FACTS on Dubya's great recession

[Dad2three]

Maybe you find the facts on the Dear wonderful leader Obambam great recession

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/361483-headed-for-a-recession.html#post9326126

"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

Reagan GDP dipped 5 times in 3 years. AND?

I am glad you mentioned GDP.

America’s economy has not shrunk since Q2 of 2009. Yet, if the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates of just 1.4% real GDP growth this year prove true, America will have experienced its worst four consecutive growth years of GDP in the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ data going back to 1930.

Looking at the economy in 10-year increments starting from 1948 (when declines from wartime spending had ended), averaging GDP’s annual growth percentage shows the following:

Even if 2008 (-0.3%) and 2009’s (-3.1%) negative annual GDP percentages are dropped (something undone for the other periods) and only the 2010-13 period is averaged, the result is just 1.95% – still over a full percentage point below the previous decade’s.

Yes, Dubya/GOP left US in a DEEP and wide hole and the GOP has worked against getting US out of it since Jan 20, 2009


Under George Bush GDP growth was an average 1.67 percent.

real GDP growth per capita during Bush's eight-year term averaged just 1.1 percent. That's way worse than under Clinton or Reagan or even Jimmy Carter.

Economic growth under George W. Bush was pretty lousy.


The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.



In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


NOW WHICH GROUP WAS CORRECT? LOL

 

[Dad2three]

I am glad you mentioned GDP.

Right. Trying to recover from the worst recession since the great depression. Suggestions???

OMG of course!! Eliminate corporate taxes so our corps will move back here. THe highest taxes rate in the world make it mandatory to move out. Thats another great liberal policy!!
Capitalism would have recovered economy in a year or less.

RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS (ON US PROFITS)...


Yeah, taxes are driving them offshore *shaking head*


Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.


When looking at the rate that corporations actually pay (as opposed to the statutory rate that only exists on paper), the U.S. has the second-lowest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and raises far less than other nations in corporate tax revenue.


Warren Buffett: 'It Is A Myth' That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High | ThinkProgress



Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP

1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High

'corporate profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of the economy, wages are at an all-time low.'

'Last year, corporations made a record $824 billion, which didn’t stop conservatives from continually claiming that President Obama is anti-business.'
Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High | ThinkProgress

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent,

yes and to avoid the highest tax rate in the world, and pay 12%,our corporations must move offshore taking jobs money patents etc with them. Its not an issue in dispute. They tell us why they are moving. Ireland had lowest taxes and virtually every major corp. opened there!

Do you understand now.

 

[Dad2three]

So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent,

yes and to avoid the highest tax rate in the world, and pay 12%,our corporations must move offshore taking jobs money patents etc with them. Its not an issue in dispute. They tell us why they are moving. Ireland had lowest taxes and virtually every major corp. opened there!

Do you understand now.

You fukking dumbass, it's 12% ON US PROFITS!

Corp tax MYTH

U.S. businesses might face the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but what they pay isn't nearly as bad in comparison to other countries (and Obama has proposed, and the party of no turned him down, lowering the top rate from 35% to 28% and getting rid of loopholes! )



The corporate tax myth

U.S. corporate tax collections totaled only 1.7% of GDP in 2009, the most recent year for which complete data is available, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

On that measure, the United States had the third lowest corporate tax burden, behind France and Germany. The worldwide average was 2.8%.


U.S. businesses have another edge over countries with lower tax rates: They don't pay a Value Added Tax or VAT, a type of sales tax.

All other developed nations raise a significant part of their tax revenue through VATs, but it is not included in the comparisons of corporate tax collections.


The corporate tax myth - Feb. 23, 2012

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

Are you high or stupid? The Real Estate bubble was seen as a consequence back in 2001. It started before that.

This was seen long before 2004. It was being pumped before then. That's not when it started. You're foolish, kid.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

9/6/2001.

You're stupid, kid.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You fukking dumbass, it's 12% ON US PROFITS!

yes and to get the 12% rather than 35% you move most of your operations and taxable income offshore! Moreover, you keep your profits off shore rather than repatriate them and pay an additional tax on them.

Do you understand now?

The marginal effective tax rate (METR) on corporate investment (i.e., the tax impact on capital investment as a portion of the cost of capital) is 35.3 percent in the U.S.—higher than in any other developed country.
The U.S. has maintained the highest METR in the OECD since 2007, when Canada’s multiyear program of corporate tax reform brought its METR below the G-7 average.
Nonetheless, the White House and Treasury Department continue to assert that the U.S. has a lower METR than Canada by failing to properly account for sales and property taxes.
The U.S. METR varies by industry, from 26.7 percent for transportation to 39.3 percent for communications.
The U.S. average effective tax rate on corporations (AETR) is irregular from year to year due to the complexity and instability of the corporate tax code.
Excessively high U.S. corporate tax rates have shrunk the U.S. corporate sector and reduced corporate tax revenues.

 

[Dad2three]

Are you high or stupid? The Real Estate bubble was seen as a consequence back in 2001. It started before that.

