OK, I'll admit it, our friends on the left are correct; there IS a catch to the Trump tax cuts

[Papageorgio]

You don't understand the difference between income and gift.

If you hire your neighbor, he is working for you and creating income for himself. If your father has a car, and he buys another one and gives his old car to you, that is a gift and should not be taxed.

Arent the exemptions non taxable for gifts to children capped at 14k for each parent 28 for both?

That I'm not sure of. I always paid for my own cars. But if if there is taxation on it, that's completely wrong. Government is getting too involved in our family life.

You are allowed 14k from each parent to each child tax free Been doing it under the direction of my CPA for years

Actually, you are allowed to gift without being taxed $14k to as many people you want, each year

Didn't know that just did it for my children

That’s cool, glad to hear you are taking advantage of tax avoidance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not going through that again for the nth time.. meanwhile back at the thread, the great majority of the tax cuts are going to the incredibly bloated rich and giant corporations who don't need them after 35 years of Pander to the rich GOP tax rates. The middle and working classes need big help for a change, along with our infrastructure and services... And no, dupes, I'm not talking about the lowest victims on welfare... That's okay, though they too could use cheaper education and Training so they could get some jobs...

the great majority of the tax cuts are going to the incredibly bloated rich and giant corporations

Fuckin' A!

 

[GWV5903]

Here's the original exchange, note the only topic I have is Inheritance Tax...

Did I say all those that inherit money are spoiled rich deadbeats? No, but enough are and there's no reason to not tax inheritance.

Any Inheritance Tax that is imposed is a minimum of Double Taxation, in other words it's called stealing...

Below you followed up with your money changing hands excuse...

Money generally gets taxed by income tax whenever it changes hands, like if you use your taxed wages to buy a bagel. The bagel salesman pays tax on his profit. Is that stealing, too?

And here below in bold, italicized and underlined is the full text that you tried to use to support your lie, in the proper perspective, your terrible at this, stick with tiddlywinks...

Your stupid explanation that the money changes hands is the reason of merit to tax it again, I would urge you to remove your head from that pile of shit surrounding it or commit harikari, both will have the same affect...

Right here, dumbass:

Your stupid explanation that the money changes hands is the reason of merit to tax it

That's income taxation in general. That's how income taxation generally works: money gets taxed when it changes hands. That's because money comes in when it changes hands, hence, income. If you think that's stupid, that's a statement against income taxation in general. But I realize someone as stupid as you might be unable to figure it out.

You suck at this, grow up, maybe you should stick to the children boards...

If I get my paycheck & put it in the bank it has been taxed.

If I then hire my neighbor to paint my house & write him a check, he pays income tax on that money with was already taxed.

Your double taxation argument is stupid.

It's Inheritance Tax, not common income tax...

 

[francoHFW]

Here's the original exchange, note the only topic I have is Inheritance Tax...

Did I say all those that inherit money are spoiled rich deadbeats? No, but enough are and there's no reason to not tax inheritance.

Any Inheritance Tax that is imposed is a minimum of Double Taxation, in other words it's called stealing...

Below you followed up with your money changing hands excuse...

Money generally gets taxed by income tax whenever it changes hands, like if you use your taxed wages to buy a bagel. The bagel salesman pays tax on his profit. Is that stealing, too?

And here below in bold, italicized and underlined is the full text that you tried to use to support your lie, in the proper perspective, your terrible at this, stick with tiddlywinks...

Your stupid explanation that the money changes hands is the reason of merit to tax it again, I would urge you to remove your head from that pile of shit surrounding it or commit harikari, both will have the same affect...

Right here, dumbass:

Your stupid explanation that the money changes hands is the reason of merit to tax it

That's income taxation in general. That's how income taxation generally works: money gets taxed when it changes hands. That's because money comes in when it changes hands, hence, income. If you think that's stupid, that's a statement against income taxation in general. But I realize someone as stupid as you might be unable to figure it out.

You suck at this, grow up, maybe you should stick to the children boards...

If I get my paycheck & put it in the bank it has been taxed.

