is like when Katrina hit and funds had to be allocated for that. These funds are NOT part of the budget, are not detailed, and do NOT count towards the annual deficit. All they count towards is the national debt. But LOTS of thing not in the budget count towards the national debt, such as previous interest on past national debt. The annual budget only includes a little more than half the actual federal spending in any given year. The budget is intentionally leaving major expenses out. For example, Social Security is never part of the annual budget. Supplementals hide spending because they don't list details. They are are almost like a blank check, to deliberately bypass the congressional oversight of federal spending.

I don't mind explaining this, but if you had actually read the links, you would have not needed any more explanation.

No, all the links were quite clear that supplemental requests for money are handled as emergencies that then the president is not liable for. It is like when Katrina hit and funds had to be allocated for that. These funds are NOT part of the budget, are not detailed, and do NOT count towards the annual deficit.
You're wrong. All spending counts toward the deficit. Obama's stimulus wasn't part of the annual budget,
but the wasteful spending still counted toward the deficit.

For example, Social Security is never part of the annual budget.

It's an entitlement. They did that so they would never have to vote on it.
The spending still counts toward the deficit though.

if you had actually read the links, you would have not needed any more explanation.

I don't need to read your links to point out your errors.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Call me simplistic, but I'm still too stuck on the immorality of "Work hard, and then give me 2/3 of everything you make" to even consider discussing the details of it as though any arrangement could make it okay.

What could make it ok is if you get enough benefits back from your tax payments, so that it improves your life enough.
Currently we don't really get much of anything back from our taxes in the US.
That is because almost all our taxes go to illegal and unnecessary foreign wars or troop deployments.
If instead our taxes went for free health care, free college tuition for our children, reduction of poverty/crime, better housing, etc., then it would be well worth it.
The amount of tax is not the main point, but what you get back in return.
Here we get nothing, so any tax at all is annoying.
In Europe they like paying taxes, because they benefit from them.

"Tax and Spend" can be good or bad, depending on what the money is spent on.

No, that does not make it okay. NOTHING makes it okay. I do not give a fat rat's ass what excuse you make, how much you blather "But LOOK at all the stuff we're going to do with it!" It's not okay. Your high-faluting plans of "It would be so much better if I did THIS with the money you earn instead of you deciding what to do with it" do not mask the inherent evil of IT'S NOT YOURS, SO IT'S WRONG TO TAKE IT.

Until you can address the inherent evil of taking by force something that you didn't earn, all your other conversations are so much drivel and smokescreens to avoid the central topic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Glass Steagall was to prevent banks from investing in their own risky ventures.

And yet, not a single word about mortgages.

Those toxic derivatives were their own risky ventures and would have been illegal under Glass Steagall.

Banks didn't lose trillions on derivatives, banks lost trillions on mortgages.

Neither HUD nor Fannie Mae had any choice in buying them.

HUD didn't have to force Fannie and Freddie to buy crap, but starting in the early 1990s, HUD forced them to buy at first, 30% crappy mortgages and by 2007, HUD was forcing them to buy 55% crappy mortgages.

How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis

It is what their legal purpose was

Before Clinton, they only bought high quality, conforming loans

Yes, before Clinton signed the bill past by Congress, to repeal Glass Steagall, banks only made high quality, conforming mortgage loans, so Fannie Mae only bought up high quality, conforming loans.

But the rest make no sense.
Fannie Mae never bought up individual mortgages, but bundles called derivatives.

Banks did not lose any money at all.
They created deceptive ARM loans they deceptively sold to Fannie Mae, and then we people could not make the new increased payments, they defaulted and were foreclosed. The banks made a bundle years later when they sold all these foreclosures.
But in the mean time, Obama bailed them out because they did not have enough working assets any more, since there were so many defaults. Obama should not have done that. He should have either bailed out the home buyers, or let the banks go under.
It was all the fault of the banks, so they did not deserve being bailed out.

