Question for Ryan and supporters of the Tax Bill

[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...


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.

You can't read or interpret that graph. You;re looking at the bubble BURST. NOT the 10 or 12 years of WRITING those loans. And anything NOT subprime (GSE or otherwise) never moved much at all. Subprime is subprime. The ARMs were just a way to MEET the Federal quotas. Once issued, the problem moved to investors, not the banks. And Fannie helped HIDE the junk for everybody.. The diff between ARMs and non-ARMs is probably because they stopped writing them when the "scam was up"..

Also -- there was ample warning on subprime loans. Your graph shows a distinct bump from 2000 to 2004. But Barney Frank and crew held off challenges to changing the Quotas and mandates.. Your own graph SHOWS the relationship of this crisis to the legislation and bureaucratic push for more risky homeowners. Started in 1998 --- Didn't it??

I'm done. Not the topic of the thread.

 

[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.

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

Can you please provide the link that supports your claim that this is what the corporations said? Or did you just make that up?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

To be fair, GW Bush supported home ownership as did others on both sides of the aisle. The intention was good, and some people benefited from this policy.

Brokers are not fiduciaries and the blame should not go to those who believed home ownership was good for our citizens, blame should be for the brokers who put their profits ahead of their customers and our nation's economy. This includes some of the too big to fail banks and other institutions whose sole purposed was profit, i.e. the Wall Street brokers who believed they were the Masters of the Universe.

 

[S.J.]

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.

Reagan began his term at the beginning of Carter's recession (before unemployment rose to double digits). From the beginning of Reagan's recovery (caused by the tax cuts), 20 million new jobs were added. When Carter left office, jobs were being lost, due to his recession. If you count the jobs just before they were lost, then the number isn't 20 million, but it's not an accurate accounting.
You should try reading the link before you respond to it instead of just sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating the same thing over and over. But who am I kidding, you're not here to have an honest discussion.

 

[The Derp]

You can't read or interpret that graph. You;re looking at the bubble BURST. NOT the 6 or 8 years of WRITING those loans.

You fucking stupid idiot...the chart goes back all the way to 1998 and shows 90-day or more delinquency rates. You seem to be projecting here; you are the one who can't read a chart.

And anything NOT subprime (GSE or otherwise) never moved much at all.

?????? How do you get that from the chart above? And what does this half-written, half-English sentence even mean? What didn't "move much at all"? Delinquency rates? What? What are you babbling about, specifically. I get the sense you're speaking in vague, ambiguous generalities in order to give yourself wiggle room in the parameters of the debate just so you don't have to admit you're full of shit.

GET OVER YOURSELF.

Subprime is subprime. The ARMs were just a way to MEET the Federal quotas. Once issued, the problem moved to investors, not the banks. And Fannie helped HIDE the junk for everybody.. The diff between ARMs and non-ARMs is probably because they stopped writing them when the "scam was up"..

WRONG! There is no "federal quota" for subprimes. There were goals that Bush changed in 2004 to push GSE's to buying riskier loans, but nowhere is it written in any legislation that a bank has to hand out certain numbers of loans, and I challenge you to link to and copy the exact text from any bill that does. I'll save you a lot of time, though, there is no legislation anywhere that forces banks to hand out a certain number of loans to certain people. You've never been able to cite the specific legislative text to support this and you never will...because no such text exists.

 

[flacaltenn]

You can't read or interpret that graph. You;re looking at the bubble BURST. NOT the 6 or 8 years of WRITING those loans.

You fucking stupid idiot...the chart goes back all the way to 1998 and shows 90-day or more delinquency rates. You seem to be projecting here; you are the one who can't read a chart.

And anything NOT subprime (GSE or otherwise) never moved much at all.

?????? How do you get that from the chart above? And what does this half-written, half-English sentence even mean? What didn't "move much at all"? Delinquency rates? What? What are you babbling about, specifically. I get the sense you're speaking in vague, ambiguous generalities in order to give yourself wiggle room in the parameters of the debate just so you don't have to admit you're full of shit.

GET OVER YOURSELF.

Subprime is subprime. The ARMs were just a way to MEET the Federal quotas. Once issued, the problem moved to investors, not the banks. And Fannie helped HIDE the junk for everybody.. The diff between ARMs and non-ARMs is probably because they stopped writing them when the "scam was up"..

WRONG! There is no "federal quota" for subprimes. There were goals that Bush changed in 2004 to push GSE's to buying riskier loans, but nowhere is it written in any legislation that a bank has to hand out certain numbers of loans, and I challenge you to link to and copy the exact text from any bill that does. I'll save you a lot of time, though, there is no legislation anywhere that forces banks to hand out a certain number of loans to certain people. You've never been able to cite the specific legislative text to support this and you never will...because no such text exists.

