Question for Ryan and supporters of the Tax Bill

[badger2]

The reliance on socialism was in 2016 as Bernie Sanders became the symbolic middle tine in the ambiguous trident (see Wiki), which is only quasi-perceptible to the voting masses; because at a certain materialistic point, socialism becomes impossible. That is how the dems attempted to manipulate the perception of the prisoners in 2016.

 

[sedwin]

Tax cuts do NOT create jobs. Supply side economics don’t work. They didn’t work under Reagan.

20 million jobs were created because of the Reagan tax cuts. It was the longest peace time economic expansion in history you friggin' moron.

It's funny because Reagan's first term (tax cuts) resulted in a Job growth rate of 1.47% (Obama's last term was 1.84%). Reagan's second term after he RAISED taxes by the highest peacetime rate in history his job growth rose to 2.8%. So the majority of jobs under Reagan were a result of multiple tax RAISES.

 

[sedwin]

The reliance on socialism was in 2016 as Bernie Sanders became the symbolic middle tine in the ambiguous trident (see Wiki), which is only quasi-perceptible to the voting masses; because at a certain materialistic point, socialism becomes impossible. That is how the dems attempted to manipulate the perception of the prisoners in 2016.

At a certain materialistic point everything becomes impossible. But I see how claiming a Democratic Socialist is the same as a Socialist for your purposes. However, any first year college student who took Political Science knows that are not the same. There is also a difference between conservatism, capitalism and corporatism, Trump being the latter which is also unsustainable.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Any "credit for job creation" will be immediately and massively complicated and abused.

What SHOULD happen with the lowered corporate taxes -- is to STRIP all those "targeted tax credits" for producing stuff that are MATURE PRODUCTS and already available on the market.

NEITHER party will touch that. Thats why we need NEW parties. GE "paid no taxes" because they got $50 for every "energy efficient" appliance they produced. NOT because of their "tax rate" or "marginal tax rate"..

The GOP have been trying, and have succeeded, at lowering corporate taxes since the 1920's. They caused the Great Depression and the Bush Recession. They have no new ideas and simply stick with proven failure, claiming Jesus rode around on a dinosaur using his AK to shoot the miserable poor. lmao

The "Bush Recession" was about the govt requiring banks to write risky loans. And then helping the financial industry HIDE the bad paper and pass it around. Nothing to do with "corporate tax rates". If you lefties don't start DESIGNING the FUTURE -- instead of whining about the past -- we're all gonna be riding in dinosaurs and picking off dinner with AKs..

Lying asshole POS. Were you born this fucking stupid or did it take you a while?

No bank was forced to make any risky loan.

Sorry.. The facts are what they are... You are reciting partisan talking points and calling me a "lying asshole POS".. EVERYTHING I asserted is true -- because I have NO partisan baggage to protect...


http://ebook.law.uiowa.edu/ebook/co...p-us-rise-and-fall-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac


The GSEs' underwriting standards did not become more lax because of a lack of government regulation. Rather, the government pushed the GSEs to lower their standards in order to increase the availability of home mortgages for low-income Americans. The government first urged lenders to help low-income individuals get home loans when Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. This Act was passed in response to growing concerns that lenders were not providing loans to individuals from certain neighborhoods and encouraged lenders to lend to individuals with poor credit to assist them in purchasing a home, regardless of his or her creditworthiness. This government pressure continued to grow, particularly in the 1990s. For example, a 1992 federal law required that a "reasonable portion" of the GSEs' mortgage purchases support low-income individuals seeking to buy a home. Over time, that gentle urging was transformed into government-set quotas promulgated by HUD, requiring that a certain percentage of the mortgages that the GSEs purchase were made to the "underserved population." In 1996, the quota was set at 40%, and it continued to rise until 2008 when it reached 56%. Many commentators have argued that through these regulations, the government was promoting lower lending standards. The lower standards made it possible for nearly anyone to get a mortgage, even individuals with poor credit histories and little income. Therefore, the increased access to home ownership helped the GSEs reach their affordable housing goals—in 2004 nearly 63% of Americans were homeowners.