You are wrong about Fannie Mae. Their whole purpose is to buy up mortgages from banks, so that banks can move on to new mortgages.
HUD has nothing to do with it.
It is Congress that set up the rules.
And neither HUD nor Fannie Mae knew they were getting crap.
That is the whole point of the toxic derivatives, in that they hid the details in bundles.
And no one had the authority to refuse to buy the bundles once Glass Steagall had been repealled.

Yes, before Clinton signed the bill past by Congress, to repeal Glass Steagall, banks only made high quality, conforming mortgage loans

Is there a nicer way to say you're full of shit? Let me know.

so Fannie Mae only bought up high quality, conforming loans.

You're lying. In the early 90s HUD mandated the GSEs buy 30% subprime mortgages.
While Glass-Steagall was still in place.

Fannie Mae never bought up individual mortgages, but bundles called derivatives.

Could you be more clueless?

Banks did not lose any money at all.

What are you smoking? Is it legal in your state?

You are wrong about Fannie Mae. Their whole purpose is to buy up mortgages from banks, so that banks can move on to new mortgages.
HUD has nothing to do with it.
It is Congress that set up the rules.
And neither HUD nor Fannie Mae knew they were getting crap.


Since the early 1990s, the government has been attempting to expand home ownership in full disregard of the prudent lending principles that had previously governed the U.S. mortgage market. Now the motives of the GSEs fall into place. Fannie and Freddie were subject to "affordable housing" regulations, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which required them to buy mortgages made to home buyers who were at or below the median income. This quota began at 30% of all purchases in the early 1990s, and was gradually ratcheted up until it called for 55% of all mortgage purchases to be "affordable" in 2007, including 25% that had to be made to low-income home buyers.

How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis

Wow! Don't you feel like an idiot now?


​

Yes of course HUD had been using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to encourage more low income, owner occupied housing.
But that had NOTHING at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.
HUD loans are very hard to get, are very well investigated ahead of time, and have an incredibly LOW default rate.
HUD defaults were extremely low around 2008, and had absolutely NOTHING at all to do with the real estate foreclosures.

And you seem to not understand how banks make money. They greatly profit from foreclosures. They essentially get to keep the down payment and all the money payed in over the years before the foreclosure. Then they arrange to sell the foreclosures to their buddies, and make each other very wealthy, as the properties eventually bounce back to an even higher appreciation value than when originally purchased by the buyer who defaulted. Home foreclosures are almost always highly unethical, and probably should be illegal. If someone suffers some great loss of income, HUD probably should provide some sort of catastrophic relief. While the 2008 real estate bust temporarily reduced housing values, anyone who could weather that, made out big time. It was easy to pick up properties for half their actual value. And since rents went up, it was immediately possible to gain a cash flow as a landlord. That is why real estate busts like this are deliberately caused by people like banks, looking to shift owner occupied homes into rental cash cows.

Yes of course HUD had been using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to encourage more low income, owner occupied housing.

Thanks for admitting to your previous lie.

But that had NOTHING at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.

Forcing Fannie and Freddie to buy trillions in crap didn't greatly increase incentives to write crap mortgages? Dude!

HUD loans are very hard to get, are very well investigated ahead of time, and have an incredibly LOW default rate.

Moron, we're not talking about loans from HUD. We're talking about HUD forcing....FORCING Fannie and Freddie to buy crap.

And you seem to not understand how banks make money. They greatly profit from foreclosures.

You're full of shit. Banks lose money on foreclosures.

They essentially get to keep the down payment and all the money payed in over the years before the foreclosure.

And in the good old days of 20% down payments, before banks started giving mortgages with 3% or 0% down payments, thanks, in part, to government pressure to lend to people with poor credit, that was enough to allow the lender to break even or make money.

That is why real estate busts like this are deliberately caused by people like banks,

Yeah, banks deliberately lost trillions, sneaky bastards. DURR!

