Analysis Finds Trump Tax Cuts Didn’t Benefit Workers, Just Made Rich Companies Richer

[Mac1958]

You claim it is your profession. Well, I have a family member that was in the professional career as well, since retired, in state and then community banking. He watched the rate of closure of small banks happen over and over, as the regulations made it next to impossible to lend and to comply with the onerous paperwork and increased costs of compliance. Small businesses suffered because the community banks had a harder time lending to them even though they had successful loans with them previously. I could go on and on. Rather than help small banks, it created bigger and bigger big banks.

View attachment 189982
They could not get lending themselves. Audits were constant and even the very slightest variation brought feds and big fines down on them.

They are not one sided-
Dodd-Frank, Community Bank Decline, And The Effect On U.S. Cities And Towns
Harvard Study Confirms Dodd-Frank's Harm to Main Street
The State and Fate of Community Banking
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/d...cbg/files/Final_State_and_Fate_Lux_Greene.pdf

demonstrate that Frank Dodd and Acorn didn't drive the market down the drain. Yep, there are plenty of links. to show how they acted and caused this shit

You're going to obediently believe the one-sided talking points.

I know what actually happened.
.

You're invited to comment on my list of specifics, too.
.

I've been my own man for decades , but only as a small biz.

What goes on above me (et all) ,and may or may not land in my rice bowl is inconsequential fallout

The fiscal institutions are all about creating valuation out of thin air these days , which in turn is the basis of any given bubble economy

It's a sure sign of a failing fiat....

But i digress....

Nobody here needs to be a rocket scientist to get this

~S~

You don't need to be a rocket scientist, but if the party line is to ignore it, you ignore it.
.

 

[Mac1958]

You still haven't touched my list.

Demonstrate you understand this, and not just the standard conservative talking points. I'll sure as hell know if you know what you're talking about.

I'll wait. But at this point, from what I've seen so far, I'll be pretty shocked if you can.
.

demonstrate that Frank Dodd and Acorn didn't drive the market down the drain. Yep, there are plenty of links. to show how they acted and caused this shit

You're going to obediently believe the one-sided talking points.

I know what actually happened.
.

Why don't you tell me what impact the subprime mandates for Fannie and Freddie had on the housing market?

It indirectly caused them to add more subprime mortgages to their portfolio than they would have wanted, primarily because they wanted to keep up with the competition. They even loaded up on those shitbag derivatives that I mentioned earlier to take some risk off of their balance sheets. Hey, why not, those derivatives were AAA, right?

In short, they ended up behaving much like the banks, by hedging their bets with pure unbacked shit. If those shitbag unregulated derivatives had not been available to them, if the ratings agencies had been better regulated, if AIG had not been spraying unregulated credit default swaps around the planet like candy, Fannie and Freddie wouldn't have ended up the way they did.

I'm glad you asked.
.

AND if this hadn't of occurred a lot of the above problems would NOT have happened!
President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices.

As few as 19 of those 186 clients still own homes with clean credit ratings, following a decade in which Obama and other progressives pushed banks to provide mortgages to poor African Americans.
The startling failure rate among Obama’s private sector clients was discovered during The Daily Caller’s review of previously unpublished court information from the lawsuit that a young Obama worked on as an attorney for the lead plaintiff.
Since the mortgage bubble burst, some of his former clients are calling for a policy reversal.
Nonetheless, Obama has pursued the same top-down mortgage lending policies in the White House.
Obama’s lawsuit was one element of a national “anti-redlining” campaign led by Chicago’s progressive groups, who argued that banks unfairly refused to lend money to people living within so-called “redlines” around African-American communities. The campaign was powered by progressives’ moral claim that their expertise could boost home ownership among the United States’ most disadvantaged minority, African-Americans.
With landmark lawsuit, Barack Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago’s African-Americans

Could be. However, what Obama did after the Meltdown has nothing to do with the Meltdown.
.