This was seen long before 2004. It was being pumped before then. That's not when it started. You're foolish, kid.

SERIOUSLY? You don't know what happened?


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

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%



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%


http://www.responsiblelending.org/m...resources/snapshot-of-the-subprime-market.pdf



Subprime

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're stupid, kid. The real estate bubble came off the heels of the NASDAQ bubble. This was seen back in 2001, and even earlier. It was seen because it was happening back then. I gave you a congressman who told the floor EXACTLY how it was going to happen and why. You can ignore it all you like, but you're wrong about HOW, WHEN and even WHAT the real estate bubble was.

 

[Dad2three]

You fukking dumbass, it's 12% ON US PROFITS!

yes and to get the 12% rather than 35% you move most of your operations and taxable income offshore! Moreover, you keep your profits off shore rather than repatriate them and pay an additional tax on them.

Do you understand now?

MORE bullshit from you. I'm shocked

SEE WHERE THE PROFITS ARE MADE? USA. Yes, conservative policy allowed them to offshore production (race to the bottom) WHILE gutting the tax burden on them. Grow a brain Bubba!

 

[Dad2three]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KONpt9a6HrI


9/6/2001.

You're stupid, kid.

Cool, and? What does THAT have to do with the Dubya subprime bubble? The one where Bush admin and the fed said as late as 2005, there wasn't a bubble?



Paul huh? When will we see that runaway inflation he's been predicting for a decade? lol

Predict enough CRAP, some will bound to be true. We probably had a R/E bubble in 2001, it was NOTHING compared to Dubya's subprime bubble

2000 ended with total mortgage origination's at $1 trillion a year, by 2004 Dubya pushed it to $4 trillion

Household debt more than doubled under Dubya. HMM

 

[Dad2three]

You're stupid, kid. The real estate bubble came off the heels of the NASDAQ bubble. This was seen back in 2001, and even earlier. It was seen because it was happening back then. I gave you a congressman who told the floor EXACTLY how it was going to happen and why. You can ignore it all you like, but you're wrong about HOW, WHEN and even WHAT the real estate bubble was.

Got it, you don't know the difference in a R/E bubble versus Dubya's subprime bubble created by Dubya and his policies

I know it was Clinton/Dems fault right?


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 (BUUSSSHHHH) Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008

 

[TakeAStepBack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KONpt9a6HrI


9/6/2001.

You're stupid, kid.

Cool, and? What does THAT have to do with the Dubya subprime bubble? The one where Bush admin and the fed said as late as 2005, there wasn't a bubble?



Paul huh? When will we see that runaway inflation he's been predicting for a decade? lol

Predict enough CRAP, some will bound to be true. We probably had a R/E bubble in 2001, it was NOTHING compared to Dubya's subprime bubble

2000 ended with total mortgage origination's at $1 trillion a year, by 2004 Dubya pushed it to $4 trillion

Household debt more than doubled under Dubya. HMM

Cool. and? You're fuckin' brain dead, dude. And? And how did Paul warn of the pending real estate bubble burst in 2001 if it didn't start until 2004?

YOu're fucking brain dead. Good day, loser.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're stupid, kid. The real estate bubble came off the heels of the NASDAQ bubble. This was seen back in 2001, and even earlier. It was seen because it was happening back then. I gave you a congressman who told the floor EXACTLY how it was going to happen and why. You can ignore it all you like, but you're wrong about HOW, WHEN and even WHAT the real estate bubble was.

Got it, you don't know the difference in a R/E bubble versus Dubya's subprime bubble created by Dubya and his policies

I know it was Clinton/Dems fault right?


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 (BUUSSSHHHH) Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008

 

[TakeAStepBack]

9/6/2001

The GSEs, made up of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Bank, have managed to keep the housing market afloat, in contrast to the more logical slowdown in hotel and office construction. This spending through the GSEs has also served as a vehicle for consumption spending. This should be no surprise, considering the special status that GSEs enjoy, since their implied line of credit to the US Treasury keeps interest rates artificially low. The Clinton administration encouraged growth in housing loans that were financed through this system.

In addition, the Federal Reserve treats GSE securities with special consideration. Ever since the fall of 1999, the Fed has monetized GSE securities, just as if they were US Treasury bills. This message has not been lost by foreign central banks, which took their cue from the Fed and now hold more than $130 billion of United States GSE securities. The Fed holds only $20 billion worth, but the implication is clear. Not only will the Treasury loan to the GSEs if necessary, since the line of credit is already in place, but, if necessary, Congress will surely accommodate with appropriations as well, just as it did during the Savings and Loan crisis. But the Fed has indicated to the world that the GSEs are equivalent to US Treasury bills, and foreign central banks have enthusiastically accommodated, sometimes by purchasing more than $10 billion of these securities in one week alone. They are merely recycling the dollars we so generously print and spend overseas.

After the NASDAQ collapsed last year, the flow of funds into real estate accelerated. The GSEs accommodated by borrowing without restraint to subsidize new mortgages, record sales and refinancing. It’s no wonder the price of houses are rising to record levels.

