What do liberals want the US to be?

[rightwinger]

Taxation is the way society pays for itself. We have one of the lowest levels of taxation of any industrialized country
Stop with the confiscation of property bullshit

you mean one of the highest corporate tax rates....

Actually, one of the lower rates

Statutory corporate tax rate in US is 39.1%.

What you're showing is average rate that gives impression all corporations pays that rate, but in reality some corporations are paying full rate, some are paying nothing, depending on tax breaks given by the government.

Statutory reflects the rate befrore corporations get all those exemptions and tax loopholes they paid politicians for. We all know they don't pay at the statutory rate

Yes... OKA: Legal deductions. There are no such things as tax-loopholes. That is a deceitful word which is applied fraudulently as a means to influence the ignorant, in order to lead to them to believe that such is somehow underhanded, untoward or somehow taking something that otherwise doesn't belong to them, such as the money being confiscated through the rationalization of "Taxation".

In terms of tax loopholes, corporations get what they pay for
Now with Citizens United and greater relaxation of allowable corporate donations we can be sure that effective corporate tax rate will drop even further

 

[RKMBrown]

you mean one of the highest corporate tax rates....

Actually, one of the lower rates

Statutory corporate tax rate in US is 39.1%.

What you're showing is average rate that gives impression all corporations pays that rate, but in reality some corporations are paying full rate, some are paying nothing, depending on tax breaks given by the government.

Statutory reflects the rate befrore corporations get all those exemptions and tax loopholes they paid politicians for. We all know they don't pay at the statutory rate

Yes... OKA: Legal deductions. There are no such things as tax-loopholes. That is a deceitful word which is applied fraudulently as a means to influence the ignorant, in order to lead to them to believe that such is somehow underhanded, untoward or somehow taking something that otherwise doesn't belong to them, such as the money being confiscated through the rationalization of "Taxation".

In terms of tax loopholes, corporations get what they pay for
Now with Citizens United and greater relaxation of allowable corporate donations we can be sure that effective corporate tax rate will drop even further

Link? How do I deduct for political donations?

 

[sealybobo]

Same reason Bush should have only given his rich buddies a little tax break and not the one he gave that helped put us in a Great Recession. Moderation.

So there is a negative impact potential when you mandate wage changes?

I know all those arguments. We should have never raised the minimum wage above $3 hr because it just raised the cost of everything.

Ok then what is your solution? I say the workers of America need to unite again. Unionize. Only you don't have to belong to the Big 3 to join. This next union is for everyone. If you don't pay a fair wage you get a bad rating from this union. If you do something really bad we will picket you. So people who don't even work at your company will be picketing you. As a union member, I'll volunteer on my day off or if I'm out of work and we all do our time helping our fellow union members. We won't spend our money at companies that don't pay a fair wage or treat their employees right. Let the free market decide. So your company doesn't have to BE union to be fucked with by our union.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

you mean one of the highest corporate tax rates....

Actually, one of the lower rates

Statutory corporate tax rate in US is 39.1%.

What you're showing is average rate that gives impression all corporations pays that rate, but in reality some corporations are paying full rate, some are paying nothing, depending on tax breaks given by the government.

Statutory reflects the rate befrore corporations get all those exemptions and tax loopholes they paid politicians for. We all know they don't pay at the statutory rate

Yes... OKA: Legal deductions. There are no such things as tax-loopholes. That is a deceitful word which is applied fraudulently as a means to influence the ignorant, in order to lead to them to believe that such is somehow underhanded, untoward or somehow taking something that otherwise doesn't belong to them, such as the money being confiscated through the rationalization of "Taxation".

In terms of tax loopholes, corporations get what they pay for
Now with Citizens United and greater relaxation of allowable corporate donations we can be sure that effective corporate tax rate will drop even further

Well I for one believe that Corporations are not people, they're legal entities which are operated by people... but they're not people, which means they aren't citizens and as such, they should never be treated as citizens.