 

[sparky]

You claim it is your profession. Well, I have a family member that was in the professional career as well, since retired, in state and then community banking. He watched the rate of closure of small banks happen over and over, as the regulations made it next to impossible to lend and to comply with the onerous paperwork and increased costs of compliance. Small businesses suffered because the community banks had a harder time lending to them even though they had successful loans with them previously. I could go on and on. Rather than help small banks, it created bigger and bigger big banks.

View attachment 189982
They could not get lending themselves. Audits were constant and even the very slightest variation brought feds and big fines down on them.

They are not one sided-
Dodd-Frank, Community Bank Decline, And The Effect On U.S. Cities And Towns
Harvard Study Confirms Dodd-Frank's Harm to Main Street
The State and Fate of Community Banking
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/d...cbg/files/Final_State_and_Fate_Lux_Greene.pdf

You're going to obediently believe the one-sided talking points.

I know what actually happened.
.

You're invited to comment on my list of specifics, too.
.

I've been my own man for decades , but only as a small biz.

What goes on above me (et all) ,and may or may not land in my rice bowl is inconsequential fallout

The fiscal institutions are all about creating valuation out of thin air these days , which in turn is the basis of any given bubble economy

It's a sure sign of a failing fiat....

But i digress....

Nobody here needs to be a rocket scientist to get this

~S~

You don't need to be a rocket scientist, but if the party line is to ignore it, you ignore it.
.

It's all the $$$ party now Mac

the illusion of political parties simply provides them convenient diversion


~S~

 

[sparky]

meet the new bubble, same as the old bubble......

The global asset bubble will burst, just not in 2018

~S~

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

tax breaks are not susidies. the company isn't paying itself and the government has no hands in the money. so make up nonsense all you want. no one will take you seriously. seriously!

Are you seriously going to challenge an exact definition of subsidy? Are you a fool, ignorant, or just plain stupid?

Yep. Someone keeping their money is, wait for it.... keeping their own money! Fk, how stupid are you?

So you agree that tax breaks are subsidies.

OK so LET's do away with ALL Deductions...i.e. tax breaks now here are the top 13!
Oh by the way the Federal government calls them "Tax Expenditures"... meaning ALL INCOME belongs to the government and these are the "expenditures" that are allowed
to be deducted from the income... i.e. "EXPENDITURES"!

What are the largest tax expenditures?

So let's do away with #1... i.e. Employers can deduct medical premiums.$235 Billion!
And how about # 5 and # 6... $140 billion spent on employee pension plans.
Hey here's another one let's do away with... # 7 Mortgage interest deduction.. $68 billion...
All right while we're at it... # 10 Child credit expenditures @ $54 billion.
Mind you these are all TAX breaks given to Americans when figuring out their taxes. almost a $.5 Trillion tax breaks to most Americans.



View attachment 189870

Or we can benefit all;

-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2018 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2018 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.

Yep you are definitely a Commie.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

tax breaks are not susidies. the company isn't paying itself and the government has no hands in the money. so make up nonsense all you want. no one will take you seriously. seriously!

Are you seriously going to challenge an exact definition of subsidy? Are you a fool, ignorant, or just plain stupid?

Yep. Someone keeping their money is, wait for it.... keeping their own money! Fk, how stupid are you?

So you agree that tax breaks are subsidies.

OK so LET's do away with ALL Deductions...i.e. tax breaks now here are the top 13!
Oh by the way the Federal government calls them "Tax Expenditures"... meaning ALL INCOME belongs to the government and these are the "expenditures" that are allowed
to be deducted from the income... i.e. "EXPENDITURES"!

What are the largest tax expenditures?

So let's do away with #1... i.e. Employers can deduct medical premiums.$235 Billion!
And how about # 5 and # 6... $140 billion spent on employee pension plans.
Hey here's another one let's do away with... # 7 Mortgage interest deduction.. $68 billion...
All right while we're at it... # 10 Child credit expenditures @ $54 billion.
Mind you these are all TAX breaks given to Americans when figuring out their taxes. almost a $.5 Trillion tax breaks to most Americans.



View attachment 189870

Or we can benefit all;

-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2018 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2018 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.