Department of Economics | AddRan College of Liberal Arts


Buying Alt-A and subprime mortgages was part of Fannie Mae's effort to meet the challenge. Fannie Mae sought to reap the rewards and protect itself from the downside of the investments through a feat of financial engineering it called its "Risk Transformation Facility," which was meant to transfer the riskiest elements to other investors.
"We engaged in the subprime market, for the first time closing deals to guarantee and securitize subprime loans, with help from the new facility that allows us to sell off the riskiest layers," Mudd wrote. By October, the company had signed $3 billion of such deals.
Although the deals discussed in Mudd's memos were small in relation to the overall scale of Fannie Mae's business, they reflected the company's appetite for subprime and Alt-A mortgages. The company had a long and deep involvement in this market through a different form of investment.
Instead of buying the loans and securitizing them itself, Fannie Mae had invested in securities packaged by others from pools of these loans. Going back at least as far as 2002, Fannie Mae had taken on tens of billions of dollars of such securities, according to regulatory data.


Spend less time flaming me and calling me names -- and MORE time deprogramming the partisan talking points and brainwashing you're received..

 

[badger2]

Sedwin's problem is also the weather penguin's problem on another thread: capitalist faciality, which teaches us not to see due to its purist (and in this case, academic) binary mechanism.

 

[sedwin]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Any "credit for job creation" will be immediately and massively complicated and abused.

What SHOULD happen with the lowered corporate taxes -- is to STRIP all those "targeted tax credits" for producing stuff that are MATURE PRODUCTS and already available on the market.

NEITHER party will touch that. Thats why we need NEW parties. GE "paid no taxes" because they got $50 for every "energy efficient" appliance they produced. NOT because of their "tax rate" or "marginal tax rate"..

The GOP have been trying, and have succeeded, at lowering corporate taxes since the 1920's. They caused the Great Depression and the Bush Recession. They have no new ideas and simply stick with proven failure, claiming Jesus rode around on a dinosaur using his AK to shoot the miserable poor. lmao

The "Bush Recession" was about the govt requiring banks to write risky loans. And then helping the financial industry HIDE the bad paper and pass it around. Nothing to do with "corporate tax rates". If you lefties don't start DESIGNING the FUTURE -- instead of whining about the past -- we're all gonna be riding in dinosaurs and picking off dinner with AKs..

Lying asshole POS. Were you born this fucking stupid or did it take you a while?

No bank was forced to make any risky loan.

Sorry.. The facts are what they are... You are reciting partisan talking points and calling me a "lying asshole POS".. EVERYTHING I asserted is true -- because I have NO partisan baggage to protect...


The GSEs' underwriting standards did not become more lax because of a lack of government regulation. Rather, the government pushed the GSEs to lower their standards in order to increase the availability of home mortgages for low-income Americans. The government first urged lenders to help low-income individuals get home loans when Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. This Act was passed in response to growing concerns that lenders were not providing loans to individuals from certain neighborhoods and encouraged lenders to lend to individuals with poor credit to assist them in purchasing a home, regardless of his or her creditworthiness. This government pressure continued to grow, particularly in the 1990s. For example, a 1992 federal law required that a "reasonable portion" of the GSEs' mortgage purchases support low-income individuals seeking to buy a home. Over time, that gentle urging was transformed into government-set quotas promulgated by HUD, requiring that a certain percentage of the mortgages that the GSEs purchase were made to the "underserved population." In 1996, the quota was set at 40%, and it continued to rise until 2008 when it reached 56%. Many commentators have argued that through these regulations, the government was promoting lower lending standards. The lower standards made it possible for nearly anyone to get a mortgage, even individuals with poor credit histories and little income. Therefore, the increased access to home ownership helped the GSEs reach their affordable housing goals—in 2004 nearly 63% of Americans were homeowners.


Department of Economics | AddRan College of Liberal Arts


Buying Alt-A and subprime mortgages was part of Fannie Mae's effort to meet the challenge. Fannie Mae sought to reap the rewards and protect itself from the downside of the investments through a feat of financial engineering it called its "Risk Transformation Facility," which was meant to transfer the riskiest elements to other investors.
"We engaged in the subprime market, for the first time closing deals to guarantee and securitize subprime loans, with help from the new facility that allows us to sell off the riskiest layers," Mudd wrote. By October, the company had signed $3 billion of such deals.
Although the deals discussed in Mudd's memos were small in relation to the overall scale of Fannie Mae's business, they reflected the company's appetite for subprime and Alt-A mortgages. The company had a long and deep involvement in this market through a different form of investment.
Instead of buying the loans and securitizing them itself, Fannie Mae had invested in securities packaged by others from pools of these loans. Going back at least as far as 2002, Fannie Mae had taken on tens of billions of dollars of such securities, according to regulatory data.