Again you are lying.
HUD had nothing to do with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac having to buy toxic derivatives.
That was the repeal of Glass Steagall that did that.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were already required by law to buy what ever the banks sold them.
It was up to legislation like Glass Steagall to prevent banks from trying to sell junk to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Almost NEVER does a bank lose a cent on foreclosures.
The bank gets the property at much less than full price, not only because of the down payment and monthly payments made up until then, but the property appreciates in general over time, even if there slight temporary devaluation.
In general, foreclosures are extremely profitable to banks, and that is why there have been so many attempts are trying to regulate this obvious potential abuse by banks. But clearly 2008 was a total failure of bank regulation, that allowed banks to commit wholesale fraud against buyers, which made trillions in undeserved profits for banks. Banks did not at all lose money over the 2008 real estate market collapse. Otherwise they would not have deliberately caused it by deliberately causing the defaults with high ARM increases and flooding the market with foreclosed homes. They could easily instead of accepted the same old payments, without jacking them way up. It is obvious to anyone that the foreclosures were deliberate, in order to depress the market, making it easier for those who did have their own credit, to swallow up properties at half price.

HUD had nothing to do with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac having to buy toxic derivatives.

HUD forced them to buy crappy mortgages. They didn't buy derivatives.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were already required by law to buy what ever the banks sold them.

You're wrong. Fannie and Freddie decided what to buy, the banks couldn't force them to buy.

It was up to legislation like Glass Steagall to prevent banks from trying to sell junk to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I'd love to see you post the portion of the legislation that you feel did that.

The bank gets the property at much less than full price,

And since the value during the crisis fell substantially below the previous price, banks lost trillions.

In general, foreclosures are extremely profitable to banks,

In general, you're full of shit.

Banks did not at all lose money over the 2008 real estate market collapse.

Show me.

 

[Andylusion]

The 2008 recession was the result of failing to properly regulate the economy.

Banks making stupid loans to poor credit risks was because the government lifted an earlier regulation against making stupid loans? When did that happen? Do you have a date for a bill signing?
What about HUD telling Fannie and Freddie to buy trillions of dollars in subprime mortgages?
That was a failure to regulate?

The Glass Steagal act signed by Clinton was the largest act of de-regulation in the years before the 2008 recession.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Not at all true.
Those who defaulted on mortgages had been paying them for years.
I was only when their ARM rates almost doubled their payments after the 3 year freeze was over, that they defaulted.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to buy up mortgages, by law.

You have Glass Steagall backwards. It was Clinton's fault for signing, but what he signed was a repeal of Glass Steagall.

And yes, Glass Steagall did prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Those who defaulted on mortgages had been paying them for years.

Some people started defaulting almost immediately.

I was only when their ARM rates almost doubled their payments after the 3 year freeze was over

Not everyone had an ARM and not all ARMs had a 3 year teaser rate.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to buy up mortgages, by law.

I know, and when the law requires them to buy 30% subprime loans and then 50% subprime and finally 55% subprime, you can't say their issues were because they were deregulated. Well, you could say that, but you'd be an idiot.

And yes, Glass Steagall did prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Prove it.

Of course some 0.5% or so always default right away, but that does not cause a real estate debacle or banks to default.
The major problem in 2008 was from massive ARM payment charge increases.

It was the repeal of Glass Steagall that CAUSED the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to by ALL the toxic derivatives containing subprime mortgages.
That was exactly and entirely what caused the whole economic problem!

Certainly you are free to disagree, as some others do as well.
But read this.

The Road to Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act

It was the repeal of Glass Steagall that CAUSED the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to by ALL the toxic derivatives containing subprime mortgages.

Nope HUD forced them to buy crappy mortgages.

Thanks for the link.

Glass-Steagall was designed to stabilize the U.S. financial system by separating commercial banks from the capital markets and by prohibiting nonbanks from accepting deposits.

Weird, not a word about mortgages.

Wrong. Glass Steagall was to prevent banks from investing in their own risky ventures. Those toxic derivatives were their own risky ventures and would have been illegal under Glass Steagall. Neither HUD nor Fannie Mae had any choice in buying them. It is what their legal purpose was, once the banks created these toxic mortgage derivatives.

