[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[PMZ]

Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle - Sam Dealey (usnews.com)

What Barney Frank ended was "Red lining", an inherently prejudicial practice. It never had any business being used by one bank much less nearly all of them.

"Redlining" was just a pejorative term that financial terrorists like Barney Frank invented to refer to a common banking practice called "lending to qualified borrowers." In other words, banks that declined to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back, they were accused of "red lining."

That's how left-wing propaganda works: take a common sensible business practice, give it sinister name and vilify it so you can get more free hand outs for ticks on the ass of society.

Redlining was institutionalized profiling. It was inherently racially prejudicial.

 

[Indeependent]

There are quite a few Loan Officers in my Town with really big mansions.
The mansions were built between 2007 and the 2008 crash.

 

[PMZ]

There are quite a few Loan Officers in my Town with really big mansions.
The mansions were built between 2007 and the 2008 crash.

My experience also. Country Wide was a boom and bust business built on loans to everyone.

 

[Indeependent]

There are quite a few Loan Officers in my Town with really big mansions.
The mansions were built between 2007 and the 2008 crash.

My experience also. Country Wide was a boom and bust business built on loans to everyone.

Poor bastards must have been "terrified" when they were approving all of those 600K Home Equity loans to Caucasians who were making 40K/year.
Simply "terrified" that Whitey would march in the streets.

 

[PMZ]

There are quite a few Loan Officers in my Town with really big mansions.
The mansions were built between 2007 and the 2008 crash.

My experience also. Country Wide was a boom and bust business built on loans to everyone.

Poor bastards must have been "terrified" when they were approving all of those 600K Home Equity loans to Caucasians who were making 40K/year.
Simply "terrified" that Whitey would march in the streets.

Sometimes the best solution to ethical angst is a big bonus.

 

[ShawnChris13]

What Barney Frank ended was "Red lining", an inherently prejudicial practice. It never had any business being used by one bank much less nearly all of them.

Too little too late from Barney Frank. He fought to keep anyone from fixing Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac for over a decade.

That's a bizarre thing to wish was true.

I'm not wishing. He testified in hearings that there was nothing to worry about and Republicans should keep their hands off regulating Fanny and Freddy. I'll send you the video I watched of him testifying when I can find the freking thing again.

 

[ShawnChris13]

You, apparently, are a big and therefore typically conservative fan of national debt. While deficit financing is a reliable business tool as necessary for growth and expansion, it's a drag on national economies when it's public debt.

In 2001, the CBO advised Bush that if he continued Clintonomics, the country would be DEBT FREE by 2006, and have a $2.5T surplus by 2011. Being a conservative, what did he do instead? Declare two holy wars, drastically cut taxes and fuel the housing boom hoping for economic growth to raise revenue.

Because Republicans had the House on strike, it took Democrats almost a full term to end those debt building policies. So Bush conservative decisions not only cost us our prime opportunity to be debt free but added to it for a grand total of $17T.

Conservatives have been programmed by Republican media propaganda to believe that government is responsible for business. Business is responsible for business including sending millions of American careers overseas.

Now the one problem from the reign of Bush II is the unemployment that sending those jobs away caused.

It's a problem that only business, the cause, can fix.

We the people need to be directing our consuming to those businesses that are solving, not contributing, to that problem.

You know why business caused this? Because banks were allowed to use people's private savings as securities. You know, the kind of savings people use to pay their mortgage if they have to. Then Citi Bank and other banks wrote over mortgages to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac creating the housing bubble. Bubble pops, stock market takes a huge dip and the banks call in the money owed. Foreclosures across the board and bankruptcies rise drastically almost instantly. Business created this issue, and Clinton gave them the power to create it nine years before it even happened.

Was Bush a great economist? No. But don't claim Clinton was some kind of fiscal genius because he happened to be president during silicon valleys biggest boom.

I agree that Presidents are fortunate beneficiaries of good economies when, in fact, businesses deserve the credit. But I think very often the opposite is also true. There are many factors that help or hurt the economy. The only time that one of those factors is government is when there is a recession. Under that circumstance the government can borrow to put a floor under the recession and keep people whole until recovery takes over.

That having been said, a major source of Republican economic dysfunction is the myth of Reaganomics, that cutting taxes raises revenue. The two, especially in terms of taxes for the wealthy, especially capital gains taxes, sometimes correlate in time, sometimes not, proving that they are independent variables.

Reaganomics has been lauded as saving the economy from Carter's mistakes. I think it certainly played its part by allowing companies to invest more in the economy and create jobs. But the income inequality gap certainly began it's skyrocketing subvergence for the middle class.

But if you look at all the current tax increases I would pose that those are hurting the economy alongside our terrible job market. The Fed pushing billions into the market every month is only going to create another bubble that's going to pop.

 

[Indeependent]

Reagan created jobs based on a virtual economy.
He devastated the Bible Belt.
It was like being on cocaine until the crash.
You can't build a city around banks.

 

[PMZ]

Too little too late from Barney Frank. He fought to keep anyone from fixing Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac for over a decade.

That's a bizarre thing to wish was true.