Go argue about the quota with the Econ depts of the University links I gave.

 

[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.

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

We wouldn't want a couple of trillion to return to the US and be paid out as dividends.

Huh?

How do dividends create jobs?

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.

Have you read the tax reform bill?

LOL NO ONE HAS, And not one person who voted for it.

How do dividends create jobs? I assume you don’t buy many dividend paying stocks. Follow the money. A family makes $100k per year, then Stock ABC which they own begins paying them a dividend. Suddenly they now have an extra $5000 per year. They decide to go out to eat more, restaurant now needs to hire additional cooks, wait staff, etc to handle the increase in business. Or perhaps they decide to invest the $5k in a startup business, that business does well and now hires more people.

 

[flacaltenn]

You can't read or interpret that graph. You;re looking at the bubble BURST. NOT the 6 or 8 years of WRITING those loans.

You fucking stupid idiot...the chart goes back all the way to 1998 and shows 90-day or more delinquency rates. You seem to be projecting here; you are the one who can't read a chart.

And anything NOT subprime (GSE or otherwise) never moved much at all.

?????? How do you get that from the chart above? And what does this half-written, half-English sentence even mean? What didn't "move much at all"? Delinquency rates? What? What are you babbling about, specifically. I get the sense you're speaking in vague, ambiguous generalities in order to give yourself wiggle room in the parameters of the debate just so you don't have to admit you're full of shit.

GET OVER YOURSELF.

Subprime is subprime. The ARMs were just a way to MEET the Federal quotas. Once issued, the problem moved to investors, not the banks. And Fannie helped HIDE the junk for everybody.. The diff between ARMs and non-ARMs is probably because they stopped writing them when the "scam was up"..

WRONG! There is no "federal quota" for subprimes. There were goals that Bush changed in 2004 to push GSE's to buying riskier loans, but nowhere is it written in any legislation that a bank has to hand out certain numbers of loans, and I challenge you to link to and copy the exact text from any bill that does. I'll save you a lot of time, though, there is no legislation anywhere that forces banks to hand out a certain number of loans to certain people. You've never been able to cite the specific legislative text to support this and you never will...because no such text exists.

Just like with the ACA, Congress doesn't write shit anymore. They pass "fill in the blank" legislation and leave the details to the massive bureaucracy. EASIER for them to CONTROL -- than actually writing the legislation themselves. ALL of those quotas are documented through HUD. The agency that was tasked to manage the desired results.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

Can you please provide the link that supports your claim that this is what the corporations said? Or did you just make that up?

Sure. But just to be clear. I don’t make stuff up. And if you bothered to actually read the news, you’d know it too.


Trump's Tax Promises Undercut by CEO Plans to Help Investors

The GOP's corporate tax cut will help the rich — not the workers

The 7 Myths of the GOP Tax Bill

Corporate Tax Cuts Mainly Benefit Shareholders and CEOs, Not Workers

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.latim...porate-tax-cuts-wages-20171125-story,amp.html

One of Trump's biggest plans to stimulate the economy won't be great for most Americans

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

There is no sense in discussing anything with Todd, he will never consider anything which differs from what he believes, and when faced with a fact or contradiction he will resort to captious rhetoric.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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?

Love your refusal to answer these questions.
Reminded me of Fred Astaire.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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:

GSE loans performed far better than all their private-sector counterparts

You bet. No losses at all. DURR

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.

Subprimes? Is that the stuff that the government was forcing Fannie and Freddie to buy?

I heard they bought well over $1 trillion of that crap.
Wonder if that increased demand led to more crappy loans?
We'll probably never know.

GSE-backed loans were the last to enter delinquency

Of course, conforming loans perform very well.
It's a shame that morons on both sides of the aisle decided to force them to buy crap.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Warren Buffet said it this morning on CBS, trickle down does not work. He of all people should know.

I hear this debate all the time. Trickle down doesn’t work, or trickle down will always work. The truth is trickle down can work, but won’t always work. It depends on the economic environment. The economy is not static, no it is very dynamic and it is effected by many factors. If corporations are paying very high taxes in an rapidly expanding economy where demand for their products is high, then they could be short of money to fund growth to meet the demand. In this case, trickle down could be very effective. Conversely, in a slow or no growth economy, like the economy we have been in for the last decade, then trickle down will not work. Corporations in this environment have not used cash or inexpensive money to grow, they have used it to buy back their own stock (contract), and thus buoy their stock price and expand the wealth gap. A tax cut at this time for corporations will not spur growth, they are not short of cash, they are short of growth opportunities.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can't read or interpret that graph. You;re looking at the bubble BURST. NOT the 6 or 8 years of WRITING those loans.