HUH??!?

Of course Fannie and Freddie had a choice in buying them. They had to lower their own standards to do so. .... what are you smoking! They didn't have a choice? Of course they had a choice! The very first....> FIRST < mortgage backed security that involved sub-prime loans... was through Freddie Mac!

First Union, Bear, Stearns Price Securities Offering Backed By Affordable Mortgages (1997)

October 20, 1997
First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering Backed By Affordable Mortgages


Unique Transaction To Benefit Underserved Housing Market



CHARLOTTE - First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.


The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact - they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.
​

And notice who was involved? Bear Stearns and First Union which became Wachovia, two of the largest crashes in the sub-prime crisis.

They not only had a choice, they were the first to dive into the market.

Glass Steagall was to prevent banks from investing in their own risky ventures. Those toxic derivatives were their own risky ventures and would have been illegal under Glass Steagall.

But most of the banks that failed, would not have been illegal under Glass Steagall.

 

[francoHFW]

which socialist countries have been economic successes? Which capitalist countries have been economic failures?

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

Its quite obvious that you have no idea what the two systems consist of or what they are based on. Stop wasting our time here.

I know exactly what all the systems are based on, and there are not just two of them, but an infinite set of principles that can be orthogonal in some ways, and coincident in others. It is not nearly as simple as you claim, and it is likely all you know about is Stalinism, which any knowledgeable person knows is a form of capitalism called "State Capitalism".
From what little you have written, likely you know nothing about economics or politics at all.
Socialism is from our genetic code in our DNA, and is what allows any social animal to survive, like Meerkats.

Socialism may be in our genetic code, Meerkats too, but they don't pay taxes. So they would have that in common with illegals.

Not sure I understand, because the whole point of socialism is an inherent responsibility to the group. Before currency, that meant mutual defense, bringing food to those temporarily unable to fend for themselves, etc. These days of currency, that means taxes. Taxes are EXACTLY what is socialist about modern government. And illegals likely do not only pay taxes, but increase production, which also increases tax revenue.

Actually, 94% of illegal adult males work, 65% pay taxes, and 35% own homes.They have basically been invited in by the GOP refusal of a national ID card like other modern countries have to end this problem. And no they don't vote or get welfare.

 

[jillian]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

Why do you want in my pocket?

So we will tax ourselves to prosperity?

And the government won't waste the money this time? It will be different this time?

Not like: Social Security or the Debt or Medicare

You you are t in the top 1% ijit. No one is in your pocket.

Trumpkins are so funny

 

[Yarddog]

Yes, because doing so would hurt the economy. Raising the top marginal rate to 70% would suck a huge amount of capital out of the economy, capital that would otherwise be available for investment and savings, and would hand that money over to the government, which typically wastes at least 30 cents of every dollar it spends.

The government is greedy as are the people who work for them as buroucrats. They see all this money in the hands of private individuals and fail to see that the money will also find its way back into the economy in more diverse ways than if the government allocated it. Good chance the same money in Government hands would go to some foreign country instead of being reinvested back in the US.

 

[mikegriffith1]

This OP and others like it highlight a major difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe the economy will do better when we take more money from employers and investors and give it to the government. Conservatives believe the economy will do better when employers, investors, and everybody else is allowed to keep more of their own money.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This OP and others like it highlight a major difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe the economy will do better when we take more money from employers and investors and give it to the government. Conservatives believe the economy will do better when employers, investors, and everybody else is allowed to keep more of their own money.

You know what else this OP highlights? That leftists think pandering to vindictive selfishness and the basest aspect of human nature is a good plan. "YOU'LL be okay, so why do you care if we gouge those rich bastards?"

 

[basquebromance]

There's Plenty of Money in the World, It's Just in the Wrong Hands

 

[Thinker101]

Its quite obvious that you have no idea what the two systems consist of or what they are based on. Stop wasting our time here.