There you go. I went ahead and spelled it out for you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered:

a trigger is a small part of a gun. Someone who thinks Fed Fan Fred did not play a huge role are not bright enough to be worth talking to.

 

[Dad2three]

You're stupid, kid. The real estate bubble came off the heels of the NASDAQ bubble. This was seen back in 2001, and even earlier. It was seen because it was happening back then. I gave you a congressman who told the floor EXACTLY how it was going to happen and why. You can ignore it all you like, but you're wrong about HOW, WHEN and even WHAT the real estate bubble was.

So you don't understand Paul was blaming Clinton, when CLEARLY the fault was loans that happened 2004-2007? AND he blamed GSE's whose loans performed 4 1/2 times better than wall street created loans? lol

As with the growth in PLS outstanding, the volume of subprime and Alt - A mortgage origination increased most dramatically in the middle of the decade. Combined annual subprime and Alt -A origination grew from an estimated $171 billion in 2002 to $877 billion in 2005, an annualized growth rate of 72%.






In 2000, securitization vehicles (entities classified as asset
-backed security issuers and finance companies by the Federal Reserve) financed $572 billion in residential mortgages, equal to nearly 12% of all household mortgage debt outstanding. By the end of 2006, the volume of outstanding mortgages financed by PLS had grown to over $2.6 trillion, or more than 27% of all residential mortgage debt. The most explosive growth occurred in 2004 and 2005 when the outstanding mortgage debt financed by PLS increased by 49% and 44% respectively.


It is important to note that these growth rates reflect net annual changes in total mortgage debt; when refinancings of existing PLS - funded mortgages are included, the growth rates on gross PLS issuance during these years exceed 90%



http://business.gwu.edu/creua/research-papers/files/fannie-freddie.pdf


Paul, like ALL libertarians, is a loon...

 

[Dad2three]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KONpt9a6HrI


9/6/2001.

You're stupid, kid.

Cool, and? What does THAT have to do with the Dubya subprime bubble? The one where Bush admin and the fed said as late as 2005, there wasn't a bubble?



Paul huh? When will we see that runaway inflation he's been predicting for a decade? lol

Predict enough CRAP, some will bound to be true. We probably had a R/E bubble in 2001, it was NOTHING compared to Dubya's subprime bubble

2000 ended with total mortgage origination's at $1 trillion a year, by 2004 Dubya pushed it to $4 trillion

Household debt more than doubled under Dubya. HMM

Cool. and? You're fuckin' brain dead, dude. And? And how did Paul warn of the pending real estate bubble burst in 2001 if it didn't start until 2004?

YOu're fucking brain dead. Good day, loser.

You mean Paul said the GSE's and Clinton years created a bubble BECAUSE of the federal reserve BS? LOL

No, his entire premise has been debunked, over and over!

WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. That the US problem too? lol

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You can call him a loon all you want, he was 100% correct and knew what was happening while morons like Krugman were pushing for a real estate bubble due to moribund investments. Regardless of that, the real estate bubble was pumped, as explained by Paul, when the NASDAQ bubble burst. That was 2000-2001. THAT is when the bubble was being pushed to the danger point, as was warned. And less than 5 years later it came true with 100% accuracy on why by Paul.

But anyone who isn't fucking retarded, must be a loon.





I'm done with you now, shit stain. You've proven to be too stupid to debate this issue with. Toro proved it before, I just did it again and yet you persist. You're insane.

 

[Dad2three]

9/6/2001

The GSEs, made up of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Bank, have managed to keep the housing market afloat, in contrast to the more logical slowdown in hotel and office construction. This spending through the GSEs has also served as a vehicle for consumption spending. This should be no surprise, considering the special status that GSEs enjoy, since their implied line of credit to the US Treasury keeps interest rates artificially low. The Clinton administration encouraged growth in housing loans that were financed through this system.

In addition, the Federal Reserve treats GSE securities with special consideration. Ever since the fall of 1999, the Fed has monetized GSE securities, just as if they were US Treasury bills. This message has not been lost by foreign central banks, which took their cue from the Fed and now hold more than $130 billion of United States GSE securities. The Fed holds only $20 billion worth, but the implication is clear. Not only will the Treasury loan to the GSEs if necessary, since the line of credit is already in place, but, if necessary, Congress will surely accommodate with appropriations as well, just as it did during the Savings and Loan crisis. But the Fed has indicated to the world that the GSEs are equivalent to US Treasury bills, and foreign central banks have enthusiastically accommodated, sometimes by purchasing more than $10 billion of these securities in one week alone. They are merely recycling the dollars we so generously print and spend overseas.

After the NASDAQ collapsed last year, the flow of funds into real estate accelerated. The GSEs accommodated by borrowing without restraint to subsidize new mortgages, record sales and refinancing. It’s no wonder the price of houses are rising to record levels.

There you go. I went ahead and spelled it out for you.

Cool AND:


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


Q Why is it commonly called the “subprime bubble” ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)

“Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006.


https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf