Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because the wealthy have - both during their working years and in retirement - on average: better access to healthy diets, more opportunity for healthy exercise, better access to wellness programs, and better access to medical care (both physical and prescription). Wealthy people tend to live many years longer (link previously posted), meaning they typically live past the break-even-point where benefits exceed inputs. This of course is based on a averages for large numbers of people, individual anecdotal examples will of course vary.
No, it didn't.It was actually about giving out loans to people that had little way to repay them:
The seeds of the mortgage meltdown were planted during Bill Clinton’s presidency.
Under Clinton’s Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, Andrew Cuomo, Community Reinvestment Act regulators gave banks higher ratings for home loans made in “credit-deprived” areas. Banks were effectively rewarded for throwing out sound underwriting standards and writing loans to those who were at high risk of defaulting. If banks didn’t comply with these rules, regulators reined in their ability to expand lending and deposits.
That was George W. Bush.These new HUD rules lowered down payments from the traditional 20 percent to 3 percent by 1995 and zero down-payments by 2000. What’s more, in the Clinton push to issue home loans to lower income borrowers,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a common practice to virtually end credit documentation, low credit scores were disregarded, and income and job history was also thrown aside. The phrase “subprime” became commonplace. What an understatement.
NO, they didn't.
Are the Clintons the real housing crash villains?
Before Hillary rewrites history, let's look at how the Clintons contributed to the Great Recession, write Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore.www.cnbc.com
Now you can't bitch about the source either because it's one of your own. What Bill and then HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo did was tell banks to give loans to anybody no questions asked.
Sure, if the lender approved, that was on the banks or lender.If you made french fries at McDonald's part time, you still qualified for a home loan even though you had no financial ability to repay it.
Bush did.The problem with that is you can't make one set of rules for minorities and another set for whites under our Equal Protection Under The Law rights of the US Constitution, so everybody jumped in and took advantage of this after 911 when the recession lifted.
You are mistaken in that any SS money is yours.Do you have a link to the numbers showing that those that pay the maximum SS live long enough, on average, that their benefits exceed their contributions? I don’t disagree with the idea that wealthier people may live longer, just not sure most live long enough to recover all their benefits.
Also, even if true, it is kind of messed up that I must live longer to potentially recoup my contributions, don’t you think?
No, it didn't.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), enacted in 1977, requires the Federal Reserve and other federal banking regulators to encourage financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they do business, including low- and moderate-income (LMI) neighborhoods.
The Federal Reserve supervises state member banks--or, state-chartered banks that have applied for and been accepted to be part of the Federal Reserve System--for CRA compliance.
Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulations prescribe ratios or benchmarks regulators must use in the evaluation or application processes.
Nor does CRA require banks to make high risk loans that jeopardize their financial stability. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that a bank’s CRA activities must be consistent with the safe and sound operations conducted by the bank.
The CRA had nothing to do with banks being forced to lend or deposits.
THAT was on banks.
That was George W. Bush.
December 16, 2003
Today's Presidential Action
Today, President Bush signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003, which will help approximately 40,000 families a year with their down payment and closing costs, and further strengthen America's housing market. This legislation complements the President's aggressive housing agenda announced in 2002 to dismantle the barriers to homeownership.
The biggest barrier to homeownership is often accumulating funds for a down payment. In June 2002, President Bush proposed the American Dream Downpayment Fund to help low-income families take much-needed steps to own a home of their own, and announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million before the end of the decade.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is continuing to implement the Money Smart program, which is providing financial education services for potential homebuyers. Through America's Homeownership Challenge, more than 2 dozen companies have made commitments to increase minority homeownership, including pledges to provide more than $1.1 trillion in mortgage purchases for minority homebuyers this decade.
The Bush Administration has begun the final stage of its effort to reduce closing costs, simplify the settlement paperwork, and eliminate surprise closing costs for American homebuyers by reforming the rules governing the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
NO, they didn't.
THAT was on banks.
They knew that they could easily, sell their worthless mortgages they issued, to Wall Street, who then sold them together as bundled AAA securities, when actually, they were worthless.