Now I happen to KNOW that you also believe that Corporations are not people... therefore, it follows that like me, you SHOULD agree that Corporations should never pay any form of taxes. PERIOD!

And this is because the people who comprise Corporations are already being taxed.

So GO AHEAD! Make it official!

 

[RKMBrown]

Same reason Bush should have only given his rich buddies a little tax break and not the one he gave that helped put us in a Great Recession. Moderation.

So there is a negative impact potential when you mandate wage changes?

I know all those arguments. We should have never raised the minimum wage above $3 hr because it just raised the cost of everything.

Ok then what is your solution? I say the workers of America need to unite again. Unionize. Only you don't have to belong to the Big 3 to join. This next union is for everyone. If you don't pay a fair wage you get a bad rating from this union. If you do something really bad we will picket you. So people who don't even work at your company will be picketing you. As a union member, I'll volunteer on my day off or if I'm out of work and we all do our time helping our fellow union members. We won't spend our money at companies that don't pay a fair wage or treat their employees right. Let the free market decide. So your company doesn't have to BE union to be fucked with by our union.

The reason unions don't form for minimum wage type jobs is.. well to be honest they don't make enough money to support their union dues.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Same reason Bush should have only given his rich buddies a little tax break and not the one he gave that helped put us in a Great Recession. Moderation.

So there is a negative impact potential when you mandate wage changes?

I know all those arguments. We should have never raised the minimum wage above $3 hr because it just raised the cost of everything.

Well, establishing such at $3 raised the price of everything... so 'we never should have implemented a required wage... PERIOD.

Ok then what is your solution? I say the workers of America need to unite again. Unionize.

That's already been done... it resulted in the destruction of US Manufacturing. Those Union-workers are now selling crack in Cleveland, to the crackheads in Detroit.

This is what happens, when we allow the Intellectually Less Fortunate to speak in public. They promote stupidity as public policy.

 

[Nosmo King]

Same reason Bush should have only given his rich buddies a little tax break and not the one he gave that helped put us in a Great Recession. Moderation.

So there is a negative impact potential when you mandate wage changes?

I know all those arguments. We should have never raised the minimum wage above $3 hr because it just raised the cost of everything.

Well, establishing such at $3 raised the price of everything... so 'we never should have implemented a required wage... PERIOD.

Ok then what is your solution? I say the workers of America need to unite again. Unionize.

That's already been done... it resulted in the destruction of US Manufacturing. Those Union-workers are now selling crack in Cleveland, to the crackheads in Detroit.

This is what happens, when we allow the Intellectually Less Fortunate to speak in public. They promote stupidity as public policy.

Unions did not destroy American industry. NAFTA did.

 

[RKMBrown]

Actually, one of the lower rates

Statutory corporate tax rate in US is 39.1%.

What you're showing is average rate that gives impression all corporations pays that rate, but in reality some corporations are paying full rate, some are paying nothing, depending on tax breaks given by the government.

Statutory reflects the rate befrore corporations get all those exemptions and tax loopholes they paid politicians for. We all know they don't pay at the statutory rate

Yes... OKA: Legal deductions. There are no such things as tax-loopholes. That is a deceitful word which is applied fraudulently as a means to influence the ignorant, in order to lead to them to believe that such is somehow underhanded, untoward or somehow taking something that otherwise doesn't belong to them, such as the money being confiscated through the rationalization of "Taxation".

In terms of tax loopholes, corporations get what they pay for
Now with Citizens United and greater relaxation of allowable corporate donations we can be sure that effective corporate tax rate will drop even further

Well I for one believe that Corporations are not people, they're legal entities which are operated by people... but they're not people, which means they aren't citizens and as such, they should never be treated as citizens.

Now I happen to KNOW that you also believe that Corporations are not people... therefore, it follows that like me, you SHOULD agree that Corporations should never pay any form of taxes. PERIOD!

And this is because the people who comprise Corporations are already being taxed.

So GO AHEAD! Make it official!

