Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Other people.
So how much do welfare expenses decrease?

For the same wage as the previous ones? What are you saying here? You make no sense.

Yes, if Walmart raised their wages for their workers.
The wages WalMart currently pays to current workers reduces welfare payments.

No, it doesn't. We pay $6B to provide welfare to walmart workers. If they raised the wages, we would spend less. So I am not sure what argument you're making, but it's stupid.

For the same wage as the previous ones?

Why not? Now that they got rid of all their workers on welfare, how much do welfare expenses decrease?


No, it doesn't. We pay $6B to provide welfare to walmart workers.

Great. Fire those workers, how much does the $6B fall? Spell it out.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So then why is it that Conservatives are the ones who give us those bubbles?
Bubbles have always happened and will always happen.

So this is your first problem. Nothing happens by accident in our economy. Everything happens for a reason. The bubbles didn't just appear out of nowhere, they were created by taking specific actions. The dotcom bubble was caused by the 1997 Capital Gains Tax Cut, and the Bush mortgage bubble was created by the deregulation of the mortgage industry and the Bush Tax Cuts.

As far as the recent bubbles, if the Internet bubble had popped a couple years earlier, we wouldn't have to hear about Clinton's awesome "surplus" and if the RE bubble had popped a couple of years later, Obama would have been a one term failure instead of a two term failure.

But we do hear about the surplus, and the Bush Mortgage Bubble popped. Nothing Clinton did led Bush's regulators to cease enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004. Those regulators, who work for the Executive Branch, ceased enforcement of lending standards. That's why subprime growth exploded.

Mortgage bubbe in 2004-7 thanks to Bush deregulating the mortgage industry

You'll have to tell me more about this claim.
Do you feel that pushing banks, Fannie and Freddie to vastly expand lending to poorer people is an example of deregulation?

First of all, GSE's were prohibited from purchasing risky subprime loans thanks to a Clinton HUD rule in 2000. Bush reversed that rule in 2004, and that's why GSE's resumed purchasing risky subprimes. It should be noted, however, that GSE subprime loans performed markedly better than their private sector counterpart:

"Mortgage analyst Laurie Goodman estimated that private label securitizations issued during 2005-2007 incurred a loss rate of 24%, whereas the GSE loss rate for 2005-2007 vintage loans was closer to 4%."
​

So the GSE's and the CRA were not responsible for the Bush Mortgage Bubble that appeared in 2004 and popped by 2007.

First of all, GSE's were prohibited from purchasing risky subprime loans thanks to a Clinton HUD rule in 2000.

Show me.

Bush reversed that rule in 2004, and that's why GSE's resumed purchasing risky subprimes.

When the government forced Fannie and Freddie to buy crappy mortgages, was that an example of deregulation?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Newt Gingrich really held the line on Clinton's spending wishes.

Conservatives lost the shutdown battle and had to accept the extra $300B of spending Clinton had in his budget.

Was that more or less than Clinton wanted to spend?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

yet, the right wing prefers to claim cutting taxes isAlways the solution,
And cutting spending....a lot.

Hold on, though...tax cuts were originally pitched as "paying for themselves". If you are now saying that spending has to be cut in order for tax cuts to work (?), then that means there is no economic benefit to cutting taxes. Which means there is another reason Conservatives want to do so...that reason is to manufacture budget deficits that are then used as an excuse to cut spending. Those spending cuts are almost always operational, and cause programs to fail. Then Conservatives point to those failing programs as an excuse to sell them off to private interests who profit off them at our expense, while not producing any better outcomes than before. You can look at private prisons and charter schools to see the failure of right-wing ideology in action.

If you are now saying that spending has to be cut in order for tax cuts to work (?),

Tax cuts work. Spending cuts work. Let's do both.

that reason is to manufacture budget deficits that are then used as an excuse to cut spending.

I don't need an excuse to cut spending. The government spend a much too large percentage of GDP.
Cut spending now. A lot.

Those spending cuts are almost always operational, and cause programs to fail.

We need to cut programs, now. Lots of them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yep, UNFUNDED TAX CUTS,
I agree, Bush should have cut spending when he cut taxes.

Why? Spending has nothing to do with the effect of tax cuts. You are saying that in order for tax cuts "to work", spending has to be cut? How so? Your argument makes no fucking sense. So you are saying tax cuts don't pay for themselves by way of increased consumption, and that spending has to be cut because...because...why?

OBAMACARES 2013-2020, WHICH WAS 100% FUNDED
Yeah, great plan, imploding as we speak.