I'm not wishing. He testified in hearings that there was nothing to worry about and Republicans should keep their hands off regulating Fanny and Freddy. I'll send you the video I watched of him testifying when I can find the freking thing again.

Fannie and Freddie weren't the problem. Mortgage backed derivatives were the problem.

 

[PMZ]

You know why business caused this? Because banks were allowed to use people's private savings as securities. You know, the kind of savings people use to pay their mortgage if they have to. Then Citi Bank and other banks wrote over mortgages to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac creating the housing bubble. Bubble pops, stock market takes a huge dip and the banks call in the money owed. Foreclosures across the board and bankruptcies rise drastically almost instantly. Business created this issue, and Clinton gave them the power to create it nine years before it even happened.

Was Bush a great economist? No. But don't claim Clinton was some kind of fiscal genius because he happened to be president during silicon valleys biggest boom.

I agree that Presidents are fortunate beneficiaries of good economies when, in fact, businesses deserve the credit. But I think very often the opposite is also true. There are many factors that help or hurt the economy. The only time that one of those factors is government is when there is a recession. Under that circumstance the government can borrow to put a floor under the recession and keep people whole until recovery takes over.

That having been said, a major source of Republican economic dysfunction is the myth of Reaganomics, that cutting taxes raises revenue. The two, especially in terms of taxes for the wealthy, especially capital gains taxes, sometimes correlate in time, sometimes not, proving that they are independent variables.

Reaganomics has been lauded as saving the economy from Carter's mistakes. I think it certainly played its part by allowing companies to invest more in the economy and create jobs. But the income inequality gap certainly began it's skyrocketing subvergence for the middle class.

But if you look at all the current tax increases I would pose that those are hurting the economy alongside our terrible job market. The Fed pushing billions into the market every month is only going to create another bubble that's going to pop.

The only "current tax increases" was the planned expiration of the Bush tax cuts, primarily for the wealthy, that, combined with his absolutely unaffordable holy wars, and the recovery from, and cost of, the Great Recession, brought on all of our debt.

 

[bripat9643]

Reagan created jobs based on a virtual economy.
He devastated the Bible Belt.
It was like being on cocaine until the crash.
You can't build a city around banks.

That's a big steaming pile of horse squeeze.

 

[bripat9643]

I agree that Presidents are fortunate beneficiaries of good economies when, in fact, businesses deserve the credit. But I think very often the opposite is also true. There are many factors that help or hurt the economy. The only time that one of those factors is government is when there is a recession. Under that circumstance the government can borrow to put a floor under the recession and keep people whole until recovery takes over.

That having been said, a major source of Republican economic dysfunction is the myth of Reaganomics, that cutting taxes raises revenue. The two, especially in terms of taxes for the wealthy, especially capital gains taxes, sometimes correlate in time, sometimes not, proving that they are independent variables.

Reaganomics has been lauded as saving the economy from Carter's mistakes. I think it certainly played its part by allowing companies to invest more in the economy and create jobs. But the income inequality gap certainly began it's skyrocketing subvergence for the middle class.

But if you look at all the current tax increases I would pose that those are hurting the economy alongside our terrible job market. The Fed pushing billions into the market every month is only going to create another bubble that's going to pop.

The only "current tax increases" was the planned expiration of the Bush tax cuts, primarily for the wealthy, that, combined with his absolutely unaffordable holy wars, and the recovery from, and cost of, the Great Recession, brought on all of our debt.

Your ignoring the 13 different tax increases in Obamacare.

 

[bripat9643]

That's a bizarre thing to wish was true.

I'm not wishing. He testified in hearings that there was nothing to worry about and Republicans should keep their hands off regulating Fanny and Freddy. I'll send you the video I watched of him testifying when I can find the freking thing again.

Fannie and Freddie weren't the problem. Mortgage backed derivatives were the problem.

Dim propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

Barney Frank ended Blue Lining...well financed Blacks who were habitually denied loans based upon locale.

Bullshit. There's no evidence such a thing ever occurred.

In the meanwhile, the "terrified" CEOs ordered every loan officer to not only approve every Black applicant but EVERY application.
And they did it by bypassing the well defined Loan Application software with paper applications.

And yes, I know this because I know someone who is currently auditing THOUSANDS of these approved loans.
How did he get this job?
He never approved a loan without the software.

Yeah, CEOs were "forced"; give me a break!

Yeah, that happened after they started enforcing the CRA. If banks didn't give out a certain number of loans to blacks, qualified or not, the bank were denied permission to expand.

Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?

That's what happens when left-wing scumbags start using government's regulatory powers for social engineering.

" Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?"

Because they could disguise the risk and sell it as a mortgage backed derivative. The due diligence standard for banks was never changed. But their due diligence was compromised by their ability to dump the risk and obtain assets for more loans.

They had to do that in order to mitigate the risk of giving mortgages to unqualified borrowers. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac facilitated the whole process by deliberately turning a blind eye to the quality of mortgages they guaranteed.

The "due diligence" may have never changed de jure, but it changed de facto because government regulators looked the other way.

 

[PMZ]

Bullshit. There's no evidence such a thing ever occurred.