If you restrict the rights of corporations, you are restricting the rights of people to form groups and act as a group. Is that what you want to do? I get that we should break up monopolies. I get that ever larger and more powerful groups should be split up when they are deemed as harming our economic system, or maybe even deemed as harming our political system. Why not just break up the monopolies? Why try to let monopolies run rampant economically then have a separate law for the political system? Isn't our economic system tied to our political system?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Same reason Bush should have only given his rich buddies a little tax break and not the one he gave that helped put us in a Great Recession. Moderation.

So there is a negative impact potential when you mandate wage changes?

I know all those arguments. We should have never raised the minimum wage above $3 hr because it just raised the cost of everything.

Well, establishing such at $3 raised the price of everything... so 'we never should have implemented a required wage... PERIOD.

Ok then what is your solution? I say the workers of America need to unite again. Unionize.

That's already been done... it resulted in the destruction of US Manufacturing. Those Union-workers are now selling crack in Cleveland, to the crackheads in Detroit.

This is what happens, when we allow the Intellectually Less Fortunate to speak in public. They promote stupidity as public policy.

Unions did not destroy American industry. NAFTA did.

Well... No Unions, No Nafta. So you do the math.

 

[Nosmo King]

Same reason Bush should have only given his rich buddies a little tax break and not the one he gave that helped put us in a Great Recession. Moderation.

So there is a negative impact potential when you mandate wage changes?

I know all those arguments. We should have never raised the minimum wage above $3 hr because it just raised the cost of everything.

Well, establishing such at $3 raised the price of everything... so 'we never should have implemented a required wage... PERIOD.

Ok then what is your solution? I say the workers of America need to unite again. Unionize.

That's already been done... it resulted in the destruction of US Manufacturing. Those Union-workers are now selling crack in Cleveland, to the crackheads in Detroit.

This is what happens, when we allow the Intellectually Less Fortunate to speak in public. They promote stupidity as public policy.

Unions did not destroy American industry. NAFTA did.

Well... No Unions, No Nafta. So you do the math.

Unions have been in the workplace in America since the 1880s.. NAFTA came along and we saw the precipitous drop in American industrial output.

I realize how much you disdain working Americans. I realize that you think of labor as a commodity rather than families. I realize that you would drive down the cost of labor to enjoy higher profits and wealth for the owners of the means of production.

But I also realize that you must be a poor student of history if you cannot clearly see the correlation between the NAFTA treaty and the demise of American industry.

 

[RKMBrown]

Same reason Bush should have only given his rich buddies a little tax break and not the one he gave that helped put us in a Great Recession. Moderation.

So there is a negative impact potential when you mandate wage changes?

I know all those arguments. We should have never raised the minimum wage above $3 hr because it just raised the cost of everything.

Well, establishing such at $3 raised the price of everything... so 'we never should have implemented a required wage... PERIOD.

Ok then what is your solution? I say the workers of America need to unite again. Unionize.

That's already been done... it resulted in the destruction of US Manufacturing. Those Union-workers are now selling crack in Cleveland, to the crackheads in Detroit.

This is what happens, when we allow the Intellectually Less Fortunate to speak in public. They promote stupidity as public policy.

Unions did not destroy American industry. NAFTA did.

What does NAFTA have to do with Asia?

 

[Mathbud1]

Same reason Bush should have only given his rich buddies a little tax break and not the one he gave that helped put us in a Great Recession. Moderation.

So there is a negative impact potential when you mandate wage changes?

I know all those arguments. We should have never raised the minimum wage above $3 hr because it just raised the cost of everything.

Ok then what is your solution? I say the workers of America need to unite again. Unionize. Only you don't have to belong to the Big 3 to join. This next union is for everyone. If you don't pay a fair wage you get a bad rating from this union. If you do something really bad we will picket you. So people who don't even work at your company will be picketing you. As a union member, I'll volunteer on my day off or if I'm out of work and we all do our time helping our fellow union members. We won't spend our money at companies that don't pay a fair wage or treat their employees right. Let the free market decide. So your company doesn't have to BE union to be fucked with by our union.