If it is imploding (which it isn't), it's because Conservatives are taking deliberate actions to sabotage it.

Why?

Because the government spends, and wastes, way too much.

 

[danielpalos]

Which standards did they not enforce wrt Countrywide, for instance?

Take your pick; no income verification, robo-signing, some subprimes issued didn't even have names on whose loan it was. Wall Street was churning out as many subprimes as they could so they could package those subprimes into securities to sell on the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets. That's how those markets got inflated so quickly.

Go watch The Big Short. It does a fantastic job of explaining how the subprime bubble started, how it grew, and how it popped. It's on Netflix now. Should be required viewing for every American.

Plus, it's got Margot Robbie in a bathtub...so there's that:

Modern times.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which standards did they not enforce wrt Countrywide, for instance?

Take your pick; no income verification, robo-signing, some subprimes issued didn't even have names on whose loan it was. Wall Street was churning out as many subprimes as they could so they could package those subprimes into securities to sell on the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets. That's how those markets got inflated so quickly.

Go watch The Big Short. It does a fantastic job of explaining how the subprime bubble started, how it grew, and how it popped. It's on Netflix now. Should be required viewing for every American.

Plus, it's got Margot Robbie in a bathtub...so there's that:

Take your pick; no income verification

What was the regulation on income verification that Countrywide violated?

Wall Street was churning out as many subprimes as they could

Of course they were, the government forced Fannie and Freddie to buy so many of them.


Go watch The Big Short.

I watched it. It was okay. Had a couple of errors, fewer than most movies about finance.
Don't remember it saying much about the Fed or the GSEs.

 

[danielpalos]

Conservatives loved a guy who had a centrally planned and managed economy under a totalitarian dictatorship that denied individual rights and instead provided only group privilege?

Yep. They loved his racism and antisemitism. Not much has changed for Conservatives since.

If that's true, why do Conservatives not back the democrats who follow the identical platform today?

Democrats do not have that platform.

So we will find conservatives of the time praising Hitler? Do tell?

Of course leading PROGRESSIVES are a different story. Darling of the Progressive Left Henry Ford FAWNED over Hitler. Radical Left Priest and close confidant of FDR, Father Charles Coughlin thought Hitler was the best man ever born, he shared the vision of how humans should be dealt with. Open Communist Eugene Debs praised Hitler as the leader the world needed. And of course Huey Long, the Marxist Labor leader of "Share the Wealth" was a vocal advocate of Hitler.

In fact, your Big Lie trying to convert Fascism to Conservatism didn't even start until academics in the 1950's were desperate to justify their continued preaching of Marxism in the face of the never ending atrocities committed by their beloved Marxists.

Your Big Lie has failed. Fascism is a form of socialism, always was, always will be.

so is Any mixed-market economy; it is mostly, State Capitalism "managed" by a legislature and an executive branch.

 

[danielpalos]

Wait, you're claiming the housing bubble started in 2004?

It did start in 2004.

When you look at this chart, what is it you see?

A dip in 2000 due to the Clinton recession, followed by a rapidly expanding bubble.starting in 2001.

What do you see, a pony? A dragon? Santa Claus?

The dot com bubble had to happen to increase incomes for a mortgage bubble.

 

[danielpalos]

No I'm not, lol. I'm advocating an end to the system of labor exploitation known as capitalism.

Good luck trying to explain anything to these frauds. Conservatives lie constantly, exercise sophistry, and willfully and deliberately mislead because their arguments cannot stand on their merits. Every single Conservative posting on this thread is a fraud. And they know it.

I'm a liberal too. Can't be too hard to convince me. I agree we need to break capitalism. Do you know how to do that? You stop having lots of babies. When we do that then the American corporations that run our government will tell the government to give families tax breaks for having kids and corporations will start paying parents a wage that promotes having more kids. If we keep pumping out cheap labor and consumers they'll never stop fucking us.

Current public policy encourages the poor to have more kids, instead of be more ready to take advantage of any available, (job) opportunities.

 

[danielpalos]

So we will find conservatives of the time praising Hitler? Do tell?

Here ya go!

In February 1939 Kuhn and the Bund held their largest rally in Madison Square Garden—ironically, one which marked the beginning of the end for the organization. In front of a crowd of 22,000, flanked by a massive portrait of George Washington, swastikas and Americans flags, Kuhn attacked President Roosevelt for being part of a Bolshevik-Jewish conspiracy, calling him “Frank D. Rosenfeld” and calling his New Deal the “Jew Deal”. Three thousands members of the Ordnungsdienst, the militant arm of the Bund, were on hand and fistfights broke out in the crowd among those who had come to heckle Kuhn.​

Here's a terrific book that goes into detail at how the Conservatives loved Hitler so much, they tried to prevent the US from getting involved in WWII.