If I then hire my neighbor to paint my house & write him a check, he pays income tax on that money with was already taxed.

Your double taxation argument is stupid.

It's Inheritance Tax, not common income tax...

And the dupes can't talk about anything but federal income tax... So stupid... Breaking... If you count all taxes and fees, everyone is paying between about 20% and 30%, with all the new wealth ending up with the mega rich. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes... That's for 35 years now.

 

[Papageorgio]

Taxes before the war were 15%. To pay for the WWI they were increased to 67% and 77%. After seven years of "paying for the war", taxes were dropped to 25%.

You say that caused the Great Depression that started four years after taxes were dropped. True or false?

It did not help but that's the way it goes in let's have a bubble GOP eras. The main problem was allowing Wall Street to sell stocks with only 10% margin down. Ridiculous capitalist idiocy... Much like 2008... And you dupes blame Fannie and Freddie when Fannie and Freddie lost two-thirds of the market and it was all about private financial institutions and their Pals in the GOP letting them run wild...

Fannie and Freddie lost two-thirds of the market and it was all about private financial institutions

How many billions in subprime mortgages did Fannie and Freddie hold?

Not as much as the private institutions that had 75% of the market by 2003 already, when Fannie and Freddie had 75% of the market a year or two before. Welcome to the Real World, Dupe.

Not as much as the private institutions

So how many billions?

Eat s*** and die number of billions, ignoramus. Look it up yourself. Do you have a computer or smartphone I'm not your God damn mother LOL. Change the channel and read something.

Sorry but you make up stuff all the time and then when called out, you get ticked because we ask for you to back it up. Your response lends me to the belief you can’t back up what you claimed. It’s cool though as this is what we have all come to expect by a hater dupe.

 

[bgrouse]

By getting the fruits of the labor of all the people who worked to build the home and the yacht. The government could have used its money to direct them to construct smaller homes for themselves instead. That way, the workers benefit from their work rather than benefiting some rich, worthless orange fuck like Trump.

You think that government job is to direct what to build, where, how big and with someone else money.

Where are you from originally, Soviet Union or Cuba?

...a place where they teach how American income taxation works, apparently, given how most of the retards arguing against me don't know and I do. Where are you assholes from given that you don't know?

 

[bgrouse]

...then that would, according to your requirements, satisfy the title being in the father's name. Since Donald didn't pay for it, it can't be Donald's. He would have to pay for it first.

Not if it was given to him as a gift. His father (as owner of said property) is passing such title to his son and that's between father and son--not father and government.

Besides, where did his father get it? Did he pay for it? Did he get it legally?

And even if he did, what are you saying, that any money on which someone paid tax shouldn't ever be taxable again?

Not between family--no.

So if an employer chooses to adopt his employees, they shouldn't pay any taxes?

No because you are earning money working for your employer. My employers son works with us and yes, he gets taxed because he is getting paid to do a job--also known as income.

But even unearned income is income, not just what is "earned" from a "job." We've been over this already.

It's funny watching you twist yourself into a pretzel to argue in favor of keeping rich kids from paying taxes on income they did nothing to get.

The way you're talking, a groom should be taxed on the wedding ring he gives his bride. You love the idea of Big Brother watching over our every move between family members so they can intrude and get theirs too!

Most parents work hard so that they can pass the rewards of their labor to their children. The reason we have it so good today is because every generation before us wanted to give the next generation a better life than they had. Today, it's wise for parents to start a college fund for their children before they even talk. But of course leaving this country in the hands of people like you, government would take their share of that money so their education would be limited.

They can pass it off anyway. I don't think anyone suggested a 100% tax on inheritance or gift income. Applying your reasoning, taxing it would make people work even harder since they'd have to earn more to pass off the same amount.

 

[bgrouse]

Here's the original exchange, note the only topic I have is Inheritance Tax...

Did I say all those that inherit money are spoiled rich deadbeats? No, but enough are and there's no reason to not tax inheritance.

Any Inheritance Tax that is imposed is a minimum of Double Taxation, in other words it's called stealing...

Below you followed up with your money changing hands excuse...