How would what you are suggesting have different end results than government mandated wage increases? Forcing wages to go up is not "Let[ting] the free market decide." Using strong arm force to manipulate wages, be it the strong arm of the government or the strong arm of a mob, will amount to the same end result: an increase in the cost of labor. That cost has to have an effect no matter how it is brought into being.

Our focus should be on forcing down the other costs businesses face and forcing up the value of labor. There will always be some people making less than what you can feed a family on. We need to get back to the point where the people who have those jobs are the people who don't need to feed a family on their wages. Anyone who does need to feed a family on their wages needs to have enough skills to make their labor valuable enough to earn that much. Inflating the cost of labor without increasing the value of labor doesn't help anything. It only creates an unrealistic situation that can't continue to exist. The situation will adjust to compensate.

 

[sealybobo]

Same reason Bush should have only given his rich buddies a little tax break and not the one he gave that helped put us in a Great Recession. Moderation.

So there is a negative impact potential when you mandate wage changes?

I know all those arguments. We should have never raised the minimum wage above $3 hr because it just raised the cost of everything.

Ok then what is your solution? I say the workers of America need to unite again. Unionize. Only you don't have to belong to the Big 3 to join. This next union is for everyone. If you don't pay a fair wage you get a bad rating from this union. If you do something really bad we will picket you. So people who don't even work at your company will be picketing you. As a union member, I'll volunteer on my day off or if I'm out of work and we all do our time helping our fellow union members. We won't spend our money at companies that don't pay a fair wage or treat their employees right. Let the free market decide. So your company doesn't have to BE union to be fucked with by our union.

How would what you are suggesting have different end results than government mandated wage increases? Forcing wages to go up is not "Let[ting] the free market decide." Using strong arm force to manipulate wages, be it the strong arm of the government or the strong arm of a mob, will amount to the same end result: an increase in the cost of labor. That cost has to have an effect no matter how it is brought into being.

Our focus should be on forcing down the other costs businesses face and forcing up the value of labor. There will always be some people making less than what you can feed a family on. We need to get back to the point where the people who have those jobs are the people who don't need to feed a family on their wages. Anyone who does need to feed a family on their wages needs to have enough skills to make their labor valuable enough to earn that much. Inflating the cost of labor without increasing the value of labor doesn't help anything. It only creates an unrealistic situation that can't continue to exist. The situation will adjust to compensate.

At a union job, when the company has record profits the Ceo gets a bonus and so do the employees.

In your world, only the CEO gets a bonus.

The smartest guys I know worked on a union shop floor. Why? Because they were at least smart enough to insist on their fair share.

Sure labor cost will affect some things like CEO pay. The company can't raise the price higher than people will pay so your economic logic is flawed or are you being intellectually dishonest with me because companies don't pass on the profits to the consumers they keep it. The only question is, should management and shareholders get it all or should the employees get some.

 

[sealybobo]

Same reason Bush should have only given his rich buddies a little tax break and not the one he gave that helped put us in a Great Recession. Moderation.

So there is a negative impact potential when you mandate wage changes?

I know all those arguments. We should have never raised the minimum wage above $3 hr because it just raised the cost of everything.

Ok then what is your solution? I say the workers of America need to unite again. Unionize. Only you don't have to belong to the Big 3 to join. This next union is for everyone. If you don't pay a fair wage you get a bad rating from this union. If you do something really bad we will picket you. So people who don't even work at your company will be picketing you. As a union member, I'll volunteer on my day off or if I'm out of work and we all do our time helping our fellow union members. We won't spend our money at companies that don't pay a fair wage or treat their employees right. Let the free market decide. So your company doesn't have to BE union to be fucked with by our union.