Are you willing to pay $100 for a happy meal?

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[AntonToo]

Companies can only buy back stock from someone willing to sell that stock at the price offered. The increased value of that stock benefits everyone who owns that stock.

Companies using tax savings to buy back stocks are simply transferring those savings to the sellers of the stocks. The money does not disappear down some dark hole, most of it will be reinvested in the economy. Smart people only sit on money when they are afraid to invest it, and that is why so much money was sitting on the sidelines during the Obama years

So that you can become just a bit smarter before spewing........consider this


The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks | Money

How much of America do foreigners really own? - MarketWatch

Say, aren't the richest 1% of Americans the Communist Oligarchs like Marc Zuckerberg and Tim Cook, who you want to rule the nation?

Hearing you Stalinists spew hatred at the "rich" is surreal, given that the radical left is literally owned by the Silicone Valley Oligarchs and the Soros International Communist Cabal.

Seriously, Standard Oil was a mom & pop organization compared to Apple or Facebook - both run by dedicated Marxists. U.S. Steel never dreamed of having the power to utterly silence dissent the way Twitter and YouTube routinely do.

Going after the obscenely rich means going after your own, Comrade gnat.

Facts are not hinged on any emotions last I checked.

Doesn't matter what you FEEL about it, The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks or they don't.

Either the top 1% are primarily Marxist or they are not, Comrade.

Zuckerberg
Bezos
Soros
Cook
Hoyer
Gates
Balmer
Brin
Glass
Musk
Buffett
Elison
Geffen
Winfrey




What is it you Stalinists call your ruling Oligarchs? The "Masters of the Universe," isn't it?

How does that change facts?

And idiot, they are capitalists.

 

[sparky]

what if they're commie capitalists?

~S~

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Companies can only buy back stock from someone willing to sell that stock at the price offered. The increased value of that stock benefits everyone who owns that stock.

Companies using tax savings to buy back stocks are simply transferring those savings to the sellers of the stocks. The money does not disappear down some dark hole, most of it will be reinvested in the economy. Smart people only sit on money when they are afraid to invest it, and that is why so much money was sitting on the sidelines during the Obama years

So that you can become just a bit smarter before spewing........consider this


The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks | Money

How much of America do foreigners really own? - MarketWatch

Say, aren't the richest 1% of Americans the Communist Oligarchs like Marc Zuckerberg and Tim Cook, who you want to rule the nation?

Hearing you Stalinists spew hatred at the "rich" is surreal, given that the radical left is literally owned by the Silicone Valley Oligarchs and the Soros International Communist Cabal.

Seriously, Standard Oil was a mom & pop organization compared to Apple or Facebook - both run by dedicated Marxists. U.S. Steel never dreamed of having the power to utterly silence dissent the way Twitter and YouTube routinely do.

Going after the obscenely rich means going after your own, Comrade gnat.

Facts are not hinged on any emotions last I checked.

Doesn't matter what you FEEL about it, The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks or they don't.

Either the top 1% are primarily Marxist or they are not, Comrade.

Zuckerberg
Bezos
Soros
Cook
Hoyer
Gates
Balmer
Brin
Glass
Musk
Buffett
Elison
Geffen
Winfrey




What is it you Stalinists call your ruling Oligarchs? The "Masters of the Universe," isn't it?

How does that change facts?

And idiot, they are capitalists.

and idiot they are cronie capitalists.

 

[depotoo]

I agree with you. But I t seems to me you only want to talk about your points and no others. And how this is considered a gop talking point is beyond me. It was part of the whole, no matter the party you support.
No, I want to hang it where it happened. There are more points than simply what you wished to blame it on. Your denial Dodd Frank didn’t make it worse, was hogwash. It was part of the whole, a cascade effect.
It was an overreaction which punished small banks that, for the most part, had no skin in the game. It was the large banks, their mortgage divisions, that preceded to sell bundling, which was crap, after loaning to those that had no way to actually pay back the banks ‘creative’ financing instruments. And that was after being pushed to loan to anyone, as long as they could breathe.