Sure, if the lender approved, that was on the banks or lender.
Bush did.
See American Dream Downpayment Act.
Larry Kudlow?Right, the entire article by CNBC is a complete lie and you are telling the truth.
Yes, that's the way the tax structures are in the rest of the world.
Well, with republicans passing tax cuts for corporations and the rich, eventually, some people are so low on the progressive income tax scale that they will pay $0 in income taxes.
Look how it was before Reagan.
The median taxpayer for 1981 had an AGI of $13,497 and owed $1,394 (10.3 percent of AGO in federal income taxes. Figure A shows the approximate effective tax rate for the average, or more specifically, the median taxpayer for selected years since 1950.
Figure A.-- Effective Tax Rates on Median AGI, All Returns, 1950 - 1981 Tax Median Adjusted Effective Year Gross Income Tax Rates
1950 $2,721 5.5%
1955 $3,528 8.1%
1960 $4,281 8.7%
1965 $5,143 8.4 1%
1970 $6,784 9.8%
1975 $8,929 8.9%
1976 $9,556 8.8%
1977 $10,222 8.5%
1978 $10,972 9.0%
1979 $11,869 9.3%
1980 $12,824 9.9%
1981 $13,497 10.3%
The following example shows how income tax' before credits was computed for 1981 for a married couple tiling a joint return, claiming four exemptions, having $4,880 in itemized deductions and with an adjusted gross income of $48,796. Joint Return with Income Subject to Tax at Regular Rates Only Derivation of Income Subject To Tax: $48,796 Adjusted Gross Income -1,480 Itemized deductions in excess of zero bracket amount -4 000 Exemption amount *43:316 Income subject to tax
And when right wants more $$$ for their stupid projects, they lower taxes on the people that came up with their stupid idea.
It's ALL deficit spending.
Sure, like this?
June 11 2020
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told Congress Wednesday that the Trump administration intends to keep secret the names of the businesses that have received more than $500 billion in COVID-19 bailout funds through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), claiming the information is “confidential.”
You want to fund a border wall, republicans should pay for it.
You want to send Mexican immigrants further into the US, republicans should pay for it.
Democrats should pay for it.
NO, he isn't.
Kevin McCarthy had a hell of a time getting elected as House speaker, and a list of all the concessions he made to the most conservative members of his party wouldn’t fit here. But one of the more important was a concession to hold a vote about a radical tax reform proposal known as the FairTax.
The FairTax, at its heart, is simple enough: It would take almost every federal tax and replace them with a fat 30 percent sales tax on everything. Virtually every American would get a monthly check from the government to cover the cost of paying the tax on essentials. It’s a radical idea, but one which since its first introduction to Congress in 1999 has been a favorite of conservative Republicans. Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA) already has 23 co-sponsors for the current iteration. Prominent party figures like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain have all championed the idea over the years.
link?Don't forget the 1982 law signed by Reagan that was a more direct cause, and don't forget GOP oversight which included five GOP senators being indicted for fraud or whatever et cetera et cetera.....
link?BS. I'm guessing that's about Fanny and Freddy which Republicans are always complaining about, and which had little to do with the real estate bubble and bust until the end. It was about GOP pals like countrywide getting deregulated mortgages sent out all over the country period a total bubble brought on by total deregulation and the usual crap oversight by the GOP. which is why they have a bust every time they get eight years....
francoHFW goes down again......It was actually about giving out loans to people that had little way to repay them:
The seeds of the mortgage meltdown were planted during Bill Clinton’s presidency.
Under Clinton’s Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, Andrew Cuomo, Community Reinvestment Act regulators gave banks higher ratings for home loans made in “credit-deprived” areas. Banks were effectively rewarded for throwing out sound underwriting standards and writing loans to those who were at high risk of defaulting. If banks didn’t comply with these rules, regulators reined in their ability to expand lending and deposits.