Of course leading PROGRESSIVES are a different story. Darling of the Progressive Left Henry Ford FAWNED over Hitler. Radical Left Priest and close confidant of FDR, Father Charles Coughlin thought Hitler was the best man ever born, he shared the vision of how humans should be dealt with. Open Communist Eugene Debs praised Hitler as the leader the world needed. And of course Huey Long, the Marxist Labor leader of "Share the Wealth" was a vocal advocate of Hitler.

Father Coughlin was no ally of FDR. In fact, Coghlin would routinely take to the airwaves to rail against Roosevelt's New Deal starting in 1934. You don't know anything. Why are you just making stuff up???? Such a liar.

Your Big Lie has failed. Fascism is a form of socialism, always was, always will be.

No, it's not. Fascism and socialism are two completely different things. You don't know anything, yet you still exercise sophistry. The simplest of Google searches undermines every point you make...like how you made a lying point about the MW being raised in Seattle. You deliberately did not use Seattle's current unemployment rate, choosing instead to use a link that is 15 months old to make the false argument that Seattle's MW increase led to unemployment. It didn't. So you lied. So if you lied about that, why would you be telling the truth about anything else???

My god but you are an idiot.

{Father Coughlin first took to the airwaves in 1926, broadcasting weekly sermons over the radio. By the early 1930s the content of his broadcasts had shifted from theology to economics and politics. Just as the rest of the nation was obsessed by matters economic and political in the aftermath of the Depression, so too was Father Coughlin. Coughlin had a well-developed theory of what he termed "social justice," predicated on monetary "reforms." He began as an early Roosevelt supporter, coining a famous expression, that the nation's choice was between "Roosevelt or ruin." Later in the 1930s he turned against FDR and became one of the president's harshest critics. His program of "social justice" was a very radical challenge to capitalism and to many of the political institutions of his day. }

Social Security History

A bit of advice, less hack, more fact.

US national socialists had to give up a lot, to not be confused with True national socialists.

 

[danielpalos]

You are not a liberal, you are a Stalinist, a fascist. You advocate the opposite of liberty, the control of people's lives and finances by the authoritarian state. The primary attribute of a liberal is advocacy of Laissez Faire Capitalism.

And you're a fucking fraud and a liar...someone who exercises sophistry because there are no merits to anything you believe.

You calling someone else a liar or a fraud is laughably ironic, not to mention insanely ignorant.

{The doctrine of laissez-faire became an integral part of nineteenth-century European liberalism.[13] "Just as liberals supported freedom of thought in the intellectual sphere, so were they equally prepared to champion the principles of free trade and free competition in the sphere of economics. The state was to be merely a passive policeman, protecting private property and administering justice, but not interfering with the affairs of its citizens. Businessmen, and particularly British industrialists, were quick to associate these principles with their own economic interests."[13] Many of the ideas of the physiocrats spread throughout Europe, and were adopted to a greater or lesser extent in Sweden, Tuscany, Spain, and after 1776 in the newly created United States. Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations, met Quesnay and acknowledged his influence.[28]}

Laissez-faire - Wikipedia

Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are nothing but, command economics.

Only the right wing never seems to be able to distinguish.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm a liberal too. Can't be too hard to convince me. I agree we need to break capitalism. Do you know how to do that? You stop having lots of babies. When we do that then the American corporations that run our government will tell the government to give families tax breaks for having kids and corporations will start paying parents a wage that promotes having more kids. If we keep pumping out cheap labor and consumers they'll never stop fucking us.

You are not a liberal, you are a Stalinist, a fascist. You advocate the opposite of liberty, the control of people's lives and finances by the authoritarian state. The primary attribute of a liberal is advocacy of Laissez Faire Capitalism.

Go ahead and try to re define words. You sir are the fascists.

One of us supports a centrally planned and managed economy. Is that you, or I?

One of us supports group privilege over individual rights. Is that you, or I?

One of use supports laws that criminalize "hate speech" and movies that offend the party, Is that you, or I?

The Big Lie has failed, SIlly Bonobo.

Fascism exactly defines what you of the democratic party promote in 2017.

End the Drug War, right wingers or Y'all Own it.

 

[The Derp]

Stupid budget rules, how so?
The budget rules that say tax cuts have to be paid for to be permanent.
Any other budget rule that favors increased spending.

