Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Dad2three]

BZZ nope, it was more than anything else, Wall Street Banksters and the inability to collect revenues via taxes. But thanks for not giving ONE example of the society you fetishists dream of!

Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....? The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid. You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....

What fucking sense does that make?

You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird


Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
Ronnie 17%
Clinton 20%
Dubya 15%
Obama17%

HMM

Yeah link that moron. And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.

No, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves


In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.

No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Reagan's and Kennedy's tax cuts did increase tax revenue and on top of that, tax cuts don't have to pay for themselves, government needs to cut it's spending since that is our money, not governments.....you lefties have created the false premise that we need to justify keeping the money we earn....one of the great lies you have managed to push into the beliefs of the American people...no more.....

NO serious economist thinks a tax cut for 80+ years has been self funding, much less increase revenues from WHAT THEY WOULD'VE BEEN WITHOUT THE TAX CUT!!!! There IS a right AND left side to Laffers curve you know? lol

 

[Wry Catcher]

[

So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.

.

Going to a flat tax assumes that currently the rich are overtaxed and the not rich are undertaxed. It assumes that the Americans who are most in need of tax relief are the rich,

and the Americans who can most easily afford to pay more taxes are the not rich.

I don't think that's so.

No....what it assumes is that the flat tax is fair to everyone. Everyone pays the same rate. And you lefty morons still get to get more taxes from the rich...a win win....

Fairness is more than a math measurement.

In a Society of 320 million people fairness is a flat tax rate or a sales tax. Not taking from some because they work harder, longer or smarter than others......

Think (I know, that's silly of me to ask you to think) of the consequences of what you've advocated. Really try to think. Use paper, pencil, a calculator and do the math.

Take the income of the highest paid ball player and your salary/wages and take 10% for taxes away and see how much you will each net in 10 years.

Then consider your investment income, and the investment income of an insider.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways

We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?

MR FUCKTARD

YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.


NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.


.

Oh a nuttjobber antiFed.. Name the nation without a federal reserve? Oops

OH, A NUTJOB SOCIALIST , ANTI-CONSTITUTION,

NAME THE NATION WHICH WILL SURVIVE AN ECONOMIC UPHEAVAL.

.

The US?

WELL, IT DEPEND HOW YOU DEFINE "SURVIVAL"

AFTER THE US DECLARED BANKRUPTCY IN 1935 WE BECAME A FASCISTIC NATION - THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC DID NOT SURVIVE - WE LOST THE SCOTUS AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM

SO AFTER ANOTHER ECONOMIC CALAMITY WE WILL SURVIVE IN THE SAME WAY SOMALIA IS SURVIVING - AND NO DOUBT THERE WILL BE A SOCIALIST PRIME MINISTER LIKE COMRADE SANDERS IN CHARGE.


.

Please shout a little louder, it might make this rant seem even less sane, which is a good thing.

 

[Dad2three]

So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways

We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?

MR FUCKTARD

YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.


NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.


.

Oh a nuttjobber antiFed.. Name the nation without a federal reserve? Oops

OH, A NUTJOB SOCIALIST , ANTI-CONSTITUTION,

NAME THE NATION WHICH WILL SURVIVE AN ECONOMIC UPHEAVAL.

.

The US?

WELL, IT DEPEND HOW YOU DEFINE "SURVIVAL"

AFTER THE US DECLARED BANKRUPTCY IN 1935 WE BECAME A FASCISTIC NATION - THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC DID NOT SURVIVE - WE LOST THE SCOTUS AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM

SO AFTER ANOTHER ECONOMIC CALAMITY WE WILL SURVIVE IN THE SAME WAY SOMALIA IS SURVIVING - AND NO DOUBT THERE WILL BE A SOCIALIST PRIME MINISTER LIKE COMRADE SANDERS IN CHARGE.


.

lol. too funny bubs

 

[Wry Catcher]

You go first the IRS accepts donations

Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).

What's a "purse leech?" Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?

A purse leech is someone who is excessively greedy for money.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You keep lying even when shown REAL facts. Weird

YOU DO KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE MEANS RIGHT?

OF COURSE I DO.


FROM A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT STANDPOINT "EFFECTIVE" TAX RATE IS 100% CONFISCATION.


Next question, please.


.

So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways

We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?

MR FUCKTARD

YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.


NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.


.

Oh a nuttjobber antiFed.. Name the nation without a federal reserve? Oops

WE didn't have one until 1914.

The Federal Reserve was created to the government could loot American citizens.

We didn't have penicillin until 1928

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....? The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid. You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....

What fucking sense does that make?

You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird


Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
Ronnie 17%
Clinton 20%
Dubya 15%
Obama17%

HMM

Yeah link that moron. And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.

