Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[task0778]

That turn against FDR started in 1934.

FDR, miserable failure with regard to our economy. He extended the Great Depression by seven years.

Obama pretty much did the same thing for the Great Recession. Lucky for him fracking took off and kept us slightly above zero economic growth.

 

[Markle]

That the income was verified. Duh.

Nope. There were called no doc loans for a reason. you simply stated how much you made and presto, loan approved. It was well known in the business that if you could not get a customer approved anywhere else, take them to Countrywide, they'd write the loan.

 

[The Derp]

Nope. There were called no doc loans for a reason. you simply stated how much you made and presto, loan approved. It was well known in the business that if you could not get a customer approved anywhere else, take them to Countrywide, they'd write the loan.

That's what I said. And the trouble was in the private labels (like Countrywide), just like I said too. GSE-backed loans performed more than 6 times better than their private label counterparts (4% default for GSE loans vs. 26% default for private label loans). To blame the mortgage crisis on GSE's is to ignore the facts of GSE loan performance.

 

[danielpalos]

[
It's you...because you want to hand it over to corporations who will consolidate and form monopolies. Like what Trump is going to try to do to the air traffic controllers. Make no mistake; Conservatives absolutely support a centrally planned and managed economy...only instead of the government doing it, it's oligarchs who profit at our expense.

Ah lying, the primary attribute of you Fascists.

No Herr Himmler, I don't support government supported monopolies the way you do.

You see, the ONLY way that a monopoly is possible is for the government to support it. Without government, anything save a natural monopoly is impossible. In a free market, monopolies or near monopolies such as GM will collapse under their own inefficiency. They only way they survive is when the state steps in to crush their competition or make massive transfers of cash from the public to the well connected. as Obama did.

What an interesting story, Herr Spear. How does that work for capital intensive ventures, such as energy, and potable and waste water management. Should those firms, also compete with, competing infrastructure.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

You are an idiot, which is actually better than that lying little fuck the derp.

{
What is a 'Command Economy'
A command economy is a system where the government, rather than the free market, determines what goods should be produced, how much should be produced and the price at which the goods are offered for sale. The command economy is a key feature of any communist society. Cuba, North Korea and the former Soviet Union are examples of countries that have command economies, while China maintained a command economy for decades before transitioning to a mixed economy that features both communistic and capitalistic elements.}

Command Economy

You should go back to high school and try to earn the GED.

The Derp is without ethics, no hope for the pile of shit.

Her Himmler, there is no "free market" for alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they Only exist, Because, Herr Say, says so.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude; we are on the Wrong Side of the Curve; our massive debt, Proves it.

Yeah, WAY beyond your ability to comprehend. Got it!

why do believe we have such massive debt? Your, total comprehension.

 

[danielpalos]

The price inflation canard from the right wing? How literally, incredible.

The dollar menu won't even double.

So, in your opinion, if all wages double, the menu at your MacDonalds does not? Exactly how would that work?

In right wing fantasy?

All wages will not be doubling. The right wing is not that good; Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages.

 

[danielpalos]

That turn against FDR started in 1934.

FDR, miserable failure with regard to our economy. He extended the Great Depression by seven years.

Just economic ignorance; much like the right wing, actually prefers. We have the largest economy in the World, now; and even the South, is "electrified".

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

What an interesting story, Herr Spear. How does that work for capital intensive ventures, such as energy, and potable and waste water management. Should those firms, also compete with, competing infrastructure.

You ask if ENERGY should compete, as the prior administration pumped hundreds of billions from taxpayers to Elon Musk and other well connected looters, all in the name of alternative energy?

Apparently Barack Obama thought that competing infrastructure was good. Are you calling your god a liar?

 

[The Derp]

So you are now admitting tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
I've always said that except for capital gains tax rate cuts and income tax rate cuts from high levels, they don't pay for themselves.
Just as I've always said, the purpose of the cuts isn't to pay for themselves.
The purpose is to increase jobs, grow GDP and let people keep more of their own money.

