JonKoch
Gold Member
- May 14, 2017
- 2,703
- 475
- 130
Zone1 Tax the Rich! Make them Pay their Fair Share!
- Thread starter Chuz Life
- Start date
JonKoch
Gold Member
- May 14, 2017
- 2,703
- 475
- 130
LMAOROG. And I thought there wasn't anyone dumber than UNconcerned American on this post
JonKoch
Gold Member
- May 14, 2017
- 2,703
- 475
- 130
US debt to GDP ABOUT 119% IN 1945, THE HIGHEST EVER TO THAT TIME
US DEBT TO GDP IN 1980 was 31%
What were we hearing from the GOP at that time? Let's take a ;look at Ronnie
"During the 1980 campaign, Ronald Reagan heavily criticized Jimmy Carter for federal budget deficits, which reached roughly $59 billion to $74 billion plus "off-budget" items. Reagan termed these deficits a failure of leadership, blaming them and resulting inflation on excessive government spending and taxing, while pledging to balance the budget by 1983 through tax cuts."
Now what did Ronnie actually do as Prez? Not the mythology the right created after seeing how popular and successful Clinton was, the actual data
"During Reagan's eight year presidency, the annual deficits averaged 4.0% of GDP, compared to a 2.2% average during the preceding eight years."
U.S. federal debt-to-GDP ratio at the end of fiscal year 1989 (September 30, 1989) was approximately 39% . Debt had increased from under $1 trillion to over $2.86 trillion in Ronnie final F/Y
But I thought tax cuts were going to bring in more revenues? Well let's look
F/Y 1980, CARTER'S FINAL F/Y - 19.2% of GDP, with total receipts of $517.1 billion. The total federal outlays (spending) for the same period was 21.2% of GDP
1981 F/Y - Carter's last year - 19.1% GDP revenues
1982- Reagan FIRST YEAR 18.6%
1983- Reagan 17%
1984- Reagan 16.9%
1985- Reagan 17.2%
1986- Reagan 17%
1987- Reagan 17.9%
1988- Reagan 17.7% (Cut taxes from top rate of 50% the US had since LBJ, to 28%, LARGEST TAX CUT FOR THE RICH TO DATE)
1989- Reagan 17.8%
Yes, President Ronald Reagan signed multiple tax increases into law after his major 1981 tax cut, in part to address rising budget deficits and close loopholes. While often remembered for cutting taxes, Reagan authorized 11 tax increases between 1981 and 1987, reversing nearly half of the initial 1981 tax savings.
LINKS HERE
Concerned American
Diamond Member
Run along troll. Cutting and pasting irrelevant garbage from 1945 and the 70s trying to make your non-point is not a good look. Again, Keep digging.
Concerned American
Diamond Member
The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was approximately 102.7% at the end of 2012, which was the highest percentage since 1945. This figure reflects the significant increase in federal debt during President Obama's administration, particularly due to the financial crisis and subsequent recovery efforts.US debt to GDP ABOUT 119% IN 1945, THE HIGHEST EVER TO THAT TIME
US DEBT TO GDP IN 1980 was 31%
What were we hearing from the GOP at that time? Let's take a ;look at Ronnie
"During the 1980 campaign, Ronald Reagan heavily criticized Jimmy Carter for federal budget deficits, which reached roughly $59 billion to $74 billion plus "off-budget" items. Reagan termed these deficits a failure of leadership, blaming them and resulting inflation on excessive government spending and taxing, while pledging to balance the budget by 1983 through tax cuts."
Now what did Ronnie actually do as Prez? Not the mythology the right created after seeing how popular and successful Clinton was, the actual data
"During Reagan's eight year presidency, the annual deficits averaged 4.0% of GDP, compared to a 2.2% average during the preceding eight years."
U.S. federal debt-to-GDP ratio at the end of fiscal year 1989 (September 30, 1989) was approximately 39% . Debt had increased from under $1 trillion to over $2.86 trillion in Ronnie final F/Y
But I thought tax cuts were going to bring in more revenues? Well let's look
F/Y 1980, CARTER'S FINAL F/Y - 19.2% of GDP, with total receipts of $517.1 billion. The total federal outlays (spending) for the same period was 21.2% of GDP
1981 F/Y - Carter's last year - 19.1% GDP revenues
1982- Reagan FIRST YEAR 18.6%
1983- Reagan 17%
1984- Reagan 16.9%
1985- Reagan 17.2%
1986- Reagan 17%
1987- Reagan 17.9%
1988- Reagan 17.7% (Cut taxes from top rate of 50% the US had since LBJ, to 28%, LARGEST TAX CUT FOR THE RICH TO DATE)
1989- Reagan 17.8%
Yes, President Ronald Reagan signed multiple tax increases into law after his major 1981 tax cut, in part to address rising budget deficits and close loopholes. While often remembered for cutting taxes, Reagan authorized 11 tax increases between 1981 and 1987, reversing nearly half of the initial 1981 tax savings.