Spend less time flaming me and calling me names -- and MORE time deprogramming the partisan talking points and brainwashing you're received..

Quibbling or dissembling. In addition to Fannie Mae the following PRIVATE corporations handed out sub-prime loans: AmeriHome Mortgage, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and a dozen others. Conservatives sole goal is to unmake the government of the United States. In an effort to do so they frequently tell partial truths (lie) to support their corporate agenda.

 

[S.J.]

And Clinton did better on jobs than Reagan

Different circumstances. Clinton should thank Newt Gingrich for balancing the budget. Reagan had to deal with a Democratic House (which refused to cut spending).

But to be clear Reagan cut taxes for the rich in '81 and blew up the deficit. As a result he then raised taxes in '82 and '84

Reagan cut taxes across the board, not just for the rich. Don't lie.
And the "blowing up of the deficit" was a result of Tip O'Neil reneging on a promise to cut spending in return for a tax increase. Reagan's mistake was letting the Democrats do the tax increase before they cut spending. Had Reagan not trusted them to keep their word, there would not have been a tax increase. BTW, it was not an 'income tax' increase. Reagan stipulated that as part of the deal. The deal the Democrats did not honor.
Aside from those minor details, since you chose not to read my link:
GDP growth under Reagan averaged 3.5 % (4.9% after the recession ended). More than twice that of Obama's.
Inflation adjusted household income increased by 10% under Reagan. It stayed the same under Obama.
Spending fell from 22.9 to 22.1% of GDP under Reagan as a result of GDP growth, due to his tax cuts. Under Obama it rose to 25%.
Debt was 53% of GDP when Reagan left office. Under Obama (as of 2014) it was 102.7%, the highest since WW2.
Everything under Obama was paid for with borrowed money (which somebody else has to pay back), not from a growing economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Earning money is bad behavior? Is interest theft?

Ask the fellows at Enron.

Corporations abused the tax law and that hurt America & you love them for it.

And the banker & mortgage sellers & Mortgage backed securities dealers did no bad making money that nearly caused a financial meltdown, According to you, that was great.

You;re a fucking moron.

Ask the fellows at Enron.

Every corporation with foreign earnings is Enron?
Were you born brain damaged, or was it a more recent occurrence?

Corporations abused the tax law

Which ones abused which law? How?

According to you, that was great.

That's a great straw man you've built there. And it's renewable!!!!

You said corporations earning money can't be bad.

You keep defending this bad behavior so you musty thonk it is great.

You said corporations earning money can't be bad.

No, I said, "Bringing a couple of trillion dollars back to our shores sounds like a good idea to me"

Question for Ryan and supporters of the Tax Bill

Moron.

No, you didn't.
You said something like " So making money is bad"

I linked to my comment.
If you can link to what you claim I said, please do so......................

 

[sedwin]

And Clinton did better on jobs than Reagan

Different circumstances. Clinton should thank Newt Gingrich for balancing the budget. Reagan had to deal with a Democratic House (which refused to cut spending).

But to be clear Reagan cut taxes for the rich in '81 and blew up the deficit. As a result he then raised taxes in '82 and '84

Reagan cut taxes across the board, not just for the rich. Don't lie.
And the "blowing up of the deficit" was a result of Tip O'Neil reneging on a promise to cut spending in return for a tax increase. Reagan's mistake was letting the Democrats do the tax increase before they cut spending. Had Reagan not trusted them to keep their word, there would not have been a tax increase. BTW, it was not an 'income tax' increase. Reagan stipulated that as part of the deal. The deal the Democrats did not honor.
Aside from those minor details, since you chose not to read my link:
GDP growth under Reagan averaged 3.5 % (4.9% after the recession ended). More than twice that of Obama's.
Inflation adjusted household income increased by 10% under Reagan. It stayed the same under Obama.
Spending fell from 22.9 to 22.1% of GDP under Reagan as a result of GDP growth, due to his tax cuts. Under Obama it rose to 25%.
Debt was 53% of GDP when Reagan left office. Under Obama (as of 2014) it was 102.7%, the highest since WW2.
Everything under Obama was paid for with borrowed money (which somebody else has to pay back), not from a growing economy.

Reagan cut taxes on the rich from 70% to 25%. A 45% cut for the rich. Did he cut middle and lower taxes by 45%? Get a clue puppy. As far as blaming O'Neil then one can easily say Reagan's tax cuts were also because of O'Neil. You can't have it both ways just to claim your TEAM is better. Rationalizations define todays Trumpian party.