And by the way, that family member just happened to be a lifelong staunch, union loving Dem.

You claim it is your profession. Well, I have a family member that was in the professional career as well, since retired, in state and then community banking. He watched the rate of closure of small banks happen over and over, as the regulations made it next to impossible to lend and to comply with the onerous paperwork and increased costs of compliance. Small businesses suffered because the community banks had a harder time lending to them even though they had successful loans with them previously. I could go on and on. Rather than help small banks, it created bigger and bigger big banks.

View attachment 189982
They could not get lending themselves. Audits were constant and even the very slightest variation brought feds and big fines down on them.

They are not one sided-
Dodd-Frank, Community Bank Decline, And The Effect On U.S. Cities And Towns
Harvard Study Confirms Dodd-Frank's Harm to Main Street
The State and Fate of Community Banking
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/d...cbg/files/Final_State_and_Fate_Lux_Greene.pdf

demonstrate that Frank Dodd and Acorn didn't drive the market down the drain. Yep, there are plenty of links. to show how they acted and caused this shit

You're going to obediently believe the one-sided talking points.

I know what actually happened.
.

You're invited to comment on my list of specifics, too.
.

This has nothing to do with my points about what actually caused the meltdown. None of it addresses what happened in the runup to the Meltdown. NONE of it. Just the standard "it's all the regulations" stuff.

So far, no one has provided comment on the facts I have provided. No one has demonstrated a knowledge or understanding of how the pieces worked together. All I'm getting is deflection and party line. That's pretty telling.

If you folks don't know how CMOs and CDOs were constructed - out of thin air, with no regulations - how these shitbag "securities" (ha) were magically given Treasury-level ratings by Standard & Poors et al, how the very banks that were selling them were also shorting them knowing they were shit - even as it was all collapsing, how AIG was selling swaps on the shit with zero reserve requirements, that the mortgage and finance industries were in complete cahoots, knowingly and gleefully creating comically shit mortgages and packaging them into CMOs and (even worse) CDOs for massive fees, that the regulators (ha), especially Greenspan, aggressively refused to regulate ANY of it, on and on - fine. No problem. But let's not pretend, then, that you have (or even want) a full grasp of what happened.

I know that Fannie & Freddie played a part. I know that Frank was clearly oblivious to what was happening, and then after the fact tried to play the victimized hero. He's a politician, that's what they do. But to ignore the rest of the story is just absolutely ridiculous. The reason for this, of course, is obvious: The GOP wants to hang the Meltdown entire on the Dems. Come on.

And by the way, yes, the net result of what was done to stop the crash was larger, more powerful, more influential banks. I'm a proponent of reviving Glass Steagall so that this is no longer the case, and so that smaller banks can survive, compete and thrive.
..

 

[AntonToo]

So that you can become just a bit smarter before spewing........consider this


The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks | Money

How much of America do foreigners really own? - MarketWatch

Say, aren't the richest 1% of Americans the Communist Oligarchs like Marc Zuckerberg and Tim Cook, who you want to rule the nation?

Hearing you Stalinists spew hatred at the "rich" is surreal, given that the radical left is literally owned by the Silicone Valley Oligarchs and the Soros International Communist Cabal.

Seriously, Standard Oil was a mom & pop organization compared to Apple or Facebook - both run by dedicated Marxists. U.S. Steel never dreamed of having the power to utterly silence dissent the way Twitter and YouTube routinely do.

Going after the obscenely rich means going after your own, Comrade gnat.

Facts are not hinged on any emotions last I checked.

Doesn't matter what you FEEL about it, The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks or they don't.

Either the top 1% are primarily Marxist or they are not, Comrade.

Zuckerberg
Bezos
Soros
Cook
Hoyer
Gates
Balmer
Brin
Glass
Musk
Buffett
Elison
Geffen
Winfrey




What is it you Stalinists call your ruling Oligarchs? The "Masters of the Universe," isn't it?

How does that change facts?

And idiot, they are capitalists.

and idiot they are cronie capitalists.