LINKS HERE
Now STFU and run along. You're trolling.
JonKoch
Gold Member
- May 14, 2017
- 2,703
- 475
- 130
Yep, when the GOP dig holes, they dig it deep, then try to stop the Democrats from getting US out
Bush's documented policies and statements in time-frame leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)
Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks 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.
Bush-era policies (2001–2009), including tax cuts, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, significantly increased the national debt. Including interest, these policies added over $5 trillion to the debt by 2017. Tax cuts alone accounted for over $2 trillion by 2017, and up to $5.9 trillion with interest when extended.
The Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Drive Large Current Deficits report (CBPP) suggested that the tax cuts and war spending, along with debt service, would represent roughly half of the $18 trillion in total debt by 2019. The Tax Cuts Are Primarily Responsible for the Increasing Debt Ratio report finds that by 2023, these, along with subsequent extensions, significantly impact the debt ratio
Tax Cuts Are Primarily Responsible for the Increasing Debt Ratio
Without the Bush and Trump tax cuts, debt as a percentage of the economy would be declining permanently.
www.americanprogress.org
JonKoch
Gold Member
- May 14, 2017
- 2,703
- 475
- 130
Future Trends
- Increasing Deficits: The primary deficit-to-GDP ratio is expected to average 3.1% over the next 10 years, increasing after 2034
- .
- Demographic Pressure: The share of the population 65 or older, which was 12.5% ten years ago, is now 15% and rising, which boosts the cost of entitlement programs.
- Budgetary Impact: The Congressional Budget Office projects that within a decade, the federal government will spend half its budget on seniors
The Peterson Foundation notes that interest costs, partly driven by borrowing to fund these programs, are becoming a dominant portion of the budget. Increased Medical Spending of the US Elderly also continues to challenge the sustainability of federal health programs.
IF ONLY WE HADN'T DECIDED WE NEEDED TO GUT TAXES ON THE RICHEST, AS THE GOP BLEW UP SPENDING THE PAST 45 YEARS
"Starve the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending by cutting taxes, to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending. The term "the beast", in this context, refers to the United States federal government and the programs it funds, primarily with American tax money, particularly social programs such as education, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."
Concerned American
Diamond Member
Educate yourself, moron. No need to respond, I'm not here to educate you and you've been promoted to 'ignore' Adios Troll.Yep, when the GOP dig holes, they dig it deep, then try to stop the Democrats from getting US out
Bush's documented policies and statements in time-frame leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)
Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks 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.
Bush-era policies (2001–2009), including tax cuts, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, significantly increased the national debt. Including interest, these policies added over $5 trillion to the debt by 2017. Tax cuts alone accounted for over $2 trillion by 2017, and up to $5.9 trillion with interest when extended.
The Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Drive Large Current Deficits report (CBPP) suggested that the tax cuts and war spending, along with debt service, would represent roughly half of the $18 trillion in total debt by 2019. The Tax Cuts Are Primarily Responsible for the Increasing Debt Ratio report finds that by 2023, these, along with subsequent extensions, significantly impact the debt ratio
Tax Cuts Are Primarily Responsible for the Increasing Debt Ratio
Without the Bush and Trump tax cuts, debt as a percentage of the economy would be declining permanently.
View attachment 1241880
View attachment 1241879
“Under Clinton’s Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, Andrew Cuomo, Community Reinvestment Act regulators gave banks higher ratings for home loans made in ‘credit-deprived’ areas. Banks were effectively rewarded for throwing out sound underwriting standards and writing loans to those who were at high risk of defaulting.
What’s more, in the Clinton push to issue home loans to lower income borrowers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a common practice to virtually end credit documentation, low credit scores were disregarded, and income and job history was also thrown aside. The phrase “subprime” became commonplace. What an understatement. … Tragically, when prices fell, lower-income folks who really could not afford these mortgages under normal credit standards, suffered massive foreclosures and personal bankruptcies.”
Here's what really caused the housing crisis
Despite conservatives' arguments, it certainly wasn't federal programs aimed at helping low-income home buyers
www.cbsnews.com
JonKoch
Gold Member
- May 14, 2017
- 2,703
- 475
- 130
Educate yourself, moron. No need to respond, I'm not here to educate you and you've been promoted to 'ignore' Adios Troll.