To be clear it was REAGAN who said after his tax cut that he realized "It was immoral for a millionaire to pay a lower rate than a bus driver." Not the Dems. It was Bush (his VP) who said trickle down was voodoo. You are simply stating partial facts and demented interpretations to justify your support of a single team.

 

[flacaltenn]

Any "credit for job creation" will be immediately and massively complicated and abused.

What SHOULD happen with the lowered corporate taxes -- is to STRIP all those "targeted tax credits" for producing stuff that are MATURE PRODUCTS and already available on the market.

NEITHER party will touch that. Thats why we need NEW parties. GE "paid no taxes" because they got $50 for every "energy efficient" appliance they produced. NOT because of their "tax rate" or "marginal tax rate"..

The GOP have been trying, and have succeeded, at lowering corporate taxes since the 1920's. They caused the Great Depression and the Bush Recession. They have no new ideas and simply stick with proven failure, claiming Jesus rode around on a dinosaur using his AK to shoot the miserable poor. lmao

The "Bush Recession" was about the govt requiring banks to write risky loans. And then helping the financial industry HIDE the bad paper and pass it around. Nothing to do with "corporate tax rates". If you lefties don't start DESIGNING the FUTURE -- instead of whining about the past -- we're all gonna be riding in dinosaurs and picking off dinner with AKs..

Lying asshole POS. Were you born this fucking stupid or did it take you a while?

No bank was forced to make any risky loan.

Sorry.. The facts are what they are... You are reciting partisan talking points and calling me a "lying asshole POS".. EVERYTHING I asserted is true -- because I have NO partisan baggage to protect...


The GSEs' underwriting standards did not become more lax because of a lack of government regulation. Rather, the government pushed the GSEs to lower their standards in order to increase the availability of home mortgages for low-income Americans. The government first urged lenders to help low-income individuals get home loans when Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. This Act was passed in response to growing concerns that lenders were not providing loans to individuals from certain neighborhoods and encouraged lenders to lend to individuals with poor credit to assist them in purchasing a home, regardless of his or her creditworthiness. This government pressure continued to grow, particularly in the 1990s. For example, a 1992 federal law required that a "reasonable portion" of the GSEs' mortgage purchases support low-income individuals seeking to buy a home. Over time, that gentle urging was transformed into government-set quotas promulgated by HUD, requiring that a certain percentage of the mortgages that the GSEs purchase were made to the "underserved population." In 1996, the quota was set at 40%, and it continued to rise until 2008 when it reached 56%. Many commentators have argued that through these regulations, the government was promoting lower lending standards. The lower standards made it possible for nearly anyone to get a mortgage, even individuals with poor credit histories and little income. Therefore, the increased access to home ownership helped the GSEs reach their affordable housing goals—in 2004 nearly 63% of Americans were homeowners.


Department of Economics | AddRan College of Liberal Arts


Buying Alt-A and subprime mortgages was part of Fannie Mae's effort to meet the challenge. Fannie Mae sought to reap the rewards and protect itself from the downside of the investments through a feat of financial engineering it called its "Risk Transformation Facility," which was meant to transfer the riskiest elements to other investors.
"We engaged in the subprime market, for the first time closing deals to guarantee and securitize subprime loans, with help from the new facility that allows us to sell off the riskiest layers," Mudd wrote. By October, the company had signed $3 billion of such deals.
Although the deals discussed in Mudd's memos were small in relation to the overall scale of Fannie Mae's business, they reflected the company's appetite for subprime and Alt-A mortgages. The company had a long and deep involvement in this market through a different form of investment.
Instead of buying the loans and securitizing them itself, Fannie Mae had invested in securities packaged by others from pools of these loans. Going back at least as far as 2002, Fannie Mae had taken on tens of billions of dollars of such securities, according to regulatory data.


Spend less time flaming me and calling me names -- and MORE time deprogramming the partisan talking points and brainwashing you're received..

Quibbling or dissembling. In addition to Fannie Mae the following PRIVATE corporations handed out sub-prime loans: AmeriHome Mortgage, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and a dozen others. Conservatives sole goal is to unmake the government of the United States. In an effort to do so they frequently tell partial truths (lie) to support their corporate agenda.

EVERY GSE was pushed to quotas for risky loans. SOME might have specialized in Sub Prime. Like AmeriHome. But there would be no Junk Mortgage bubble without tthe quotas and Fed pressure. And FANNIE MAE trying to HIDE and DIVERT that risk onto unsuspecting investors.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Corporations are already awash in cash

And they didn't build that, eh?

and they’re not spending it on hiring

After all those jobs Obama created (or saved)?