Money generally gets taxed by income tax whenever it changes hands, like if you use your taxed wages to buy a bagel. The bagel salesman pays tax on his profit. Is that stealing, too?

And here below in bold, italicized and underlined is the full text that you tried to use to support your lie, in the proper perspective, your terrible at this, stick with tiddlywinks...

Your stupid explanation that the money changes hands is the reason of merit to tax it again, I would urge you to remove your head from that pile of shit surrounding it or commit harikari, both will have the same affect...

Right here, dumbass:

Your stupid explanation that the money changes hands is the reason of merit to tax it

That's income taxation in general. That's how income taxation generally works: money gets taxed when it changes hands. That's because money comes in when it changes hands, hence, income. If you think that's stupid, that's a statement against income taxation in general. But I realize someone as stupid as you might be unable to figure it out.

You suck at this, grow up, maybe you should stick to the children boards...

Once again, the "excuse" you reference is precisely how pretty much all income is taxed: at the point where the money/wealth changes hands/title. So if you think that's a "stupid explanation" to tax income, then you'd be arguing against all income tax. The part that makes you stupid is that you're doing it without realizing it.

So you avoid the fact you misquoted me, then you try again to misquote my post, did you win the Dumb Dumb Award on a daily basis or hourly? I think I finally figured it out, you must be a Civil Servant, let me guess you work for the Treasury Department?

I'll tee your ass up for days at this pace, keep the Dumb Dumb reply's up...

I see my explanation of income taxation went over your head. OK, do what you do best, I guess. Keep talking about asses.

Here's the original exchange, note the only topic I have is Inheritance Tax...

Did I say all those that inherit money are spoiled rich deadbeats? No, but enough are and there's no reason to not tax inheritance.

Any Inheritance Tax that is imposed is a minimum of Double Taxation, in other words it's called stealing...

Below you followed up with your money changing hands excuse...

Money generally gets taxed by income tax whenever it changes hands, like if you use your taxed wages to buy a bagel. The bagel salesman pays tax on his profit. Is that stealing, too?

And here below in bold, italicized and underlined is the full text that you tried to use to support your lie, in the proper perspective, your terrible at this, stick with tiddlywinks...

Your stupid explanation that the money changes hands is the reason of merit to tax it again, I would urge you to remove your head from that pile of shit surrounding it or commit harikari, both will have the same affect...

Right here, dumbass:

Your stupid explanation that the money changes hands is the reason of merit to tax it

That's income taxation in general. That's how income taxation generally works: money gets taxed when it changes hands. That's because money comes in when it changes hands, hence, income. If you think that's stupid, that's a statement against income taxation in general. But I realize someone as stupid as you might be unable to figure it out.

You suck at this, grow up, maybe you should stick to the children boards...

If I get my paycheck & put it in the bank it has been taxed.

If I then hire my neighbor to paint my house & write him a check, he pays income tax on that money with was already taxed.

Your double taxation argument is stupid.

It's Inheritance Tax, not common income tax...

The "common income tax" you speak of is taxed precisely under the general premise you call "stupid," that being "money changes hands is the reason of merit to tax it again."

 

[francoHFW]

It did not help but that's the way it goes in let's have a bubble GOP eras. The main problem was allowing Wall Street to sell stocks with only 10% margin down. Ridiculous capitalist idiocy... Much like 2008... And you dupes blame Fannie and Freddie when Fannie and Freddie lost two-thirds of the market and it was all about private financial institutions and their Pals in the GOP letting them run wild...

Fannie and Freddie lost two-thirds of the market and it was all about private financial institutions

How many billions in subprime mortgages did Fannie and Freddie hold?

Not as much as the private institutions that had 75% of the market by 2003 already, when Fannie and Freddie had 75% of the market a year or two before. Welcome to the Real World, Dupe.

Not as much as the private institutions

So how many billions?

Eat s*** and die number of billions, ignoramus. Look it up yourself. Do you have a computer or smartphone I'm not your God damn mother LOL. Change the channel and read something.