You mean over 8 years Ronnie brought in 88% more revenues? Weird, that's WAY below previous year (inflation was HUGE and population growth)

You holding out that Reagan increased revenues when he gutted taxes foir the rich but increased it on the avg worker?

Your fantasy worlds is BS

Dems stopped Dubya? lol


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.



FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Clinton used the federal government to force banks to make bad loans, and then when it crashed when Bush was President you guys created the new big lie....

LOL, Keep up the big lie Bubba

WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST!!!

Name the law that required the 5 investment banks (ALL gone today )to get involved in housing??? lol

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


Q Why is it commonly called the “subprime bubble” ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)

“Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006

https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf



Q. Er uh, didn’t you notice your link said the explosive growth of subprime mortgages started in 2001?

A. It did kinda say that didn’t it? However, the link below clearly states subprime was 10 % in 2003. 9% in 2001 to 10% in 2003 is only a 1% increase. A 1 % increase over 3 years is flat not explosive. 10 % in 2003 to 40% in 2006 is explosive. So the explosive growth started in 2004 which lines up pretty good but not exactly with the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble.

Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis




Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown





How The Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis: Starring Bill Clinton's HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo And Barack Obama; With Special Guest Appearances By Bill Clinton And Jimmy Carter

 

[bripat9643]

You go first the IRS accepts donations

Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).

What's a "purse leech?" Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?

Nah, that would be a conservative, the type who wants to run up the credit card for someone else to pay later!

Democrats are the ones running up the credit card, or do you imagine that Republicans created all those vast spending programs?

The smart R's did, along with the Democrats. The ones' you call RINOs.

The Dumb R's, the one's we call neo cons, supported the war against Saddam and today support a war against Iran.

Almost all those spending programs are Democrat creations. Dims like you are always boasting about them. Spending is what "runs up the credit card." No spending, no debt. It's as simple as that.

The RINOs are the dumbass traitor Republicans.

 

[bripat9643]

OF COURSE I DO.


FROM A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT STANDPOINT "EFFECTIVE" TAX RATE IS 100% CONFISCATION.


Next question, please.


.

So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways

We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?

MR FUCKTARD

YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.


NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.


.

Oh a nuttjobber antiFed.. Name the nation without a federal reserve? Oops

WE didn't have one until 1914.

The Federal Reserve was created to the government could loot American citizens.

We didn't have penicillin until 1928

What's your point?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.

Maybe you ought to look up how our graduated income tax works, and not worry so much about the very wealthy. Keep in mind they pay lawyers and elected officials to take care of themselves, they don't need you.

They must not be paying them enough because the wealthy still support this country with their taxation. They are still paying the lions share for the rest of us.

 

[Dad2three]

You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird


Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
Ronnie 17%
Clinton 20%
Dubya 15%
Obama17%

HMM

Yeah link that moron. And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.

You mean over 8 years Ronnie brought in 88% more revenues? Weird, that's WAY below previous year (inflation was HUGE and population growth)

You holding out that Reagan increased revenues when he gutted taxes foir the rich but increased it on the avg worker?

Your fantasy worlds is BS

Dems stopped Dubya? lol


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.



FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Clinton used the federal government to force banks to make bad loans, and then when it crashed when Bush was President you guys created the new big lie....

LOL, Keep up the big lie Bubba

WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST!!!

Name the law that required the 5 investment banks (ALL gone today )to get involved in housing??? lol

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


Q Why is it commonly called the “subprime bubble” ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)

“Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006

https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf



Q. Er uh, didn’t you notice your link said the explosive growth of subprime mortgages started in 2001?

A. It did kinda say that didn’t it? However, the link below clearly states subprime was 10 % in 2003. 9% in 2001 to 10% in 2003 is only a 1% increase. A 1 % increase over 3 years is flat not explosive. 10 % in 2003 to 40% in 2006 is explosive. So the explosive growth started in 2004 which lines up pretty good but not exactly with the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble.

Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis




Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown





How The Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis: Starring Bill Clinton's HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo And Barack Obama; With Special Guest Appearances By Bill Clinton And Jimmy Carter

Right, from the right wing infotainment groups, lol

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.

(NOW, NAME THE LAW REQUIRING IT????, LOL)


Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


No, Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis

The real causes of the financial crisis were predatory mortgage products, out-of-control securitization and derivatives markets, and the failure of government regulators to crack down on the massive risk being taken by our nation’s financial institutions



...The conservative campaign to repeat lies about the financial crisis over and over again does nothing to make their argument any truer (although it does allow those within the right-wing echo chamber to justify their extreme positions on the federal government’s role in our financial and housing markets).


No Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis ThinkProgress

Fannie and Freddie Didn't Do It!