These new HUD rules lowered down payments from the traditional 20 percent to 3 percent by 1995 and zero down-payments by 2000. What’s more, in the Clinton push to issue home loans to lower income borrowers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a common practice to virtually end credit documentation, low credit scores were disregarded, and income and job history was also thrown aside. The phrase “subprime” became commonplace. What an understatement.
Are the Clintons the real housing crash villains?
Before Hillary rewrites history, let's look at how the Clintons contributed to the Great Recession, write Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore.
Now you can't bitch about the source either because it's one of your own. What Bill and then HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo did was tell banks to give loans to anybody no questions asked. If you made french fries at McDonald's part time, you still qualified for a home loan even though you had no financial ability to repay it.
The problem with that is you can't make one set of rules for minorities and another set for whites under our Equal Protection Under The Law rights of the US Constitution, so everybody jumped in and took advantage of this after 911 when the recession lifted.
Biden refused to name them, but here's the names of some of the loudest ones...
Do the USMB rightwing Republican-voters agree w/this attack on social security?
What's your position on this matter?
theintercept.com
Why not you claimed:WTF is wrong with you anyway? You can't have a consumption tax on people of one party or another.
So, does everyone in the US.With a consumption tax everybody pays equally which is the way taxes should work in the first place. Think the cashier at a store is going to ask for ID every time we buy merchandise to see if you're a Democrat or Republican?
Where I live we already have a consumption tax. It's a combination of state and county taxes. 5 cents to the state and 3 cents to the county.
No shit, see above.The Republicans pay it, the Democrats pay it, Independents pay it, non-voters pay it, the rich pay it, the poor pays it, and anybody in between pays it. That's how consumption taxes work. Everybody pays it.
Having a sales tax as the only source of public revenue would put a higher tax burden on people making less money. That’s because those with lower incomes tend to spend more of what they make while richer people tend to save more of their incomes, investing in retirement accounts, securities and other types of assets.There are no write-offs, there are no IRS audits, nobody has any idea what you pay in consumption taxes because it's based on how much you buy and not on record.
Why not you claimed:
"And when the left wants money for their stupid projects, their solution is to increase taxes".
So, does everyone in the US.
The states, counties and cities already have a "consumption" tax
No shit, see above.
Having a sales tax as the only source of public revenue would put a higher tax burden on people making less money. That’s because those with lower incomes tend to spend more of what they make while richer people tend to save more of their incomes, investing in retirement accounts, securities and other types of assets.
Let’s say you’re a family of four. You need at least $50,000 a year to live before you can save a dime. Under this proposal, every dollar of that income is going to be taxed. On the other hand, if you’re making $1 million a year and you’re saving a portion of that, not all of that income is going to end up being taxed as a sales tax.
And Democrats are always saying it's republicans who spend too muchRepublicans always, like clockwork, instantly worry about "out of control spending" when a democrat takes office, every time since Reagan was president.
On corporate tax cuts, they only add to the debt.And Democrats are always saying it's republicans who spend too much
When are you dupes going to learn the both sides of the corrupt duopoly are nothing but mirror images of each other?
See there you go.On corporate tax cuts, they only add to the debt.
Corporate tax cuts don't deliver as promised by republicans.
My taxes go up every year, without fail.
Yes, they do.See there you go.
Corporate tax cuts don't have that big of an effect on revenue.
Both parties of the corrupt duopoly know where the real revenue is and that is the middle class income tax which is why you almost never see anyone who is in the middle tax brackets ever get much of a change in their income tax rates.
Democrats fiddle with the lower end Republicans fiddle with the higher end but the people who pay the most over their lifetimes never get a real tax break from either party.
What states do is not the concern of anyone not living in that state.Yes, they do.
Corporations get tax breaks and incentives from states and the federal government.
While the middle and working class have to pay for their legitimate, tax burden.
It is my belief that all taxes are paid by the ultimate consumer. Taxes paid by corporations or business's will be passed onto their customers as a price increase.On corporate tax cuts, they only add to the debt.
Corporate tax cuts don't deliver as promised by republicans.
My taxes go up every year, without fail.