They won’t be hiring or giving out raises with this money either.

Well then we'll have to watch for the added dividend tax revenue, the added CEO income tax revenue, the added capital gains tax revenue and the added sales growth from all those rich dudes spending their dividends and raises.

Trickle down didn’t work under Reagan and it didn’t work under W. Third time is NOT the charm. The only thing tax cuts have achieved is the greatest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen - all of it from the working and middle class to the wealthy.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Republicans are, by definition, insane.

Trickle down didn’t work under Reagan

View attachment 164294

DERP!

National Debt:

Education | Why did the national debt in the hands of the public increase from approximately $700 billion to over $2,400 billion during the 1980s?

"About one-half of the publicly held federal government debt outstanding at the end of 2000 was accumulated in the 1980s...."

Thanks, that means Obama's $9.3 trillion in debt can be ignored.

Yet another asswipe blaming Obama for the effects of the worst recession in 80 years, two quagmire wars, unfunded expansion to medicare, housing collapse all in motion when Obama took office.

blaming Obama for the effects of the worst recession in 80 years

Was Obama responsible for anything he did for 8 years?
Did he do anything that you think contributed to the slowness of the recovery?
We just had the weakest recovery from a recession since WWII, Obama to blame for any of that?
Can you blame any of his new regulations for slowing the recovery?
Or was all his input 100% positive for the economy?

two quagmire wars,

Didn't he get us out of those wars? Because Muslims (and the rest of the world) loved his grooviness?

unfunded expansion to medicare,

Didn't he have the power to end the expansion? Couldn't he have funded it?
Was he totally handcuffed by everything every President before him did?
Was he really that helpless?

 

[The Derp]

20 million jobs were created because of the Reagan tax cuts. It was the longest peace time economic expansion in history you friggin' moron.

Reagan did not create 20,000,000 jobs. He created less than 15,000,000, which was only 3,000,000 more than Obama created.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Series Id: CES0500000001
Series Title: All employees, thousands, total private, seasonally adjusted
Super Sector: Total private
Industry: Total private

Reagan
January 1981: 74,677,000
January 1989: 89,394,000
Difference: +14,741,000

Clinton
January 1993: 90,903,000
January 2001: 111,871,000
Difference: +20,968,000

Bush the Dumber
January 2001: 111,871,000
January 2009: 111,474,000
Difference: -397,000

Obama
January 2009: 111,474,000
January 2017: 123,230,000
Difference: +11,756,000

Let's take a closer look, shall we?
Sorry, Obama Fans: Reagan Did Better on Jobs and Growth

You said Reagan created 20,000,000 jobs. That was a lie, easily disproved by actual numbers from the BLS.

So why did you lie and say he created 20,000,00 jobs? Were you aware that he hadn't created that many? Were you not aware and were just unwittingly pushing propaganda? Why would you bullshit about something so easily debunked by a quick scan of actual job numbers from the BLS?

In no world did Reagan create 20,000,000 jobs. He created just a couple million more than Obama. And Obama didn't end his term with an S&L Crisis like Reagan did.

 

[The Derp]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Any "credit for job creation" will be immediately and massively complicated and abused.

What SHOULD happen with the lowered corporate taxes -- is to STRIP all those "targeted tax credits" for producing stuff that are MATURE PRODUCTS and already available on the market.

NEITHER party will touch that. Thats why we need NEW parties. GE "paid no taxes" because they got $50 for every "energy efficient" appliance they produced. NOT because of their "tax rate" or "marginal tax rate"..

The GOP have been trying, and have succeeded, at lowering corporate taxes since the 1920's. They caused the Great Depression and the Bush Recession. They have no new ideas and simply stick with proven failure, claiming Jesus rode around on a dinosaur using his AK to shoot the miserable poor. lmao

The "Bush Recession" was about the govt requiring banks to write risky loans. And then helping the financial industry HIDE the bad paper and pass it around. Nothing to do with "corporate tax rates". If you lefties don't start DESIGNING the FUTURE -- instead of whining about the past -- we're all gonna be riding in dinosaurs and picking off dinner with AKs..

Lying asshole POS. Were you born this fucking stupid or did it take you a while?

No bank was forced to make any risky loan.