You fucking stupid idiot...the chart goes back all the way to 1998 and shows 90-day or more delinquency rates. You seem to be projecting here; you are the one who can't read a chart.

And anything NOT subprime (GSE or otherwise) never moved much at all.

?????? How do you get that from the chart above? And what does this half-written, half-English sentence even mean? What didn't "move much at all"? Delinquency rates? What? What are you babbling about, specifically. I get the sense you're speaking in vague, ambiguous generalities in order to give yourself wiggle room in the parameters of the debate just so you don't have to admit you're full of shit.

GET OVER YOURSELF.

Subprime is subprime. The ARMs were just a way to MEET the Federal quotas. Once issued, the problem moved to investors, not the banks. And Fannie helped HIDE the junk for everybody.. The diff between ARMs and non-ARMs is probably because they stopped writing them when the "scam was up"..

WRONG! There is no "federal quota" for subprimes. There were goals that Bush changed in 2004 to push GSE's to buying riskier loans, but nowhere is it written in any legislation that a bank has to hand out certain numbers of loans, and I challenge you to link to and copy the exact text from any bill that does. I'll save you a lot of time, though, there is no legislation anywhere that forces banks to hand out a certain number of loans to certain people. You've never been able to cite the specific legislative text to support this and you never will...because no such text exists.

WRONG! There is no "federal quota" for subprimes.

His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

Moron.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The only hope the left had for 2018 was a bad economy.

It’s gone, and their frustration and anger is showing.

 

[The Derp]

Go argue about the quota with the Econ depts of the University links I gave.

You're a fucking troll.

 

[badger2]

Sedwin rushes into abstraction by invoking both difference (and [italics]) Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc. which also explains the mechanism of Bernie Sanders as the middle tine of the ambiguous trident (Impossible Trident) used in 2016:

On the Capitalist Faciality Machine

'Let us try to determine the process behind the facial "treatment" of speech more precisely. The theoretical quantification of a statement consists in bringing a subset of traits of expression back to a perfectly definite set of semiotic objects. As an example, let us consider a message with a response to the question: "Which place does Pierre occupy in this line of eight people?" If a set of references making up eight different letters is constructed, the problem will be reduced to "pulling out" the letter P within the set, representative of Pierre. All the other classifying traits have been "provisionally" abandoned. It is not a matter of sex, age, the reality of existence, etc. The set will be divided into three binary breaks, three successive questions of the type: "Is P in the first half of the set or the second?" The position of P is now identified. The number of these binary choices defines the quantity of information. Which part will take on, in such an operation, a semiotic component seemingly only indirectly concerned with this process, such as faciality? Precisely the one that (creates the conditions [italics]) of reduction for the entirety of reference on its arrival. Capitalistic faciality teaches us (not to see it [it.]), to create abstractions of the value of things, to adopt to a limiting point of view on the side of which identification is impossible.'
(Guattari F, L'inconsciente machinique [ The Machinic Unconscious: Essays in Schizoanalysis] p. 99)

 

[The Derp]

Just like with the ACA, Congress doesn't write shit anymore. They pass "fill in the blank" legislation and leave the details to the massive bureaucracy. EASIER for them to CONTROL -- than actually writing the legislation themselves. ALL of those quotas are documented through HUD. The agency that was tasked to manage the desired results.

YOU MADE A CLAIM AND NOW YOU CANNOT BACK IT UP.

You're done here.

 

[The Derp]

There is no sense in discussing anything with Todd, he will never consider anything which differs from what he believes, and when faced with a fact or contradiction he will resort to captious rhetoric.

He's a trickle-down zealot.

 

[The Derp]

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

Nope. The "slowness of the recovery" was entirely, 100% on Conservatives who did everything they could to undermine it. Here's a great example: Kansas.

In Kansas, you shitty Conservatives cut taxes, promising the moon and stars as usual, and as usual didn't see any of the promises come to fruition. Because of the shitty tax cuts, Kansas' GDP and employment growth both lagged the national average, which means Conservative policies dragged down the Obama economy and hampered recovery. It's not just Kansas that saw that happen; Wisconsin, Louisiana, Arizona, and New Jersey (under Christie) all enacted Conservative trickle-down policies and all those states saw growth below the national average. Which means Conservative policy hampered recovery, not anything Obama did.

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

Obama is to blame by not putting the boot to the neck of Conservatives immediately after he was sworn in, and crushing the obstructionists right away. Why? Because he's a nice guy whose greatest mistake is believing in the inherent goodness in people. Conservatives simply aren't good people. Now, don't bet on a nice guy or woman to save you from yourself in 2020, though. Now, thanks to the internet, all your shitty positions and all your shitty beliefs are out there and you cannot deny them. So there's no running away from Trump the way you all ran away from Bush as you postured following the '08 election.

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

Nope. Not a one. And neither can you.