How would what you are suggesting have different end results than government mandated wage increases? Forcing wages to go up is not "Let[ting] the free market decide." Using strong arm force to manipulate wages, be it the strong arm of the government or the strong arm of a mob, will amount to the same end result: an increase in the cost of labor. That cost has to have an effect no matter how it is brought into being.

Our focus should be on forcing down the other costs businesses face and forcing up the value of labor. There will always be some people making less than what you can feed a family on. We need to get back to the point where the people who have those jobs are the people who don't need to feed a family on their wages. Anyone who does need to feed a family on their wages needs to have enough skills to make their labor valuable enough to earn that much. Inflating the cost of labor without increasing the value of labor doesn't help anything. It only creates an unrealistic situation that can't continue to exist. The situation will adjust to compensate.

You guys don't want labor to have any power or say. It is why you are trying to destroy unions. And when the unions go, so do the Democrats.

Listen. All I know is that I saw for 50 years the Big 3 made our American economy boom. Those high paying labor jobs is what made America great. Those wages brought all wages up even non union companies had to pay more for fear their employees might organize.

In my dad's day we had Ford, GM and Chrysler to hire millions of people and those people bought houses and cars and toys. These are people who never even went to school. But instead of you getting it that this way works best, you were jealous that non skilled low education Americans made so much so you fought it and sent all their jobs overseas and now we see this has hurt us all. We told you those high paying jobs were good for America but you argued. You said give the CEO all the $ and it will trickle down.

There is so much wrong with your thinking don't even try to explain yourself to me. You are wrong on too many levels for me to be able to explain it to you. You are, essentially, what is wrong with not only Americans but human beings. Greedy and ignorant.

 

[Mathbud1]

At a union job, when the company has record profits the Ceo gets a bonus and so do the employees.

In your world, only the CEO gets a bonus.

In my world?

The company I work for is not unionized. I do not belong to a union. I do get a bonus when the company performs well. This year's bonus was more than double last year's.

The smartest guys I know worked on a union shop floor. Why? Because they were at least smart enough to insist on their fair share.

Sure labor cost will affect some things like CEO pay. The company can't raise the price higher than people will pay so your economic logic is flawed or are you being intellectually dishonest with me because companies don't pass on the profits to the consumers they keep it. The only question is, should management and shareholders get it all or should the employees get some.

You are making some assumptions here that should be pointed out:
1. That all companies in America are currently paying their CEO too much money.
2. That all companies in America are currently charging the highest price that people would be willing to pay for their product.

If either of these two things is not true, your argument does not hold water.

If a company is charging the highest price possible for their product to still be marketable but is not overpaying the CEO because they have already had to tighten their belts due to the recent serious recession, how will they cope with the additional cost you propose to force upon them?

If a company is not charging the highest possible price for their product to be marketable but is overpaying their CEO, will the "greedy" CEO decide to take a pay cut or will the company pass along the new cost to their customers?

More than likely, the first thing to be cut from most companies will be the non-monetary compensation benefits that they currently provide for their employees.

You guys don't want labor to have any power or say. It is why you are trying to destroy unions. And when the unions go, so do the Democrats.

Listen. All I know is that I saw for 50 years the Big 3 made our American economy boom. Those high paying labor jobs is what made America great. Those wages brought all wages up even non union companies had to pay more for fear their employees might organize.

In my dad's day we had Ford, GM and Chrysler to hire millions of people and those people bought houses and cars and toys. These are people who never even went to school. But instead of you getting it that this way works best, you were jealous that non skilled low education Americans made so much so you fought it and sent all their jobs overseas and now we see this has hurt us all. We told you those high paying jobs were good for America but you argued. You said give the CEO all the $ and it will trickle down.

"You, you, you?" I did none of these things.

There is so much wrong with your thinking don't even try to explain yourself to me. You are wrong on too many levels for me to be able to explain it to you. You are, essentially, what is wrong with not only Americans but human beings. Greedy and ignorant.

Tell me where I am wrong. Show valid reasoning and argument and I will respond in kind. Invective and name calling are absurd and do nothing to contribute to honest discussion. Use logic and avoid assumptions if you want to impress me. Vitriol and reminiscence do not impress.