I know exactly what all the systems are based on, and there are not just two of them, but an infinite set of principles that can be orthogonal in some ways, and coincident in others. It is not nearly as simple as you claim, and it is likely all you know about is Stalinism, which any knowledgeable person knows is a form of capitalism called "State Capitalism".
From what little you have written, likely you know nothing about economics or politics at all.
Socialism is from our genetic code in our DNA, and is what allows any social animal to survive, like Meerkats.

Socialism may be in our genetic code, Meerkats too, but they don't pay taxes. So they would have that in common with illegals.

Not sure I understand, because the whole point of socialism is an inherent responsibility to the group. Before currency, that meant mutual defense, bringing food to those temporarily unable to fend for themselves, etc. These days of currency, that means taxes. Taxes are EXACTLY what is socialist about modern government. And illegals likely do not only pay taxes, but increase production, which also increases tax revenue.

And when the coyote shows up al that inherent responsibility is out the window.

No, that is the point. The great ape, alpha male, will take on the marauding leopard, sacrificing himself, so that the females and young can escape. The Meerkats gang up on the canine intruder, even at the risk of their own life.

Sure, now if you could get all of them to pay their fair share in taxes you'd be all set.

 

[Thinker101]

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

Its quite obvious that you have no idea what the two systems consist of or what they are based on. Stop wasting our time here.

I know exactly what all the systems are based on, and there are not just two of them, but an infinite set of principles that can be orthogonal in some ways, and coincident in others. It is not nearly as simple as you claim, and it is likely all you know about is Stalinism, which any knowledgeable person knows is a form of capitalism called "State Capitalism".
From what little you have written, likely you know nothing about economics or politics at all.
Socialism is from our genetic code in our DNA, and is what allows any social animal to survive, like Meerkats.

Socialism may be in our genetic code, Meerkats too, but they don't pay taxes. So they would have that in common with illegals.

Not sure I understand, because the whole point of socialism is an inherent responsibility to the group. Before currency, that meant mutual defense, bringing food to those temporarily unable to fend for themselves, etc. These days of currency, that means taxes. Taxes are EXACTLY what is socialist about modern government. And illegals likely do not only pay taxes, but increase production, which also increases tax revenue.

Actually, 94% of illegal adult males work, 65% pay taxes, and 35% own homes.They have basically been invited in by the GOP refusal of a national ID card like other modern countries have to end this problem. And no they don't vote or get welfare.

I'm sure you have a link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

Its quite obvious that you have no idea what the two systems consist of or what they are based on. Stop wasting our time here.

I know exactly what all the systems are based on, and there are not just two of them, but an infinite set of principles that can be orthogonal in some ways, and coincident in others. It is not nearly as simple as you claim, and it is likely all you know about is Stalinism, which any knowledgeable person knows is a form of capitalism called "State Capitalism".
From what little you have written, likely you know nothing about economics or politics at all.
Socialism is from our genetic code in our DNA, and is what allows any social animal to survive, like Meerkats.

Socialism may be in our genetic code, Meerkats too, but they don't pay taxes. So they would have that in common with illegals.

Not sure I understand, because the whole point of socialism is an inherent responsibility to the group. Before currency, that meant mutual defense, bringing food to those temporarily unable to fend for themselves, etc. These days of currency, that means taxes. Taxes are EXACTLY what is socialist about modern government. And illegals likely do not only pay taxes, but increase production, which also increases tax revenue.

Actually, 94% of illegal adult males work, 65% pay taxes, and 35% own homes.They have basically been invited in by the GOP refusal of a national ID card like other modern countries have to end this problem. And no they don't vote or get welfare.

65% pay taxes,

How do they pay taxes? They don't have a Social Security number.

 

[Thinker101]

Its quite obvious that you have no idea what the two systems consist of or what they are based on. Stop wasting our time here.