You just don't happen to like their politics so have to tag them with some bullshit.

Most of the people you just listed SHAPED WORLD ECONOMY and how you function day in and out.

 

[sparky]

Dodd Frank was another grand whitewash.

Frank served under Clinton & was a huge advocate of rescinding Glass Steagal , 20 yrs later when that bubble burst they make him chair of the banking commish

classic fox henhouse


~S~

 

[sparky]

Say, aren't the richest 1% of Americans the Communist Oligarchs like Marc Zuckerberg and Tim Cook, who you want to rule the nation?

Hearing you Stalinists spew hatred at the "rich" is surreal, given that the radical left is literally owned by the Silicone Valley Oligarchs and the Soros International Communist Cabal.

Seriously, Standard Oil was a mom & pop organization compared to Apple or Facebook - both run by dedicated Marxists. U.S. Steel never dreamed of having the power to utterly silence dissent the way Twitter and YouTube routinely do.

Going after the obscenely rich means going after your own, Comrade gnat.

Facts are not hinged on any emotions last I checked.

Doesn't matter what you FEEL about it, The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks or they don't.

Either the top 1% are primarily Marxist or they are not, Comrade.

Zuckerberg
Bezos
Soros
Cook
Hoyer
Gates
Balmer
Brin
Glass
Musk
Buffett
Elison
Geffen
Winfrey




What is it you Stalinists call your ruling Oligarchs? The "Masters of the Universe," isn't it?

How does that change facts?

And idiot, they are capitalists.

and idiot they are cronie capitalists.

You just don't happen to like their politics so have to tag them with some bullshit.

Most of the people you just listed SHAPED WORLD ECONOMY and how you function day in and out.

Yeah, and now they're sucking the life outta it.....~S~

 

[AntonToo]

Facts are not hinged on any emotions last I checked.

Doesn't matter what you FEEL about it, The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks or they don't.

Either the top 1% are primarily Marxist or they are not, Comrade.

Zuckerberg
Bezos
Soros
Cook
Hoyer
Gates
Balmer
Brin
Glass
Musk
Buffett
Elison
Geffen
Winfrey




What is it you Stalinists call your ruling Oligarchs? The "Masters of the Universe," isn't it?

How does that change facts?

And idiot, they are capitalists.

and idiot they are cronie capitalists.

You just don't happen to like their politics so have to tag them with some bullshit.

Most of the people you just listed SHAPED WORLD ECONOMY and how you function day in and out.

Yeah, and now they're sucking the life outta it.....~S~

It's not their fault we-the-people refuse to tax them as they themselves say they ought to be.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

demonstrate that Frank Dodd and Acorn didn't drive the market down the drain. Yep, there are plenty of links. to show how they acted and caused this shit

You're going to obediently believe the one-sided talking points.

I know what actually happened.
.

Why don't you tell me what impact the subprime mandates for Fannie and Freddie had on the housing market?

It indirectly caused them to add more subprime mortgages to their portfolio than they would have wanted, primarily because they wanted to keep up with the competition. They even loaded up on those shitbag derivatives that I mentioned earlier to take some risk off of their balance sheets. Hey, why not, those derivatives were AAA, right?

In short, they ended up behaving much like the banks, by hedging their bets with pure unbacked shit. If those shitbag unregulated derivatives had not been available to them, if the ratings agencies had been better regulated, if AIG had not been spraying unregulated credit default swaps around the planet like candy, Fannie and Freddie wouldn't have ended up the way they did.

I'm glad you asked.
.

It indirectly caused them to add more subprime mortgages to their portfolio than they would have wanted,

Before the mandate, they didn't want ANY subprime mortgages.

It directly caused them to add subprime mortgages to their portfolio. Up to 55% of total purchases, at the end.

Better.

They even loaded up on those shitbag derivatives that I mentioned earlier to take some risk off of their balance sheets.

Yeah, those mandates forced them to make lots of stupid purchases.
And that's in addition to the damage mandates did to the commercial banks.