As if further confirmation was needed that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not even a minor cause of the housing bubble and consequent bust, the latest judgement against Nomura Securities for selling fraudulent mortgages to Fannie and Freddie should be icing on the cake; settlements that now total more than $14 billion in fines for almost all the major banks and lending institutions.

Fannie and Freddie Didn t Do It Harlan Green


Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional 440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).

What's a "purse leech?" Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?

Nah, that would be a conservative, the type who wants to run up the credit card for someone else to pay later!

Democrats are the ones running up the credit card, or do you imagine that Republicans created all those vast spending programs?

The smart R's did, along with the Democrats. The ones' you call RINOs.

The Dumb R's, the one's we call neo cons, supported the war against Saddam and today support a war against Iran.

Almost all those spending programs are Democrat creations. Dims like you are always boasting about them. Spending is what "runs up the credit card." No spending, no debt. It's as simple as that.

The RINOs are the dumbass traitor Republicans.

lol, Throw out BS and act as if it's true? The usual right wing BS

 

[Dad2three]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.

Maybe you ought to look up how our graduated income tax works, and not worry so much about the very wealthy. Keep in mind they pay lawyers and elected officials to take care of themselves, they don't need you.

They must not be paying them enough because the wealthy still support this country with their taxation. They are still paying the lions share for the rest of us.

NONSENSE, they USED to pay MUCH more on MUCH less incomes however!!!

 

[bripat9643]

You go first the IRS accepts donations

Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).

What's a "purse leech?" Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?

A purse leech is someone who is excessively greedy for money.

That's the way Democrats describe anyone who doesn't suck off the welfare tit.

 

[bripat9643]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.

Maybe you ought to look up how our graduated income tax works, and not worry so much about the very wealthy. Keep in mind they pay lawyers and elected officials to take care of themselves, they don't need you.

They must not be paying them enough because the wealthy still support this country with their taxation. They are still paying the lions share for the rest of us.

NONSENSE, they USED to pay MUCH more on MUCH less incomes however!!!

We have no evidence that your graph is based on actual credible statistics. Until you can demonstrate such, it's just so much horseshit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.

Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)

So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.

But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?

For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none? Or maybe you are an entertainment nut. You have four televisions in your home. Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none? How many cars do you own?

Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country. It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money. Why is that?

How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law. It's really none of governments business.

Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive

My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?

 

[bripat9643]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.

Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)

So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.

But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?

For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none? Or maybe you are an entertainment nut. You have four televisions in your home. Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none? How many cars do you own?

Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country. It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money. Why is that?

How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law. It's really none of governments business.

Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive

My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?

By definition a flat tax is not regressive. It's flat. that's what "flat" means. Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.

Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."

 

[Wry Catcher]

You go first the IRS accepts donations

Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).

What's a "purse leech?" Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?

A purse leech is someone who is excessively greedy for money.

That's the way Democrats describe anyone who doesn't suck off the welfare tit.

Yep, between your ears that's probably true, welfare recipients all want to take the food off the plates of Mitt Romney's family.

 

[bripat9643]

You go first the IRS accepts donations

Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).

What's a "purse leech?" Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?

A purse leech is someone who is excessively greedy for money.

That's the way Democrats describe anyone who doesn't suck off the welfare tit.

Yep, between your ears that's probably true, welfare recipients all want to take the food off the plates of Mitt Romney's family.

I said liberals use that definition. I wasn't speaking for anyone on welfare. The liberal uses the term "greed" to refer to anyone who's doing better in life than they are.

 

[Dad2three]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.

Maybe you ought to look up how our graduated income tax works, and not worry so much about the very wealthy. Keep in mind they pay lawyers and elected officials to take care of themselves, they don't need you.

They must not be paying them enough because the wealthy still support this country with their taxation. They are still paying the lions share for the rest of us.

NONSENSE, they USED to pay MUCH more on MUCH less incomes however!!!

We have no evidence that your graph is based on actual credible statistics. Until you can demonstrate such, it's just so much horseshit.

Sorry, I forgot, I've provided credible links to EVERYTHING I post on this forum, whereas you rely on BS and right wing spin. Sorry


The richest 0.1 percent of the American population has rebuilt its share of wealth back to where it was in the Roaring Twenties. And the richest 0.01 percent’s share has grown even more rapidly, quadrupling since the eve of the Reagan Revolution.

Top Tenth of 1 Percenters Reaps All the Riches - Businessweek

The fact is that the government relies far more on the bottom 99 percent than the top 1 percent for federal income taxes

Beyond the 1 percent


Forget the top 1% — Look at the top 0.1%

Top 1% = $368,238 (20.9% of income)
Top 0.5% = $558,726 (16.8% of income)
Top 0.1% = $1,695,136 (10.3% of income)
Top 0.01% = $9,141,190 (5% of income)