I know exactly what all the systems are based on, and there are not just two of them, but an infinite set of principles that can be orthogonal in some ways, and coincident in others. It is not nearly as simple as you claim, and it is likely all you know about is Stalinism, which any knowledgeable person knows is a form of capitalism called "State Capitalism".
From what little you have written, likely you know nothing about economics or politics at all.
Socialism is from our genetic code in our DNA, and is what allows any social animal to survive, like Meerkats.

Socialism may be in our genetic code, Meerkats too, but they don't pay taxes. So they would have that in common with illegals.

Not sure I understand, because the whole point of socialism is an inherent responsibility to the group. Before currency, that meant mutual defense, bringing food to those temporarily unable to fend for themselves, etc. These days of currency, that means taxes. Taxes are EXACTLY what is socialist about modern government. And illegals likely do not only pay taxes, but increase production, which also increases tax revenue.

Actually, 94% of illegal adult males work, 65% pay taxes, and 35% own homes.They have basically been invited in by the GOP refusal of a national ID card like other modern countries have to end this problem. And no they don't vote or get welfare.

65% pay taxes,

How do they pay taxes? They don't have a Social Security number.

Dang, now we have to hear about how they pay sales taxes.

 

[Timmy]

Funny how $Trillions for the MIC, tax cuts for the rich or bailing out too big to jail fail banks never seem to be a problem but when it's about programs for 'ordinary' people it's suddenly unaffordable..

Foolish, uninformed statement. Not surprising coming from a radical Progressive.

Specifically, who do you suggest take our place as the leader of the free world?

The tax cuts have stimulated what had been a lagging economy. Have you looked at the jobs market lately?

The rescued by the bank bailout was repaid early, with interest. Not so with the bailout of the American auto manufacturers.

Except

40% of American middle class face poverty by the time they reach age 65: Study

Working-Class Families Are Getting Hit From All Sides - Center for American Progress

Seems that the trump/Putin plan is working.

Do you know why 40% of US citizens face poverty by the time they reach age 65, is because Unions over promise and then underpay, high taxes in certain states, and a healthcare system that is going up even after Obama promised to save them $2,500..
Of course back in the 1990's when the scare of the left was that Social Security was going to run out of money(but welfare never does, go figure) I am my good friends really starting throwing a lot of money into McDonnell Douglas stock. After it went to $300 a share and split 3 for 1, then went back up to $200 a share and split 2 for 1, it was then bought out by Boeing and those shares are up over $350 a share. You can rely on someone else to take care of you and be disappointed or you can plan your own retirement and then if something bad happens to your pension or Social Security, at least you have another source of income....That is why 40% end up in poverty at age 65..

What a crock . No way those 40% are in unions .

 

[Winston]

400 plus posts and not a one showing any indication of an understanding of macroeconomics, public policy, and tax strategy. When you increase the tax on cigarettes, alcohol, or even soft drinks everyone seems to understand that it discourages consumption. An income tax rate of seventy percent on income over ten million dollars a year does the same thing. When are you taxed on income, when you take it out of the business. A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Why do companies not invest in training their employees like they used to back in the day. Why do companies not provide benefit packages equivalent to those back in the day. Why do companies buy back their own stock instead of making even moderately risky capital investments like they did back in the day. Why do companies offer 401K's instead of pensions like they used to. Because their taxes, and the marginal tax rate, no longer provides them with the incentive to invest in that training, provide those benefits, make those riskier investments, or take on the risk of market loss that a pension entails. The "opportunity cost" of not taking profits is too steep. The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT. Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company. It is about expanding the frontier curve.

That is why the high tax rate's of the 50's resulted in a massive increase in production. That is why, back then, we often had double digit GDP growth not this puny ass two and three percent shit. That is why, back then, the wealthy actually paid less of the total tax burden than they do now, because they had the incentive to invest in their businesses and increase the revenue of their employees, not their investors.

But who am I kidding. You morons can go on ranting about the evils of socialism, or communism, or how about how damn lazy poor people are. In reality, you guys don't even understand the fundamentals of the capitalism you are so enamored with.