Sorry but you make up stuff all the time and then when called out, you get ticked because we ask for you to back it up. Your response lends me to the belief you can’t back up what you claimed. It’s cool though as this is what we have all come to expect by a hater dupe.

I've given you the facts about Fannie and Freddie and the Meltdown a million times, from respectable media, and you just snap back every time to the same b*******. Look up brainwashed in the dictionary...

 

[GWV5903]

Here's the original exchange, note the only topic I have is Inheritance Tax...

Did I say all those that inherit money are spoiled rich deadbeats? No, but enough are and there's no reason to not tax inheritance.

Any Inheritance Tax that is imposed is a minimum of Double Taxation, in other words it's called stealing...

Below you followed up with your money changing hands excuse...

Money generally gets taxed by income tax whenever it changes hands, like if you use your taxed wages to buy a bagel. The bagel salesman pays tax on his profit. Is that stealing, too?

And here below in bold, italicized and underlined is the full text that you tried to use to support your lie, in the proper perspective, your terrible at this, stick with tiddlywinks...

Your stupid explanation that the money changes hands is the reason of merit to tax it again, I would urge you to remove your head from that pile of shit surrounding it or commit harikari, both will have the same affect...

Right here, dumbass:

Your stupid explanation that the money changes hands is the reason of merit to tax it

That's income taxation in general. That's how income taxation generally works: money gets taxed when it changes hands. That's because money comes in when it changes hands, hence, income. If you think that's stupid, that's a statement against income taxation in general. But I realize someone as stupid as you might be unable to figure it out.

You suck at this, grow up, maybe you should stick to the children boards...

If I get my paycheck & put it in the bank it has been taxed.

If I then hire my neighbor to paint my house & write him a check, he pays income tax on that money with was already taxed.

Your double taxation argument is stupid.

It's Inheritance Tax, not common income tax...

And the dupes can't talk about anything but federal income tax... So stupid... Breaking... If you count all taxes and fees, everyone is paying between about 20% and 30%, with all the new wealth ending up with the mega rich. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes... That's for 35 years now.

Yeah based on your lack of logic we should strive to be poor...

 

[bgrouse]

Anyway, it's pointless debating income tax with you idiots when you don't even know what income is. We have this idiot, Ray, who can't figure out what "income" is:

How about if you go for a walk and find money on the sidewalk and pick it up?

Why would that be taxable?

I didn't ask you if it was taxable, I asked you if it was income. You're the expert on the definition of "income," right? You tell me. Is it income?

Income is defined by the IRS and most importantly, by if it is taxable.

No, I don't think it's income. Even if the IRS said it was, who in the world would report finding cash???

The IRS did say so. And so did the courts.

Cesarini v. United States - Wikipedia

Between that and alimony, it sounds like you have no clue WTF you're talking about with your "capital or labor" bullshit. Those are just examples, as the definition indicates with its lack of commas. Even if you cherrypicked one definition of "income" from some dictionary that only listed labor and capital, it would just be cherrypicking. Everyone knows that "income" is basically "that which comes in" and generally wealth "comes in" when it changes hands/title. Just look at the damned word!

Followed by this genius who can't figure out that taxing inheritance as regular income to the recipient (the person getting the income) wouldn't tax an individual "multiply times" on the same money:

Did I say all those that inherit money are spoiled rich deadbeats? No, but enough are and there's no reason to not tax inheritance.

Any Inheritance Tax that is imposed is a minimum of Double Taxation, in other words it's called stealing...

Money generally gets taxed by income tax whenever it changes hands, like if you use your taxed wages to buy a bagel. The bagel salesman pays tax on his profit. Is that stealing, too?

If I leave my wife, children, niece or nephew what I have already earned, yes it's Double Taxation and it's stealing. If I am buying a good or services they are taxed, the difference is simple, I earned it and I am giving it to whom ever I want, I am not buying something. The Federal Government, State or Local has no business taxing an individual multiply times. Furthermore if it is such a just tax why not attach it to all monies instead of a select amount and higher?

And of course this jackass, who thinks income is only what you get from work or investments:

If you GET money from inheritance, it is income, just exempted from tax. Don't be an idiot.