So you are now admitting tax cuts do not pay for themselves. OK. So if they don't pay for themselves, then there is no economic benefit to them. So why do them at all? If they did what you all promise they would do, increase consumption, then they would pay for themselves from the pretend economic activity that would come from them, right? So by putting a sunset provision on them, Conservatives are tacitly admitting they make no economic sense. So then why even do them at all? To manufacture budget deficits that are used as an excuse to cut spending that you lack the courage and/or support to repeal through legislation. Which would make the entire premise of your argument a bunch of bullshit.

And why would they listen to liberals at all?
I agree, listening to stupid liberals is stupid.

Maybe they should start listening to liberals since Conservatives seem incapable of balancing a budget after cutting taxes.

So that means there's no economic benefit to doing them.

There is no economic benefit if they don't pay for themselves 100%? That's a stupid claim.

The stupid claim was that they would pay for themselves at all. You need to reconcile that before moving the goalposts. You all promised that if taxes were cut, there would be so much economic activity that we would have surpluses as far as they eye could see. But now, since that was a bullshit claim, you've moved the goalposts again, lowered the bar, to make a self-defeating argument in favor of a policy to which there is no positive empirical evidence to support. You're the ones who say tax cuts pay for themselves, that they will be a shot of adrenaline into the economy, that they will create jobs...even though they don't. So why are you still making those claims?

hat if they pay for themselves 50%?

But they don't. So instead of arguing in hypothetical and theory, let's debate in reality. We know the effects of tax cuts, both long and short term. They're universally negative. I'm beginning to think you support them because they're two syllables and you can spell it. You haven't even proven they pay for themselves 1% (because they don't). You first need to establish they do that before you can start making wider claims and shift those goalposts again and again and again ad infinitum.

So if they don't pay for themselves, don't create jobs

If they pay for themselves 50%, that means they don't create jobs?

They don't even pay for themselves 50%, and you haven't shown any proof they do. In fact, all the proof shows the opposite; that they end up costing everyone more and increase the deficit. Which is what happened most recently in Kansas, and 15 years ago nationally.

We have the empirical data that shows states that raised their MW saw faster job growth than states that didn't.

Great. Now post empirical data that shows states that raised their MW saw faster MW job growth than states that didn't.

I did that. It is literally the title of from NPR:

States That Raised Minimum Wage See Faster Job Growth, Report Says
New data released by the Department of Labor shows that raising the minimum wage in some states does not appear to have had a negative impact on job growth, contrary to what critics said would happen.

In a report on Friday, the 13 states that raised their minimum wages on Jan. 1 have added jobs at a faster pace than those that did not.​

I want tax cuts, not hikes.

You don't even know why you want them. I think you just want them because it's two syllables, seven letters, and you can spell it. Every other excuse you give gets smacked down by facts. You're left with just rhetoric. When someone adheres to ideology over facts, that makes them an ideologue and ignoramus. So congrats on being 2-for-2 in suckiness.

Then why did you invoke a tax cut that set the rate to 70%?
Because it was a tax cut.

But it was to 70%, which is much higher than it is now.

No, where are you getting the $100K from?

Pick any number you please

No, no. We aren't arguing in your make-believe hypothetical fantasy land. We are talking in terms of reality. You are now admitting that you're pulling your argument right from your fat ass. So why do you do that? Simple; because you are insecure and need validation that only posting anonymously on an internet message board can give you. You wouldn't dare make these claims IRL because doing so would result in your humiliation.

We are talking about the unemployment rate.

We're talking about a government mandated increase in wages.

And your claim was that increase in wages would kill jobs, but all the evidence from just three years ago says the opposite. So your theory does not align with the facts. And you have yet to account for that massive discrepancy. If what you're saying is true, those 13 states that raised their MW 3 years ago would not have seen the faster job growth than the 37 states that didn't. It's your principle that is disproved by facts. So that means either the facts are wrong, or you are.

If you think raising the MW doesn't decrease the demand for MW workers, submit your
work for publication.

13 states + DC raised their MW in 2014 and those 13 states + DC saw faster job growth than the 37 that didn't. So you need to re-examine your misunderstanding of economics, loser. If what you are saying is true, then those states would not have seen job growth faster than the others. If what you're saying is true, those states wouldn't have seen job growth at all. But they did. So how do you account for that?

No one is proposing raising it to $30 or $50/hr.

Because the job losses would be too obvious.

Because your argument has no validity unless we are talking in those terms you are defining. But no one has said they want to raise it that high. You created a straw man for the purpose of this debate because you are a sophist and cannot have a legitimate debate on the merits because your beliefs have no merits.