In short, they ended up behaving much like the banks, by hedging their bets with pure unbacked shit.

Are you sure they bought hedges?
I thought the shitbag derivatives they bought were to increase their exposure to the mortgage market,
not hedge their exposure.

Fannie and Freddie wouldn't have ended up the way they did.

How much in subprime mortgages did they end up with? Couple of trillion?

They both bought credit default swaps to hedge their positions. The same credit default swaps that weren't requiring any reserves to sell.

Fannie & Freddie were just a part of this. Most of it is being ignored, because it doesn't follow the narrative.
.

They both bought credit default swaps to hedge their positions.

I've never seen the claim that Fannie and Freddie did that.
You have any articles?
I know they bought interest rate swaps.
And private label MBS.

 

[Mac1958]

I agree with you. But I t seems to me you only want to talk about your points and no others. And how this is considered a gop talking point is beyond me. It was part of the whole, no matter the party you support. No, I want to hang it where it happened. There are more points than simply what you wished to blame it on. Your denial Dodd Frank didn’t make it worse, was hogwash.

Look at what I wrote in post 240: "I know that Fannie & Freddie played a part. I know that Frank was clearly oblivious to what was happening, and then after the fact tried to play the victimized hero. He's a politician, that's what they do."

And Dodd/Frank was signed in 2010, long after what I describe brought us down.

This is political. It's blame the Democrats. Since I'm not ideological, I often let myself get sucked into conversations that are not serious. Like the one I've been trying to have in this thread.
.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You claim it is your profession. Well, I have a family member that was in the professional career as well, since retired, in state and then community banking. He watched the rate of closure of small banks happen over and over, as the regulations made it next to impossible to lend and to comply with the onerous paperwork and increased costs of compliance. Small businesses suffered because the community banks had a harder time lending to them even though they had successful loans with them previously. I could go on and on. Rather than help small banks, it created bigger and bigger big banks.

View attachment 189982
They could not get lending themselves. Audits were constant and even the very slightest variation brought feds and big fines down on them.

They are not one sided-
Dodd-Frank, Community Bank Decline, And The Effect On U.S. Cities And Towns
Harvard Study Confirms Dodd-Frank's Harm to Main Street
The State and Fate of Community Banking
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/d...cbg/files/Final_State_and_Fate_Lux_Greene.pdf

demonstrate that Frank Dodd and Acorn didn't drive the market down the drain. Yep, there are plenty of links. to show how they acted and caused this shit

You're going to obediently believe the one-sided talking points.

I know what actually happened.
.

You're invited to comment on my list of specifics, too.
.

This has nothing to do with my points about what actually caused the meltdown. None of it addresses what happened in the runup to the Meltdown. NONE of it. Just the standard "it's all the regulations" stuff.

So far, no one has provided comment on the facts I have provided. No one has demonstrated a knowledge or understanding of how the pieces worked together. All I'm getting is deflection and party line. That's pretty telling.

If you folks don't know how CMOs and CDOs were constructed - out of thin air, with no regulations - how these shitbag "securities" (ha) were magically given Treasury-level ratings by Standard & Poors et al, how the very banks that were selling them were also shorting them knowing they were shit - even as it was all collapsing, how AIG was selling swaps on the shit with zero reserve requirements, that the mortgage and finance industries were in complete cahoots, knowingly and gleefully creating comically shit mortgages and packaging them into CMOs and (even worse) CDOs for massive fees, that the regulators (ha), especially Greenspan, aggressively refused to regulate ANY of it, on and on - fine. No problem. But let's not pretend, then, that you have (or even want) a full grasp of what happened.

I know that Fannie & Freddie played a part. I know that Frank was clearly oblivious to what was happening, and then after the fact tried to play the victimized hero. He's a politician, that's what they do. But to ignore the rest of the story is just absolutely ridiculous. The reason for this, of course, is obvious: The GOP wants to hang the Meltdown entire on the Dems. Come on.

And by the way, yes, the net result of what was done to stop the crash was larger, more powerful, more influential banks. I'm a proponent of reviving Glass Steagall so that this is no longer the case, and so that smaller banks can survive, compete and thrive.
..