I told him the same, don't be like bgrouse.

Someone said Trump got rich by working.

in·come
ˈinˌkəm/
noun

1. money received, for work or through investments.

Got it?

 

[Papageorgio]

Fannie and Freddie lost two-thirds of the market and it was all about private financial institutions

How many billions in subprime mortgages did Fannie and Freddie hold?

Not as much as the private institutions that had 75% of the market by 2003 already, when Fannie and Freddie had 75% of the market a year or two before. Welcome to the Real World, Dupe.

Not as much as the private institutions

So how many billions?

Eat s*** and die number of billions, ignoramus. Look it up yourself. Do you have a computer or smartphone I'm not your God damn mother LOL. Change the channel and read something.

Sorry but you make up stuff all the time and then when called out, you get ticked because we ask for you to back it up. Your response lends me to the belief you can’t back up what you claimed. It’s cool though as this is what we have all come to expect by a hater dupe.

I've given you the facts about Fannie and Freddie and the Meltdown a million times, from respectable media, and you just snap back every time to the same b*******. Look up brainwashed in the dictionary...

So you can’t back up your claim and want others to trust what you say. Lol! Sorry, someone that is as easily duped as you, I’m not taking their word for it. Biased sources don’t work for me and your dishonesty makes it all the worse. Sorry, you blew it on the trust issue. It’s all cool with me dupe.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They can pass it off anyway. I don't think anyone suggested a 100% tax on inheritance or gift income. Applying your reasoning, taxing it would make people work even harder since they'd have to earn more to pass off the same amount.

No, they would just have less to give to their children because the government got their grubby paws on it first.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We have this idiot, Ray, who can't figure out what "income" is:

And we have this Commie, Brouse, who believes government is more entitled to an Americans money than his family is.

 

[francoHFW]

Here's the original exchange, note the only topic I have is Inheritance Tax...

Did I say all those that inherit money are spoiled rich deadbeats? No, but enough are and there's no reason to not tax inheritance.

Any Inheritance Tax that is imposed is a minimum of Double Taxation, in other words it's called stealing...

Below you followed up with your money changing hands excuse...

Money generally gets taxed by income tax whenever it changes hands, like if you use your taxed wages to buy a bagel. The bagel salesman pays tax on his profit. Is that stealing, too?

And here below in bold, italicized and underlined is the full text that you tried to use to support your lie, in the proper perspective, your terrible at this, stick with tiddlywinks...

Your stupid explanation that the money changes hands is the reason of merit to tax it again, I would urge you to remove your head from that pile of shit surrounding it or commit harikari, both will have the same affect...

Right here, dumbass:

Your stupid explanation that the money changes hands is the reason of merit to tax it

That's income taxation in general. That's how income taxation generally works: money gets taxed when it changes hands. That's because money comes in when it changes hands, hence, income. If you think that's stupid, that's a statement against income taxation in general. But I realize someone as stupid as you might be unable to figure it out.

You suck at this, grow up, maybe you should stick to the children boards...

If I get my paycheck & put it in the bank it has been taxed.

If I then hire my neighbor to paint my house & write him a check, he pays income tax on that money with was already taxed.

Your double taxation argument is stupid.

It's Inheritance Tax, not common income tax...

And the dupes can't talk about anything but federal income tax... So stupid... Breaking... If you count all taxes and fees, everyone is paying between about 20% and 30%, with all the new wealth ending up with the mega rich. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes... That's for 35 years now.

Yeah based on your lack of logic we should strive to be poor...

Keep voting for ruining the middle class and working class, Dupe, and the big giveaway to the rich...

 

[francoHFW]

We have this idiot, Ray, who can't figure out what "income" is:

And we have this Commie, Brouse, who believes government is more entitled to an Americans money than his family is.

And the giant give away to the rich and giant corporations continues dupe....

 

[RealDave]

Funny how under Bush Worthy low income became anybody with a heartbeat... Fannie and Freddie lost two-thirds of their market share, and buddies of bush Regulators private financial institutions took over the market and gave us a world depression, great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes... They're probably at it again right now.