Sorry.. The facts are what they are... You are reciting partisan talking points and calling me a "lying asshole POS".. EVERYTHING I asserted is true -- because I have NO partisan baggage to protect...


http://ebook.law.uiowa.edu/ebook/co...p-us-rise-and-fall-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac


The GSEs' underwriting standards did not become more lax because of a lack of government regulation. Rather, the government pushed the GSEs to lower their standards in order to increase the availability of home mortgages for low-income Americans. The government first urged lenders to help low-income individuals get home loans when Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. This Act was passed in response to growing concerns that lenders were not providing loans to individuals from certain neighborhoods and encouraged lenders to lend to individuals with poor credit to assist them in purchasing a home, regardless of his or her creditworthiness. This government pressure continued to grow, particularly in the 1990s. For example, a 1992 federal law required that a "reasonable portion" of the GSEs' mortgage purchases support low-income individuals seeking to buy a home. Over time, that gentle urging was transformed into government-set quotas promulgated by HUD, requiring that a certain percentage of the mortgages that the GSEs purchase were made to the "underserved population." In 1996, the quota was set at 40%, and it continued to rise until 2008 when it reached 56%. Many commentators have argued that through these regulations, the government was promoting lower lending standards. The lower standards made it possible for nearly anyone to get a mortgage, even individuals with poor credit histories and little income. Therefore, the increased access to home ownership helped the GSEs reach their affordable housing goals—in 2004 nearly 63% of Americans were homeowners.


Department of Economics | AddRan College of Liberal Arts


Buying Alt-A and subprime mortgages was part of Fannie Mae's effort to meet the challenge. Fannie Mae sought to reap the rewards and protect itself from the downside of the investments through a feat of financial engineering it called its "Risk Transformation Facility," which was meant to transfer the riskiest elements to other investors.
"We engaged in the subprime market, for the first time closing deals to guarantee and securitize subprime loans, with help from the new facility that allows us to sell off the riskiest layers," Mudd wrote. By October, the company had signed $3 billion of such deals.
Although the deals discussed in Mudd's memos were small in relation to the overall scale of Fannie Mae's business, they reflected the company's appetite for subprime and Alt-A mortgages. The company had a long and deep involvement in this market through a different form of investment.
Instead of buying the loans and securitizing them itself, Fannie Mae had invested in securities packaged by others from pools of these loans. Going back at least as far as 2002, Fannie Mae had taken on tens of billions of dollars of such securities, according to regulatory data.


Spend less time flaming me and calling me names -- and MORE time deprogramming the partisan talking points and brainwashing you're received..

Take a look at this chart, and tell me what you see. Because I see GSE-backed loans performing better than all other types of loans, and the delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans were the last to rise, proving that they weren't the cause of the collapse or crisis, your privately-backed subprime loans were.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And Clinton did better on jobs than Reagan

Different circumstances. Clinton should thank Newt Gingrich for balancing the budget. Reagan had to deal with a Democratic House (which refused to cut spending).

But to be clear Reagan cut taxes for the rich in '81 and blew up the deficit. As a result he then raised taxes in '82 and '84

Reagan cut taxes across the board, not just for the rich. Don't lie.
And the "blowing up of the deficit" was a result of Tip O'Neil reneging on a promise to cut spending in return for a tax increase. Reagan's mistake was letting the Democrats do the tax increase before they cut spending. Had Reagan not trusted them to keep their word, there would not have been a tax increase. BTW, it was not an 'income tax' increase. Reagan stipulated that as part of the deal. The deal the Democrats did not honor.
Aside from those minor details, since you chose not to read my link:
GDP growth under Reagan averaged 3.5 % (4.9% after the recession ended). More than twice that of Obama's.
Inflation adjusted household income increased by 10% under Reagan. It stayed the same under Obama.
Spending fell from 22.9 to 22.1% of GDP under Reagan as a result of GDP growth, due to his tax cuts. Under Obama it rose to 25%.
Debt was 53% of GDP when Reagan left office. Under Obama (as of 2014) it was 102.7%, the highest since WW2.
Everything under Obama was paid for with borrowed money (which somebody else has to pay back), not from a growing economy.

Reagan cut taxes on the rich from 70% to 25%. A 45% cut for the rich. Did he cut middle and lower taxes by 45%? Get a clue puppy. As far as blaming O'Neil then one can easily say Reagan's tax cuts were also because of O'Neil. You can't have it both ways just to claim your TEAM is better. Rationalizations define todays Trumpian party.