 

[Dad2three]

Yea...we get it

You hate poor people and don't want to pay for their support
Others hate wars and don't want to pay to support that

Why are you STEALING my money to pay for wars?

I probably do more to help out poor people than you do ... But that would be a guess at best. The only reason I suggest it is because I don't relinquish my responsibilities to help to poor to the government ... And pay my taxes on top of that.

If you have a problem with the government confiscating your wealth to fight wars ... Take it up with them ... Not me.

Your argument doesn't offer an argument at all ... Only speculation and the desire to reward a lack of personal responsibility cobbled to an inefficient, failing and corrupt government bureaucracy.

.

"Your argument doesn't offer an argument at all ... Only speculation and the desire to reward a lack of personal responsibility cobbled to an inefficient, failing and corrupt government bureaucracy."


Your position has been tried before, the US was a 3rd world nation UNTIL we chose to help via Gov't!!! Charity? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Well, I am glad the guy from the Ayn Rand Center can tell us with certainty that bank deregulation played no role in the financial crisis. No bias or conflict of interest in promoting reckless pirate capitalism there?

Got it, YOU can't refuter THEIR facts that CLEARLY point out that what happened WASN'T do to not enough regulation, BUT REGULATORS ON THE BEAT WAS THE PROBLEM. Dubya (like Reagan did with Mr Grays warning in 1984 with the S&L crisis) ignored regulator warnings as he cheered on the subprime bubble because he had ZERO growth without it!




all outlined here

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


November 27, 2007

A Snapshot of the Subprime Market

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%


Number of subprime mortgages made in 2005-2006 projected to end in foreclosure:

1 in 5



Proportion of subprime mortgages made from 2004 to 2006 that come with "exploding" adjustable interest rates: 89-93%


Proportion approved without fully documented income: 43-50%


Proportion with no escrow for taxes and insurance: 75%



Proportion of completed foreclosures attributable to adjustable rate loans out of all loans made in 2006 and bundled in subprime mortgage backed securities: 93%


Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%



Subprime share of all home loans outstanding:
14%


Subprime share of foreclosure filings in the 12 months ending June 30, 2007: 64%

No one is arguing Bush didn't lower lending standards. But you ignore Clinton did the same and helped contribute to the resulting crisis, and the lowering of standards began under Carter through the CRA. Also, the repeal of Glass Steagall and artificially low interest rates of the Federal Reserve played a role.

You are a partisan hack with no perspective.

Got it, YOU are projecting as aa POS...

WEIRD HOW IT TOOK SO LONG FOR CARTER AND CLINTON TO DO THIS:

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.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


Bushs 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 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.

YES, CLINTON HAD A HOMES PUSH, LIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ SINCE FDR. WEIRD ONLY RONNIE AND DUBYA IGNORED REGULATOR WARNINGS AND HAD MAJOR ISSUES THOUGH???



•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


These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.

Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture

PERHAPS ONE TIME YOU'LL ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS??? LOL

The reason there weren't subprime mortgages to the degree there were in the 2000s that there were in the 90s is because we were in a tech bubble. Mortgage rates were low, but higher yields existed in these artificially highly valued tech companies. The Housing Bubble was artificially pumped up by the Federal Reserve in response to the bursting of the Dot.Com bubble in the Early 2000s.
Here s How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble s Lax Lending - Business Insider
Dubya s Double Dip - New York Times


This idea that Clinton lowering standards didn't add to the crisis, only Bush lowering standards did, is objectively absurd on its face, as is claiming the Fed artificially lowering rates and Glass Steagall repeal played no role is. Just because the bubble burst under Bush, doesn't mean he is exclusively responsible. He helped accelerate lax lending standards that were already in place.

The financial collapse is the responsibility of an entire system of government that has been compromised by wall street donors dictating policy through political contributions and a revolving door between the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and Wall Street.
The ever-revolving door between government and Wall Street

Relativism... it kills viability. And that is what you saw coerce the financial markets into to doing what they should have never accepted, but which it did... .