Who decides what is F&F market share?

You do know why they lost that market share, right?

Because of the Boom in BS Lending by chrony private lenders who are Pals of the GOP Regulators if you can call them that... D u h

I'm not surprised you know so little. That's why you vote D.

F&F were not regulated by GOP. In fact, every attempt to regulate them was rejected and blocked by the Dems.

The problem was never Fannie and Freddie, brainwashed functional s*******... It was the private lending organizations that sold mortgages to anyone even breathing. And they were rated A+... Your GOP Regulators are garbage. How many times do they have to wreck the country for you idiots to understand? See 1929, SNL Scandal in 1988 and many other times.

You heard that on CNN or?

Let's make it as simple is possible, so you can understand it.

Government wants to force banks to give mortgages, banks still reject that.
Government threaten to sue banks for redlining and discrimination, banks still reject it.
Government offers banks to buy their mortgages to minimize their risks, banks accept it.

F&F buys mortgages from the banks. Banks use money received from F&F to issue more mortgages.
In order for F&F to buy more mortgages from the banks they repackage previously bought mortgages (good and bad) and sell them as AAA mortgage securities.
Money from sale they use to buy new mortgages from the banks.

Credit rating agencies were rating those securities as AAA because government claim they were the safest securities on the market.
When asked for audit of F&F, government rejected it.
Of course they were not safest securities and were doomed to flop.
When bubble popped, government blame private banks.

Now, replace word government with Democrats, and you'll get true picture.

That's short version, I doubt you could comprehend longer one.

Government never forced any bank to make a loan to a person that could not show they could pay it back. NEVER,

Redlining was proven to be racist.

The toxic asset buy back was an effort to stop a total financial meltdown.

F & F participated but the effort to issue Mortgage Based Securities was lead by private financial institutions.

But hey, blame Democrats. The typical chickenshit whiner response. Who basically ran Congress from 1995 thru 2006? Which party deregulated the banking field?

You panty waists should man up & admit your party's blame in the Bush Recession.

 

[RealDave]

It was the middle of a gigantic GOP corrupt economic meltdown, a world depression and a depression for us if we hadn't spent 7 trillion dollars or more, dupe. That's no time for a tax hike on anyone. Yes that payroll tax cut is the same as the middle class will get with this stupid Trump giveaway to himself and the bloated rich. And the GOP kept the payroll tax from being extended...

Mortgage meltdown came from Clinton forcing banks to give "free" mortgages to those who can't pay for them, and Bush continuing with that policy.

How much 2% cut can save to middle class people a year, $1000? It's like winning the lottery, eh soyboy?

Funny how under Bush Worthy low income became anybody with a heartbeat... Fannie and Freddie lost two-thirds of their market share, and buddies of bush Regulators private financial institutions took over the market and gave us a world depression, great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes... They're probably at it again right now.

Who decides what is F&F market share?

You do know why they lost that market share, right?

Because of the Boom in BS Lending by chrony private lenders who are Pals of the GOP Regulators if you can call them that... D u h

I'm not surprised you know so little. That's why you vote D.

F&F were not regulated by GOP. In fact, every attempt to regulate them was rejected and blocked by the Dems.

You are just too fucking stupid to grasp that Republicans ran the House in 2004 & the Democrats could not stop shit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who decides what is F&F market share?

You do know why they lost that market share, right?

Because of the Boom in BS Lending by chrony private lenders who are Pals of the GOP Regulators if you can call them that... D u h

I'm not surprised you know so little. That's why you vote D.

F&F were not regulated by GOP. In fact, every attempt to regulate them was rejected and blocked by the Dems.

The problem was never Fannie and Freddie, brainwashed functional s*******... It was the private lending organizations that sold mortgages to anyone even breathing. And they were rated A+... Your GOP Regulators are garbage. How many times do they have to wreck the country for you idiots to understand? See 1929, SNL Scandal in 1988 and many other times.

You heard that on CNN or?

Let's make it as simple is possible, so you can understand it.