“Under Clinton’s Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, Andrew Cuomo, Community Reinvestment Act regulators gave banks higher ratings for home loans made in ‘credit-deprived’ areas. Banks were effectively rewarded for throwing out sound underwriting standards and writing loans to those who were at high risk of defaulting.
What’s more, in the Clinton push to issue home loans to lower income borrowers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a common practice to virtually end credit documentation, low credit scores were disregarded, and income and job history was also thrown aside. The phrase “subprime” became commonplace. What an understatement. … Tragically, when prices fell, lower-income folks who really could not afford these mortgages under normal credit standards, suffered massive foreclosures and personal bankruptcies.”
Here's what really caused the housing crisis
Despite conservatives' arguments, it certainly wasn't federal programs aimed at helping low-income home buyers
LMAOROG. Sure Cupcake, Sure it was Bill Clinton
Private, non-GSE (FANNIE/FREDDIE) markets (Wall Street firms) drove the subprime mortgage boom by securitizing risky loans that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were initially prohibited from buying. These private entities created "private-label" securities, filling the gap while GSEs held lower volumes of subprime investments, mostly starting in 2004.
Key Aspects of Private vs. GSE Subprime Activity:
- Private Market Dominance: Subprime mortgage-backed securities (MBS) were primarily created by private, non-GSE firms, not Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
- GSE Constraints: During the early 2000s, GSEs were prohibited from buying or guaranteeing subprime mortgages, causing them to lose market share during the subprime expansion.
- Market Pressure: By 2004, under pressure to compete with the private market, the GSEs began investing in subprime MBS, but they did not dominate the market as private firms did.
- Risky-but-not-subprime: Some analyses suggest the GSEs' downfall was caused more by purchasing "risky-but-not-subprime" loans and insufficient capital, rather than solely direct subprime loans.
FactWatch: Fannie and Freddie were followers, not leaders, in mortgage frenzy
FactWatch: Fannie and Freddie were followers, not leaders, in mortgage frenzy – Center for Public Integrity
Ask many Americans who’s to blame for the nation’s economic mess, and two names come to mind: Fannie and Freddie. They see Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the villains of the financial crisis. GOP.gov, the official website for Republicans in the House of Representatives, says flatly: “Fannie Mae...
publicintegrity.org
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up
•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.
Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom. Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms.
•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006
The subprime bubble was a 2000s housing bubble fueled by high-risk loans (subprime mortgages) granted to borrowers with poor credit, which burst in 2007-2009. Low interest rates, complex financial products (mortgage-backed securities), and lax lending standards led to mass defaults, widespread foreclosures, and a severe global financial crisis.
Causes of the Subprime Bubble
- Expansion of Mortgage Credit: Lenders heavily promoted mortgages to high-risk borrowers, with subprime loans reaching $600 billion by 2006.
- Low Interest Rates: Following the dotcom bubble, low interest rates in the early 2000s increased demand for housing and spurred borrowing.
- Financial Innovation: Risky loans were packaged into complex financial products known as Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) and Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs), which were sold to investors worldwide.
- Predatory Lending: Lenders often used deceptive practices, offering adjustable-rate mortgages with low initial payments that later spiked, making them unaffordable.
- Speculation: High investment in residential real estate, often referred to as "flipping" houses, inflated home prices
JonKoch
Gold Member
- May 14, 2017
- 2,703
- 475
- 130
Educate yourself, moron. No need to respond, I'm not here to educate you and you've been promoted to 'ignore' Adios Troll.
“Under Clinton’s Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, Andrew Cuomo, Community Reinvestment Act regulators gave banks higher ratings for home loans made in ‘credit-deprived’ areas. Banks were effectively rewarded for throwing out sound underwriting standards and writing loans to those who were at high risk of defaulting.
What’s more, in the Clinton push to issue home loans to lower income borrowers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a common practice to virtually end credit documentation, low credit scores were disregarded, and income and job history was also thrown aside. The phrase “subprime” became commonplace. What an understatement. … Tragically, when prices fell, lower-income folks who really could not afford these mortgages under normal credit standards, suffered massive foreclosures and personal bankruptcies.”
Here's what really caused the housing crisis
Despite conservatives' arguments, it certainly wasn't federal programs aimed at helping low-income home buyers
The "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," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008
Subprime mortgage lending jumped dramatically during the 2004-2006 period preceding the crisis (source: Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report
Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing laws overseen by either Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Community Reinvestment Act
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
"Jun 16, 2005
According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs"
But YES, Dubya took a $1 trillion a year mortgage market at THE END OF 2000 AND PUSHED IT TO $4 TRILLION A YEAR BY 2004!