The chart tells the entire story... everyone was looking out for their own interests, having set aside any concern for objective principle. Lower mortgage standards inevitably caused a run on those highly coveted instruments, which caused the value of the underlying property to increase until the market could no longer sustain those values... then: BOOM! The House of Relativist cards comes crashing down and fascism has once again screwed everyone that have come into contact with it.

And just as the Left has always claimed: That the Right Wing fooled the Leftwing... in reality, the subjectivity overruled the objectivity which was essential to preventing what happened, from happening.

And there is only one ideology which is built upon and around the exclusion of objectivity... so despite all of the endless 'debate' which to some lends the appearance of complexity, there is nothing complex about where the problem started, who started it, who milked it and whose responsible for it.

I'm all for charging the Corporate officers with crimes... but only after those in government who started the process are charged, convicted and have been executed. Then, we can go to work demonstrating the downside to letting government tell you how you'll handle your responsibilities, to the people presently handling their responsibilities... and I bet you that those people will be most forthcoming in the investigations of who in government is telling them how to handle the responsibilities TODAY!

And in the span of a few weeks, this all gets worked out and the cultural train is set right back up on its principled tracks.

Gov't " started the process " huh? lol


EVERY US Prez since FDR had a 'homes push' WHY did Reagan and Dubya BOTH have REGULATOR failure that caused the problems?


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

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

Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture

 

[Dad2three]

These midterms were losses on historic levels. You can write them off if you like without dealing with that, please do.

These midterms were apathy on historic levels. The lowest voter participation rate since 1942. Winning because no one showed up to vote is not a mandate.

Hey about the same number of people voted in 2006 when you people said it was a referendum on Bush, when you people said the people had given Democrats a mandate. OH SNAP!

Your premise is a HUGE lie. Shocking


Voter turnout in 2014 was the lowest since WWII


2014- 36.4 percent of the voting-eligible population cast ballots

2006- 40.4 percent

Voter turnout in 2014 was the lowest since WWII - The Washington Post

OH SNAP

You seem well, insane.

Got it. You must be a deluded conservative

 

[Dad2three]

Sure Bubba, You are to dense to understand since Clinton signed NAFTA, I opposed NAFTA, since that, I must LOVE Clinton, the best conservative Prez since Ike. You are nothing but a bigoted, right winger. Call yourself whatever you want. Believe in fairy tales, I love the spaghetti monster in the sky myself. You wing nutters who want to hold onto 'tradition and custom', lets get a few slaves for you and make sure you strike your wife to make sure she puts you on the pedestal right?

Funny how you can't just simply answer the question: Q - Do you oppose Clinton in signing NAFTA? A - Yes I do.

Simple.

See.

Instead you post gibberish: Q - Do you oppose Clinton in signing NAFTA? A - What do you think? I love spaghetti monsters!

I guess you didn't follow the posts.. Sorry for you Bubba

 

[bripat9643]

Yea...we get it

You hate poor people and don't want to pay for their support
Others hate wars and don't want to pay to support that

Why are you STEALING my money to pay for wars?

I probably do more to help out poor people than you do ... But that would be a guess at best. The only reason I suggest it is because I don't relinquish my responsibilities to help to poor to the government ... And pay my taxes on top of that.

If you have a problem with the government confiscating your wealth to fight wars ... Take it up with them ... Not me.

Your argument doesn't offer an argument at all ... Only speculation and the desire to reward a lack of personal responsibility cobbled to an inefficient, failing and corrupt government bureaucracy.

.

"Your argument doesn't offer an argument at all ... Only speculation and the desire to reward a lack of personal responsibility cobbled to an inefficient, failing and corrupt government bureaucracy."


Your position has been tried before, the US was a 3rd world nation UNTIL we chose to help via Gov't!!! Charity? lol

Wrong, as always.