If you folks don't know how CMOs and CDOs were constructed - out of thin air, with no regulations - how these shitbag "securities" (ha) were magically given Treasury-level ratings by Standard & Poors et al, how the very banks that were selling them were also shorting them knowing they were shit

They created some, but not a lot, synthetic CMOs and CDOs.
Most CMOs and CDOs were not synthetic.
And they weren't ALSO shorting them.
When you sell a synthetic security you are, by definition, now short that security.
Unless they also went out and found a customer to take that short (like GS did with Abacus).

 

[Mac1958]

You claim it is your profession. Well, I have a family member that was in the professional career as well, since retired, in state and then community banking. He watched the rate of closure of small banks happen over and over, as the regulations made it next to impossible to lend and to comply with the onerous paperwork and increased costs of compliance. Small businesses suffered because the community banks had a harder time lending to them even though they had successful loans with them previously. I could go on and on. Rather than help small banks, it created bigger and bigger big banks.

View attachment 189982
They could not get lending themselves. Audits were constant and even the very slightest variation brought feds and big fines down on them.

They are not one sided-
Dodd-Frank, Community Bank Decline, And The Effect On U.S. Cities And Towns
Harvard Study Confirms Dodd-Frank's Harm to Main Street
The State and Fate of Community Banking
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/d...cbg/files/Final_State_and_Fate_Lux_Greene.pdf

You're going to obediently believe the one-sided talking points.

I know what actually happened.
.

You're invited to comment on my list of specifics, too.
.

This has nothing to do with my points about what actually caused the meltdown. None of it addresses what happened in the runup to the Meltdown. NONE of it. Just the standard "it's all the regulations" stuff.

So far, no one has provided comment on the facts I have provided. No one has demonstrated a knowledge or understanding of how the pieces worked together. All I'm getting is deflection and party line. That's pretty telling.

If you folks don't know how CMOs and CDOs were constructed - out of thin air, with no regulations - how these shitbag "securities" (ha) were magically given Treasury-level ratings by Standard & Poors et al, how the very banks that were selling them were also shorting them knowing they were shit - even as it was all collapsing, how AIG was selling swaps on the shit with zero reserve requirements, that the mortgage and finance industries were in complete cahoots, knowingly and gleefully creating comically shit mortgages and packaging them into CMOs and (even worse) CDOs for massive fees, that the regulators (ha), especially Greenspan, aggressively refused to regulate ANY of it, on and on - fine. No problem. But let's not pretend, then, that you have (or even want) a full grasp of what happened.

I know that Fannie & Freddie played a part. I know that Frank was clearly oblivious to what was happening, and then after the fact tried to play the victimized hero. He's a politician, that's what they do. But to ignore the rest of the story is just absolutely ridiculous. The reason for this, of course, is obvious: The GOP wants to hang the Meltdown entire on the Dems. Come on.

And by the way, yes, the net result of what was done to stop the crash was larger, more powerful, more influential banks. I'm a proponent of reviving Glass Steagall so that this is no longer the case, and so that smaller banks can survive, compete and thrive.
..

If you folks don't know how CMOs and CDOs were constructed - out of thin air, with no regulations - how these shitbag "securities" (ha) were magically given Treasury-level ratings by Standard & Poors et al, how the very banks that were selling them were also shorting them knowing they were shit

They created some, but not a lot, synthetic CMOs and CDOs.
Most CMOs and CDOs were not synthetic.
And they weren't ALSO shorting them.
When you sell a synthetic security you are, by definition, now short that security.
Unless they also went out and found a customer to take that short (like GS did with Abacus).

Great! Thanks! We can even disagree with the fact that the banks were creating products designed to fail, (1) Morgan Stanley sued over alleged CDO fraud, (2) Banks That Bundled Bad Debt Also Bet Against It

I'm sure you understand that the long list of specific examples I have provided played a significant role in the Meltdown.

Or it was all just the Democrats' fault, whichever.
.