The real surge in the mortgage market began in 2001 (the year of the stock market crash). From 2000 -2004, residential originations the U.S. climbed from about $1trillion to almost $4 trillion.
About 70% of this rise was accounted for by people refinancing their conventional mortgages at lower interest rates
http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf
JonKoch
Gold Member
- May 14, 2017
- 2,703
- 475
- 130
Educate yourself, moron. No need to respond, I'm not here to educate you and you've been promoted to 'ignore' Adios Troll.
“Under Clinton’s Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, Andrew Cuomo, Community Reinvestment Act regulators gave banks higher ratings for home loans made in ‘credit-deprived’ areas. Banks were effectively rewarded for throwing out sound underwriting standards and writing loans to those who were at high risk of defaulting.
What’s more, in the Clinton push to issue home loans to lower income borrowers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a common practice to virtually end credit documentation, low credit scores were disregarded, and income and job history was also thrown aside. The phrase “subprime” became commonplace. What an understatement. … Tragically, when prices fell, lower-income folks who really could not afford these mortgages under normal credit standards, suffered massive foreclosures and personal bankruptcies.”
Here's what really caused the housing crisis
Despite conservatives' arguments, it certainly wasn't federal programs aimed at helping low-income home buyers
Moron should read his link before posting it, IT EXPLAINS LARRY KUDLOW AND STEPHEN MOORE WERE LIARS, LOL
He explains it in the link, with MANY links within and actual data
Here's what really caused the housing crisis
Despite conservatives' arguments, it certainly wasn't federal programs aimed at helping low-income home buyers
www.cbsnews.com
JonKoch
Gold Member
- May 14, 2017
- 2,703
- 475
- 130
Educate yourself, moron. No need to respond, I'm not here to educate you and you've been promoted to 'ignore' Adios Troll.
“Under Clinton’s Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, Andrew Cuomo, Community Reinvestment Act regulators gave banks higher ratings for home loans made in ‘credit-deprived’ areas. Banks were effectively rewarded for throwing out sound underwriting standards and writing loans to those who were at high risk of defaulting.
What’s more, in the Clinton push to issue home loans to lower income borrowers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a common practice to virtually end credit documentation, low credit scores were disregarded, and income and job history was also thrown aside. The phrase “subprime” became commonplace. What an understatement. … Tragically, when prices fell, lower-income folks who really could not afford these mortgages under normal credit standards, suffered massive foreclosures and personal bankruptcies.”
Here's what really caused the housing crisis
Despite conservatives' arguments, it certainly wasn't federal programs aimed at helping low-income home buyers
BANKS PAID $200 BILLION IN FINES, IF THEY WERE FORCED TO LOAN, THINK THEY WOULDN'T SUE?
Conservative Ideas Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis
The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.
Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.
Politics Most Blatant
David Abromowitz and David Min expose the self-serving conservative excuses behind the “primer” issued by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s Republican minority.
www.americanprogress.org
"The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd, said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth & They were opposite of subprime.";
FactWatch: Fannie and Freddie were followers, not leaders, in mortgage frenzy – Center for Public Integrity
Ask many Americans who’s to blame for the nation’s economic mess, and two names come to mind: Fannie and Freddie. They see Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the villains of the financial crisis. GOP.gov, the official website for Republicans in the House of Representatives, says flatly: “Fannie Mae...
publicintegrity.org
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Money you invest and never paid taxes on the CREATED EQUITY, has never been taxed and is free money to your kids if they inherit and use step up basis
ADU unit not her basement, get it right.
I paid property taxes every year. With income I paid taxes on.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Carter did such an awesome job on the economy, Reagan only won 44 states in 1980.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Clinton is the genius who decided to punish cash compensation over $1 million.
Brilliant!
DURR
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
BANKS PAID $200 BILLION IN FINES, IF THEY WERE FORCED TO LOAN, THINK THEY WOULDN'T SUE?
Conservative Ideas Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis
The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.
Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.
Politics Most Blatant
David Abromowitz and David Min expose the self-serving conservative excuses behind the “primer” issued by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s Republican minority.
"The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd, said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth & They were opposite of subprime.";
FactWatch: Fannie and Freddie were followers, not leaders, in mortgage frenzy – Center for Public Integrity
Ask many Americans who’s to blame for the nation’s economic mess, and two names come to mind: Fannie and Freddie. They see Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the villains of the financial crisis. GOP.gov, the official website for Republicans in the House of Representatives, says flatly: “Fannie Mae...
Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth & They were opposite of subprime.";
Until HUD forced them to buy trillions in subprime mortgages.
Last edited:
The rich should have a much greater tax burden than we do because it is in our interest that they do.
Similar threads