To be clear it was REAGAN who said after his tax cut that he realized "It was immoral for a millionaire to pay a lower rate than a bus driver." Not the Dems. It was Bush (his VP) who said trickle down was voodoo. You are simply stating partial facts and demented interpretations to justify your support of a single team.

Reagan cut taxes on the rich from 70% to 25%.

Wrong. To 28%.

A 45% cut for the rich

It'd be more accurate to call that a 60% cut.
70 to 28 is a drop of 42. 42 divided by starting rate of 70 gives you.....42/70 or 60%

Did he cut middle and lower taxes by 45%?

You'd have to define middle class income levels before we could calculate their cut.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Any "credit for job creation" will be immediately and massively complicated and abused.

What SHOULD happen with the lowered corporate taxes -- is to STRIP all those "targeted tax credits" for producing stuff that are MATURE PRODUCTS and already available on the market.

NEITHER party will touch that. Thats why we need NEW parties. GE "paid no taxes" because they got $50 for every "energy efficient" appliance they produced. NOT because of their "tax rate" or "marginal tax rate"..

The GOP have been trying, and have succeeded, at lowering corporate taxes since the 1920's. They caused the Great Depression and the Bush Recession. They have no new ideas and simply stick with proven failure, claiming Jesus rode around on a dinosaur using his AK to shoot the miserable poor. lmao

The "Bush Recession" was about the govt requiring banks to write risky loans. And then helping the financial industry HIDE the bad paper and pass it around. Nothing to do with "corporate tax rates". If you lefties don't start DESIGNING the FUTURE -- instead of whining about the past -- we're all gonna be riding in dinosaurs and picking off dinner with AKs..

Lying asshole POS. Were you born this fucking stupid or did it take you a while?

No bank was forced to make any risky loan.

Sorry.. The facts are what they are... You are reciting partisan talking points and calling me a "lying asshole POS".. EVERYTHING I asserted is true -- because I have NO partisan baggage to protect...


http://ebook.law.uiowa.edu/ebook/co...p-us-rise-and-fall-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac


The GSEs' underwriting standards did not become more lax because of a lack of government regulation. Rather, the government pushed the GSEs to lower their standards in order to increase the availability of home mortgages for low-income Americans. The government first urged lenders to help low-income individuals get home loans when Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. This Act was passed in response to growing concerns that lenders were not providing loans to individuals from certain neighborhoods and encouraged lenders to lend to individuals with poor credit to assist them in purchasing a home, regardless of his or her creditworthiness. This government pressure continued to grow, particularly in the 1990s. For example, a 1992 federal law required that a "reasonable portion" of the GSEs' mortgage purchases support low-income individuals seeking to buy a home. Over time, that gentle urging was transformed into government-set quotas promulgated by HUD, requiring that a certain percentage of the mortgages that the GSEs purchase were made to the "underserved population." In 1996, the quota was set at 40%, and it continued to rise until 2008 when it reached 56%. Many commentators have argued that through these regulations, the government was promoting lower lending standards. The lower standards made it possible for nearly anyone to get a mortgage, even individuals with poor credit histories and little income. Therefore, the increased access to home ownership helped the GSEs reach their affordable housing goals—in 2004 nearly 63% of Americans were homeowners.


Department of Economics | AddRan College of Liberal Arts


Buying Alt-A and subprime mortgages was part of Fannie Mae's effort to meet the challenge. Fannie Mae sought to reap the rewards and protect itself from the downside of the investments through a feat of financial engineering it called its "Risk Transformation Facility," which was meant to transfer the riskiest elements to other investors.
"We engaged in the subprime market, for the first time closing deals to guarantee and securitize subprime loans, with help from the new facility that allows us to sell off the riskiest layers," Mudd wrote. By October, the company had signed $3 billion of such deals.
Although the deals discussed in Mudd's memos were small in relation to the overall scale of Fannie Mae's business, they reflected the company's appetite for subprime and Alt-A mortgages. The company had a long and deep involvement in this market through a different form of investment.
Instead of buying the loans and securitizing them itself, Fannie Mae had invested in securities packaged by others from pools of these loans. Going back at least as far as 2002, Fannie Mae had taken on tens of billions of dollars of such securities, according to regulatory data.


Spend less time flaming me and calling me names -- and MORE time deprogramming the partisan talking points and brainwashing you're received..

Take a look at this chart, and tell me what you see. Because I see GSE-backed loans performing better than all other types of loans, and the delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans were the last to rise, proving that they weren't the cause of the collapse or crisis, your privately-backed subprime loans were.