Less money?

Yes, raise their MW costs by 30%, that reduces the cash they have to buy other things.

Not if they're seeing an increase in sales, which they would. Which happened in those 13 states + DC and is reflected in the faster pace of job growth when they raised their MW in 2014.

Since their revenues are increasing thanks to increased consumption

If their expenses increased by $10,000 do you think their revenues will increase by $10,000? Why?

Well, their revenues would probably increase by more because of the free market and people spending their money where they want. Again, 13 states + DC raised their MW and those states + DC saw faster job growth than the states that didn't. That means revenues went up, forcing businesses to expand and hire more. They only could do that because their sales (revenue) increased as a result of consumers spending more money because they have more to spend.

and what would they do with the money they have anyway?

The money they have now buys equipment, supplies, pays interest on debt, pays rent, pays dividends to owners.

But they're not going to do any of that unless there is demand. No business is going to expand just because. They expand when there is a need to do so. This is your "if you build it, they will come" philosophy of economics. And just like the movie, it's pure fantasy.

 

[The Derp]

Why not? Now that they got rid of all their workers on welfare, how much do welfare expenses decrease?

But who is replacing the workers they just fired and what rate are they paying them?

No, it doesn't. We pay $6B to provide welfare to walmart workers.

Great. Fire those workrs, how much does the $6B fall? Spell it out.

So who is Walmart foing to hire to replace the workers they just fired?

 

[The Derp]

First of all, GSE's were prohibited from purchasing risky subprime loans thanks to a Clinton HUD rule in 2000.
Show me.

You make it so easy for me!!! I expect an apology and atonement for the fact that you aren't well-versed in this, or any other topic:

From the Washington Post, June 10th, 2008:
"(In 2000) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."​

You're welcome.

Bush reversed that rule in 2004, and that's why GSE's resumed purchasing risky subprimes.

When the government forced Fannie and Freddie to buy crappy mortgages, was that an example of deregulation?

When Bush did it, yes. That would be an example of deregulation. Bush reversed that 2000 Clinton rule in 2004, and GSE's purchased billions in risky subprime loans they previously were prevented from purchasing by Clinton.

 

[The Derp]

Was that more or less than Clinton wanted to spend?

Was it more or less than Gingrich wanted? And BTW - Congress writes the budget, not Clinton.

 

[The Derp]

If you are now saying that spending has to be cut in order for tax cuts to work (?),
Tax cuts work. Spending cuts work. Let's do both.

But tax cuts don't work and you have no proof they do. In fact, there is tons of evidence that says they don't work. Most recently, Kansas.

that reason is to manufacture budget deficits that are then used as an excuse to cut spending.

I don't need an excuse to cut spending. The government spend a much too large percentage of GDP.

So that judgement is wholly arbitrary. There is no magic % of what the government should or shouldn't spend as a percentage of GDP. Just whatever you pull out of your fat ass, I guess. Again, you do that because you don't really know what you're talking about, so you speak in broad strokes but lack detail. That's because you're sloppy in your work.

Cut spending now. A lot.

What do you want to cut? Social Security, Medicare, and Defense make up about 90% of the budget. So explain how cutting those programs will produce any positive economic benefits. I'll save you the time; you cannot.

Those spending cuts are almost always operational, and cause programs to fail.

We need to cut programs, now. Lots of them.

Which ones? Medicare? Social Security? Defense? And what does cutting them accomplish, exactly?

 

[The Derp]

Why?
Because the government spends, and wastes, way too much.

That's your opinion. Not fact. Your opinion is not fact. Your opinion is worthless, since we all know you are exercising as much sophistry as you can to try and give yourself an out in this debate.

I'm not gonna let you, though.

 

[The Derp]

Take your pick; no income verification
What was the regulation on income verification that Countrywide violated?

That the income was verified. Duh.

Wall Street was churning out as many subprimes as they could

Of course they were, the government forced Fannie and Freddie to buy so many of them.

Not the government, Conservatives and Bush. And GSE loan performance was more than 6 times better than those of private label issuers. GSE-backed loans defaulted at a rate of 4% from 2005-7. Private label-backed loans defaulted at a rate of 26% from 2005-7. So the problem wasn't GSE's. The problem were the private labels.

Go watch

The Big Short.
I watched it. It was okay. Had a couple of errors, fewer than most movies about finance.
Don't remember it saying much about the Fed or the GSEs.

You weren't paying attention, clearly. Watch it again.