Government wants to force banks to give mortgages, banks still reject that.
Government threaten to sue banks for redlining and discrimination, banks still reject it.
Government offers banks to buy their mortgages to minimize their risks, banks accept it.

F&F buys mortgages from the banks. Banks use money received from F&F to issue more mortgages.
In order for F&F to buy more mortgages from the banks they repackage previously bought mortgages (good and bad) and sell them as AAA mortgage securities.
Money from sale they use to buy new mortgages from the banks.

Credit rating agencies were rating those securities as AAA because government claim they were the safest securities on the market.
When asked for audit of F&F, government rejected it.
Of course they were not safest securities and were doomed to flop.
When bubble popped, government blame private banks.

Now, replace word government with Democrats, and you'll get true picture.

That's short version, I doubt you could comprehend longer one.

Government never forced any bank to make a loan to a person that could not show they could pay it back. NEVER,

Redlining was proven to be racist.

The toxic asset buy back was an effort to stop a total financial meltdown.

F & F participated but the effort to issue Mortgage Based Securities was lead by private financial institutions.

But hey, blame Democrats. The typical chickenshit whiner response. Who basically ran Congress from 1995 thru 2006? Which party deregulated the banking field?

You panty waists should man up & admit your party's blame in the Bush Recession.

The toxic asset buy back was an effort to stop a total financial meltdown.

TARP wasn't used to buy toxic assets, despite the name.

F & F participated

To the tune of over $1 trillion in crappy mortgages.

Which party deregulated the banking field?

Deregulated? When did that happen?
Forcing them to make loans to weak borrowers doesn't count as deregulation, FYI.

 

[francoHFW]

Because of the Boom in BS Lending by chrony private lenders who are Pals of the GOP Regulators if you can call them that... D u h

I'm not surprised you know so little. That's why you vote D.

F&F were not regulated by GOP. In fact, every attempt to regulate them was rejected and blocked by the Dems.

The problem was never Fannie and Freddie, brainwashed functional s*******... It was the private lending organizations that sold mortgages to anyone even breathing. And they were rated A+... Your GOP Regulators are garbage. How many times do they have to wreck the country for you idiots to understand? See 1929, SNL Scandal in 1988 and many other times.

You heard that on CNN or?

Let's make it as simple is possible, so you can understand it.

Government wants to force banks to give mortgages, banks still reject that.
Government threaten to sue banks for redlining and discrimination, banks still reject it.
Government offers banks to buy their mortgages to minimize their risks, banks accept it.

F&F buys mortgages from the banks. Banks use money received from F&F to issue more mortgages.
In order for F&F to buy more mortgages from the banks they repackage previously bought mortgages (good and bad) and sell them as AAA mortgage securities.
Money from sale they use to buy new mortgages from the banks.

Credit rating agencies were rating those securities as AAA because government claim they were the safest securities on the market.
When asked for audit of F&F, government rejected it.
Of course they were not safest securities and were doomed to flop.
When bubble popped, government blame private banks.

Now, replace word government with Democrats, and you'll get true picture.

That's short version, I doubt you could comprehend longer one.

Government never forced any bank to make a loan to a person that could not show they could pay it back. NEVER,

Redlining was proven to be racist.

The toxic asset buy back was an effort to stop a total financial meltdown.

F & F participated but the effort to issue Mortgage Based Securities was lead by private financial institutions.

But hey, blame Democrats. The typical chickenshit whiner response. Who basically ran Congress from 1995 thru 2006? Which party deregulated the banking field?

You panty waists should man up & admit your party's blame in the Bush Recession.

The toxic asset buy back was an effort to stop a total financial meltdown.

TARP wasn't used to buy toxic assets, despite the name.

F & F participated

To the tune of over $1 trillion in crappy mortgages.

Which party deregulated the banking field?

Deregulated? When did that happen?
Forcing them to make loans to weak borrowers doesn't count as deregulation, FYI.

Link to that one trillion BS? Tarp was Bush and Paulson bailing out Wall Street and some financial institutions. What is that but paying them back for their toxic b*******?