OK, but increasing jobs and growing GDP would be "paying for themselves" in increased economic activity, would it not? That's what you're saying. What you've failed to prove is that cutting taxes actually does those things. You haven't proven that beyond rhetoric, which is why we are still on the subject. And Capital Gains Tax Cuts don't pay for themselves either. They cut Capital Gains Taxes in 1997 and it produced the dotcom bubble.

Are we on the left side of the Laffer Curve?
I don't care, I think we need to cut rates.
Cut individual rates. Cut capital gains rates. Cut corporate rates.

So you support a policy that you admittedly have no idea of its economic impact, nor do you care about it. So it is a question of philosophy and nothing more. So you aren't making an economic argument. You're not making a fiscal argument. You're not making an academic argument. You're making an emotional argument. So your guiding economic philosophy is based on emotion. That's no way to run an economy.

So if they don't pay for themselves, then there is no economic benefit to them.

Bullshit.

You say they don't pay for themselves in one breath, then in the next breath you promise they create jobs and grow GDP, which would mean you think they do pay for themselves. So you really need to make up your mind what it is you believe, because you are jumping from one position to another with no justification while contradicting your own post within itself! Increased economic activity leads to increased revenues, thus, claiming tax cuts grow GDP and create jobs is also claiming they pay for themselves.

So why do them at all?

The purpose is to increase jobs, grow GDP and let people keep more of their own money.

Even though after all the tax cuts over the last 37 years, household debt has skyrocketed which would indicate people don't get to "keep" more of what they earn. Quite the opposite, actually. People get a tax cut, then go into debt. How could that be the case if what you're saying is true?

So by putting a sunset provision on them, Conservatives are tacitly admitting they make no economic sense.

That provision was because of the moronic budget rules.

Budget rules that exist for a reason. A reason you Conservatives demanded. That reason being any legislation that increases the deficit requires 60 votes to pass the Senate. That was Conservatives who put that rule into place. Now you're saying the rule you clowns fought so hard for is suddenly stupid when it prevents you from exploding the deficit and debt? LOL!

Maybe they should start listening to liberals

Nope. Liberals are morons and should never be listened to.

Even though they've been right about everything; right about tax cuts not creating jobs. Right about Saddam not having WMDs. Right about letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy. Is there anything Conservatives have said or proposed over the last 37 years that has turned out as they predicted? No. Wrong about hyperinflation. Wrong about Obamacare. Wrong about Saddam. Wrong about tax cuts "paying for themselves". Wrong about deregulation. Wrong about climate change. Wrong about gay marriage. Wrong about letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy. The list goes on and on and on...

The stupid claim was that they would pay for themselves at all.

If tax rates are cut to an extent that lets people $100 billion more of their own money, how much does the additional increase in GDP raise government revenues?

So again, there's that word "if"...meaning you want to make an argument in the realm of hypothetical. The reality is that every time taxes were cut over the last 37 years, household debt skyrocketed. So if what you're saying is true, that wouldn't be the case. How do you account for the growth of household debt following tax cuts if people "keep more of what they earned"? It would seem to prove the opposite to your conclusion and rhetoric; that cutting taxes leads to growth of household debt...because that is precisely what has happened over the last 37 years. Cutting taxes doesn't seem to make any economic sense. You are conceding they do not "pay for themselves", which means they do not generate enough economic activity to offset their costs. Which means they don't create jobs, they don't grow GDP...instead, they cause deficits. Then those deficits are used as an excuse to cut spending you are ideologically opposed to, but lack the courage and/or support to repeal through legislation. Basically, you practice fiscal terrorism; you deliberately attack the budget in order to force through an ideological imperative. That's fiscal terrorism.

But they don't.

If the number isn't 50%, what is the number?

Zero. We know this because household debt skyrockets after tax cuts, which means the tax cuts themselves result in a loss.

We know the effects of tax cuts, both long and short term. They're universally negative.

Of course. You feel any dollar people keep is a lost opportunity for government to spend that dollar.
That's one of the reasons why Hillary lost.