GSEs did great. Hardly lost any money at all.

I must have imagined their $187 billion bailout.......DURR

 

[flacaltenn]

The reliance on socialism was in 2016 as Bernie Sanders became the symbolic middle tine in the ambiguous trident (see Wiki), which is only quasi-perceptible to the voting masses; because at a certain materialistic point, socialism becomes impossible. That is how the dems attempted to manipulate the perception of the prisoners in 2016.

At a certain materialistic point everything becomes impossible. But I see how claiming a Democratic Socialist is the same as a Socialist for your purposes. However, any first year college student who took Political Science knows that are not the same. There is also a difference between conservatism, capitalism and corporatism, Trump being the latter which is also unsustainable.

Except that Bernie declares himself as a "socialist".. Words have meanings. Bernie took his honeymoon in the old Soviet Union.. True story...

 

[The Derp]

Was Obama responsible for anything he did for 8 years?

Of course he was. But he wasn't responsible for the recession you all handed him, nor was he responsible for your piss-poor response of obstruction to any recovery efforts.

Did he do anything that you think contributed to the slowness of the recovery?

Recovery would have been better had Conservatives not made obstruction their primary goal. Conservatives have forfeit their duties to govern responsibly. Their stated goal was to make Obama a one-term President at the expense of recovery. That strategy didn't work.

We just had the weakest recovery from a recession since WWII, Obama to blame for any of that?

Well, considering this was the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, are we really surprised the recovery wouldn't be a simple fix?

Can you blame any of his new regulations for slowing the recovery?

Obama enjoyed a streak of over 75 consecutive months of private sector job creation that started the same month Obamacare was signed into law. So you all made the wild claim that Obamacare slowed recovery, yet every month through Obama's term since the ACA was passed saw positive job growth. You have yet to prove any regulations -any regulations- slow recovery or economic growth. You've never been able to prove that because it's a fallacy. And you know it.

idn't he get us out of those wars? Because Muslims (and the rest of the world) loved his grooviness?

He did eventually get us out of Iraq. Not Afghanistan, though. And as a progressive, I am pissed at him for keeping us where empires go to die. But our standing in the world was improved thanks to Obama. It's been diminished again by a Republican.

Didn't he have the power to end the expansion? Couldn't he have funded it?

Obama fixed Medicare Part-D with the ACA. The ACA phased out the donut hole and restructured Medicare to make it outcome-focused by refusing to reimburse providers for care of treatments that arose while the patient was being treated for something else. For instance, Medicare pays for a hip replacement, but then the patient develops a staph infection during recovery. Under the old rules, Medicare would reimburse the provider for all that treatment. Under the new rules, Medicare only reimburses for the hip replacement and it's on the provider to pay for the staph infection. This is called outcome-based healthcare and it forces providers to improve how they treat patients. Conservatives have no conception of this because Conservatives know nothing about health care, health care delivery, health insurance, and how it all relates to you as a patient. Never have, never will.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Yep, I believe you are correct. Corporations by and large have not been investing in growth and job creation over the last 8 years in which the stock market has surged. Instead they are using cash and low interest rate borrowing opportunities to buy back their own stock. These folks are not stupid. When there is no or little growth they do not expand, they contract, which is essentially what Stock buy backs accomplish. I don’t see corporations creating jobs just because they have more money. They will create jobs when the demand for their product/services warrants hiring more people. By the same token, giving them a tax incentive to create jobs when the market/economy does not warrant adding employees is moot.

 

[The Derp]

GSEs did great. Hardly lost any money at all.

GSE loans performed far better than all their private-sector counterparts, and the GSE's wouldn't have lost any money if you shitheads hadn't flooded the market with garbage subprimes from 2004-7 that caused a housing crisis.

GSE loans were among the last to enter delinquency from the subprime mortgage crisis. That's what the chart says. A chart you've been completely unable and unwilling to reconcile because it ruins your false narrative.

I must have imagined their $187 billion bailout.......DURR

That's because of what happened at the tail end of the chart; the GSE-backed loans were the last to enter delinquency because they were the strongest loans in the market. That $187B bailout was to cover the losses in the chart where the delinquency rates increased:

 

[The Derp]

Except that Bernie declares himself as a "socialist".. Words have meanings. Bernie took his honeymoon in the old Soviet Union.. True story...

Words do have meanings, and you don't seem to know the meaning of "socialism" since you seem to be confusing it with "communism".