Yeah, that happened after they started enforcing the CRA. If banks didn't give out a certain number of loans to blacks, qualified or not, the bank were denied permission to expand.

Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?

That's what happens when left-wing scumbags start using government's regulatory powers for social engineering.

" Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?"

Because they could disguise the risk and sell it as a mortgage backed derivative. The due diligence standard for banks was never changed. But their due diligence was compromised by their ability to dump the risk and obtain assets for more loans.

They had to do that in order to mitigate the risk of giving mortgages to unqualified borrowers. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac facilitated the whole process by deliberately turning a blind eye to the quality of mortgages they guaranteed.

The "due diligence" may have never changed de jure, but it changed de facto because government regulators looked the other way.

It changed because Wall Street figured out a way to lipstick the pig and sell it. It was their customers that ended up holding the bag.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Basically government enabled banks to screw people. Thanks government! More evidence that both parties should be done away with.

 

[PMZ]

Basically government enabled banks to screw people. Thanks government! More evidence that both parties should be done away with.

Companies are profit motivated to screw people. They don't need any help from government. In fact, typically, government is in the way of the screwing.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Basically government enabled banks to screw people. Thanks government! More evidence that both parties should be done away with.

Companies are profit motivated to screw people. They don't need any help from government. In fact, typically, government is in the way of the screwing.

Yet not in this case and many others. Even the government is good at screwing people as you point out in your support of unfair taxes. Companies are profit motivated for profit. Fanny and Freddy just gave them an opportunity to screw people over. This is the governments fault by root cause.

 

[bripat9643]

Basically government enabled banks to screw people. Thanks government! More evidence that both parties should be done away with.

Companies are profit motivated to screw people. They don't need any help from government. In fact, typically, government is in the way of the screwing.

Yeah, you're a big supporter of capitalism. Not a Marxist bone in your body, is there, worm?

FYI, government screws us all 100 times worse than all the companies who ever wanted to screw us put together. Obamacare is the biggest screwing we've gotten in the last 40 years.

 

[johnwk]

Basically government enabled banks to screw people. Thanks government! More evidence that both parties should be done away with.

Companies are profit motivated to screw people. They don't need any help from government. In fact, typically, government is in the way of the screwing.

Government is in the way of the screwing? The truth is, Obama works in concert with his pals who are running a green energy money laundering operation which is plundering our national treasury.

Obama has been instrumental in taxing hard working people's earned wages living in our nation’s inner cities, and then transfer their earned wages to his pals who start up phony green energy businesses whose primary object is to get rich by plundering our national treasury?

Let us take a look at the list who have profited off working people‘s earned wages being transferred to them by Obama:


• Beacon Power Corp: Received $43 million in federal loan guaranteed in 2009 and also received $29 million in PA grants – Bankrupt in October 2011

• Ener1 (parent company of EnerDel): Received $118.5 million in federal loan guarantees — Bankrupt in January 2012 – has since exited bankruptcy

• Evergreen Solar: Received $58 million in MA loan guarantees (an undisclosed portion sourced from federal ARRA block grant) — Bankrupt in August 2011 with $485.6 million in debt

• Solyndra: Received $535 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 and $25.1 million in CA tax credit — Bankrupt in August 2011

• SpectraWatt: Received $500,000 in federal loan guarantees in 2009 — Bankrupt in August 2011

• Babcock and Brown: Received $178 million in federal grants in December 2009 (4 months after it went bust) – Bankrupt in early 2009

• Mountain Plaza Inc.: Received $424,000 in federal grants through TN Department of Transportation in 2009 — Bankrupt in 2003 and again in June 2010

• Solar Trust of America (parent company: Solar Millennium): Received $2.1 billion loan guarantee in April 2011 – Bankrupt in April 2012
Other Subsidized Green Energy Companies in decline:

• A123: Received $300 million in federal grants and $135 million in MI grants — Declining orders and have forced multiple layoffs

• Amonix, Inc.: Received $5.9 million in federal tax credits in 2009 through ARRA — Laid off 2/3 of work force

• First Solar: Received $3 billion in federal loan guarantees — Biggest S&P loser in 2011, CEO fired

• Fisker Automotive: $529 million in federal loan guarantees — Multiple 2012 sales prediction downgrades for first car release, delivery and cash flow troubles; Assembling cars in Finland

• Johnson Controls: Received $299 million in federal grants in 2009 — Low demand caused cancellation of a new factory, operating at half capacity

• Nevada Geothermal: Received $98.5 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 — Defaulting on long-term debt obligations, 85% drop in stock value

• Sun Power: Received $1.2 billion in federal loan guarantees — Debt exceeds assets; French oil company took over last fall

• Abound Solar: Received $400 million in federal loans in 2012 — ½ work force laid off

• BrightSource Energy: $1.6 billion federal loan approved in April 2012 – loan obtained through political connections with the administration; absent the loan, Brightsource’s solar power purchase would have fallen through.

see:Green Energy’s Bankruptcy Blackout

BTW, 80% of Obama green jobs money goes to Obama donors.
And you have the nerve to tell us Government is in the way of the screwing?

JWK

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).