At the end of the day, the cashier at Best Buy does not care from where the dollar came to purchase the flat screen TV. Doesn't matter to Best Buy if the person buying the TV works for the government, or works for a private corporation. All they care about is that customer has money to spend. What we've seen from 37 years of right-wing trickle-down bullshit is consumers having to go into debt. Household debt doubled during Bush the Dumber. So that means these tax cuts that don't pay for themselves don't generate the promised economic activity. If they did, then there wouldn't be deficits from them (because the economic activity from "unleashing" consumers from the tax burden would translate to more revenues to make up the gap). You're saying now that tax cuts produce deficits because they do not fully generate the revenue to offset the cost from the cuts. That's what it means when you say "tax cuts pay for themselves". You are saying they generate jobs and GDP growth, which would mean they are generating revenues from the taxes from those sales. But you're admitting that isn't the case; that tax cuts do not generate enough jobs and/or GDP growth to offset their costs. Which means there isn't a viable economic argument for them. Hence why you make an emotional argument instead. So many emotions! Such a snowflake!

You haven't even proven they pay for themselves 1% (because they don't).

People keep more of their own money and that never causes more economic growth?

Philosophy vs. Reality.

Philosophy is that they will spend more if they get a tax cut
Reality is that they go into debt

That's what the empirical data shows over the last 37 years. So no, there is no economic growth that comes from the tax cuts. If there were, then revenue would exceed the baseline from the tax cuts. But it doesn't. Which is why Bush erased a surplus and produced four record deficits that doubled the debt in 8 years, when we could have paid it off in 9 if you had done literally nothing to the tax code. Conservatives couldn't even do nothing right. SAD!

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

But the cut led to faster growth. Just as those cuts always do.

You can't prove that. And if there was growth, it was because the rate was at 70%. So if you want to go back to that rate, I'm fine with that.

We aren't arguing in your make-believe hypothetical fantasy land. We are talking in terms of reality.

Awesome! Take a real employment cost number, add a number to that cost..

Again, you are working from the assumption that consumption does not increase if there is a wage increase and that is just not true. Consumption increased in the 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014 and we know this because those states saw faster job growth than states that didn't. So higher wages = more consumer spending = more revenues for businesses = business expanding to meet increased demand = more jobs.

The empirical evidence shows those states had faster job growth than states that didn't raise their wages. So the cost of labor was more than offset by the cost of increased economic activity. What increased economic activity in those states that saw faster job growth? Wasn't tax cuts because those states didn't cut taxes...it was wage growth. Wage growth led to increased consumer demand which led to businesses expanding in order to meet that demand; hence faster job growth.

Let's stop pretending you know what you're talking about.

 

[The Derp]

People who aren't collecting welfare

But if they're paying the same rates they paid before, then those people would be collecting welfare.

 

[The Derp]

But they're not going to do any of that unless there is demand.
There's no demand and you insist they shell out more for employee expenses?

Raising wages increases demand, which leads to job growth, because people have more money to spend. That's what we saw happen in 2014, when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages. We will see the same thing happen again this year because 19 states raised their MW on January 1st.

 

[The Derp]

What that means is HUD made them buy a certain percentage of crappier loans, but didn't give them credit for loans with "abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay"

Right, which meant they wouldn't buy those loans if they're not getting credit for them. And they didn't buy those loans. Which is why GSE loan performance was 6 times better than that of private labels from 2005-7. Only 4% of GSE-backed loans defaulted from 2005-7, whereas 26% of private label-backed loans defaulted from 2005-7. It's inconvenient facts like that, which seem to unravel any argument you make.

In 2004, as regulators warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending.

So submitting an editorial absent of facts is not going to help you here. GSE loan performance was 6 times better than private label loan performance during the bubble. When you look at this chart, what is it you see? Because I see GSE delinquencies a fraction of that of the private labels. Do you have a problem reading charts? I know it can be complex because of all the colors. I don't want to overwhelm you. How can you come to the conclusion that GSE's bear any blame for the mortgage bubble when the chart below shows their delinquency rate is a fraction of those from private labels.

Wow! The government required them to buy over half their mortgages from the crappy end of the pool.

So, as usual, you ignore the facts. And the facts show that the GSE-backed loans (the ones you are talking about here) defaulted at rates that were a fraction of what private-label loans were defaulting. That's what the facts say. So you say GSE's were responsible for the housing bubble, yet GSE loans performed no better or worse than they did prior to the bubble. That's what the data says. So here is another example of reality clashing with Conservative fantasy. The fantasy is that GSE's were responsible for the delinquent loans that caused the bubble to pop, whereas the reality is that GSE loan performance was exponentially better than that of private labels, and saw delinquency rates no better or worse than prior to the bubble. Hence, GSE's were not responsible for the collapse. Also, GSE market share was cut from 70% of the market in 2003 to 40% of the market by 2005:

I expect an apology
I'm sorry, I thought you were smarter than a 5th grader.....I was wrong.

I'm smarter than you, that's for fucking sure. Also, not sloppy like you either.

 

[The Derp]

It was more. So much for the credit you've been giving Clinton for budget rectitude, eh?

I'm giving Clinton credit for winning the shutdown fight. Conservatives opposed Clinton's budgets and tried to throw them out of whack by passing a $700B tax cut that Clinton vetoed. Of course, that tax cut would end up getting passed in 2001, and as expected, the surplus was erased and turned into record deficits while 841,000 private sector jobs were lost between 2001-4, and 460,000 private sector jobs were lost between 2001-9.

 

[danielpalos]

[

What an interesting story, Herr Spear. How does that work for capital intensive ventures, such as energy, and potable and waste water management. Should those firms, also compete with, competing infrastructure.

You ask if ENERGY should compete, as the prior administration pumped hundreds of billions from taxpayers to Elon Musk and other well connected looters, all in the name of alternative energy?

Apparently Barack Obama thought that competing infrastructure was good. Are you calling your god a liar?

How many competing solar panels on one roof?

 

[danielpalos]

But they're not going to do any of that unless there is demand.
There's no demand and you insist they shell out more for employee expenses?

Raising wages increases demand, which leads to job growth, because people have more money to spend. That's what we saw happen in 2014, when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages. We will see the same thing happen again this year because 19 states raised their MW on January 1st.

The right wing prefers to, "hate on the poor" by reducing foodstamps and blaming the poor, for poor lifestyle choices, while actually being poor.

 

[The Derp]

Great, here is what I posted: "The National Debt in 2001 was $5.8 TRILLION and 58% of our GDP. By the end of 2016 fiscal year, the debt will be $20+ TRILLION and be 105+% of our GDP."The GDP at the end of the year 2008 was $10,025 and 67% of our GDP. Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama took office in January of 2009 so he owns that year. If you make a claim that President Obama doesn't own 2009, then you agree that President Bush does not own 2001.

Great! So now you can explain why you are so concerned about debt since it has had no effect on our economy despite right-wingers claiming it does.

 

[The Derp]

The Unemployment rate went from 7.6%, up to 9.7% in 1982 when his tax cuts took effect. As you know, from there it fell annually until his last year in office 1988 to 5.5%. Inflation from 10.38% down to 4.14%. Thirty-year mortgage rates from 18+% in 1981 down to 10.34% in 1988.

His tax cuts took effect January 1982. Unemployment would grow from 7.2% the month the tax cuts were passed, up to 10.8% by December 1982, 12 months after the tax cuts went into effect.

Between 1981 and 1988, the Fed lowered interest rates and Congress increased spending. Reagan would also raise taxes 11 times. So you are pretending that the 1981 tax cut is responsible for the growth over the next 8 years, and you do that because you are a sophist.

 

[The Derp]

How much have the average wages increased during the first two years of the Trump Administration?

Trump hasn't been President for two years. He's been President for 5 months. Wage growth since Trump took over has been poor. Last month, wage growth was at its lowest in over two years.

trange, people leaving the labor force was not important the past eight years. Go figure.

I didn't say it was important, I was just submitting it as fact.

 

[The Derp]

FDR, miserable failure with regard to our economy. He extended the Great Depression by seven years.

No he didn't. Right-wingers are desperate to rewrite history in order for their failed policies to have credibility. No, FDR didn't extend the Great Depression, and you cannot explain how he did. You just say things that you expect people to accept as fact, but they're not. I am challenging your claim on this. I doubt you could support it using your own words.