Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[Rigby5]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

I understand your point however we have a government spending problem and until we reign in that part of the equation, government will continue to be wasteful with the citizens money.

So if we can reign in government spending and cutback spending across the board and eliminate waste, then we can look at the tax structure, until that happens, why give government more money to waste?

Defending the country is a necessity! If you don't defend the country and its interest, it puts its survival at risk.

National Defense
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Veterans Benefits
Paying interest on the national debt

Already, those six things are 81% of the federal budget. You can't really cut any of those things. Such spending is generally a necessity. So its not a spending problem, its an economic growth and tax rate problem. Greater revenue collection is the only answer. The only way you get more revenue is through strong economic growth and a higher top federal tax rate.

Tons of waste in the government and we need the spending cuts. I’m dont think it is wise to raise taxes without getting rid of waste.

Spending cuts first then raise taxes.

Correct.
And since the military is more than half of federal spending, that is the place to start.

It is actually worse than it looks because you will notice that VA , GIBill, and past military interest is not even included in the 57% blue as it should be, so the total is likely more like 75% military spending.

Its a mistake to label things as mandatory or discretionary. At the end of the day, the only spending that is truly mandatory is defense spending because if the nation cannot defense itself, it may cease to exist. You can't say that about Social Security and Medicare to the same degree.

In any event, the current military budget is barley enough to cover the United States basic security requirements. If anything the defense budget needs to be increased.

The fact is, your not going to be able to balance the budget by cutting spending because most of that spending is needed and if it were cut it would cause a whole host of other problems that would negate any of the benefits from cutting the spending in the first place.

The answer is better economic growth and a higher top federal tax rate on the rich!

Most of the US military is deployed overseas, and that is what is expensive. But none of the military should be deployed overseas. It does not make us safer, but less safe. The rest of the waste comes from expensive weapons, like carriers, F-35, cruise missiles, etc., and we don't need these offensive weapons. Stealth planes are only for offense. Carrier are a death trap.

 

[Rigby5]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

.

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

The 2008 recession was the result of failing to properly regulate the economy. The Glass Steagal act signed by Clinton was the largest act of de-regulation in the years before the 2008 recession.

The Bush tax cuts were a mistake, but their impact on the recession was minimal if anything. The borrowing for the war and other government functions was normal and in line with what the United States had done in the past. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP was actually lower while Bush was President than it was during the peacetime of the 1980s, despite wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 2008 recession was the result of failing to properly regulate the economy.

Banks making stupid loans to poor credit risks was because the government lifted an earlier regulation against making stupid loans? When did that happen? Do you have a date for a bill signing?
What about HUD telling Fannie and Freddie to buy trillions of dollars in subprime mortgages?
That was a failure to regulate?

The Glass Steagal act signed by Clinton was the largest act of de-regulation in the years before the 2008 recession.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Not at all true.
Those who defaulted on mortgages had been paying them for years.
I was only when their ARM rates almost doubled their payments after the 3 year freeze was over, that they defaulted.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to buy up mortgages, by law.

You have Glass Steagall backwards. It was Clinton's fault for signing, but what he signed was a repeal of Glass Steagall.

And yes, Glass Steagall did prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

 

[Rigby5]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

.

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

What a load of BS. In FY 2007, the deficit was $161 billion, but the recession started in Dec 2007.
In FY 2009, the deficit was $1.4 trillion, but the recession ended in June 2009.

The 5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT in the budget.
The deficit was irrelevant.
Military war spending is never part of the budget.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

.

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

The 2008 recession was the result of failing to properly regulate the economy. The Glass Steagal act signed by Clinton was the largest act of de-regulation in the years before the 2008 recession.

The Bush tax cuts were a mistake, but their impact on the recession was minimal if anything. The borrowing for the war and other government functions was normal and in line with what the United States had done in the past. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP was actually lower while Bush was President than it was during the peacetime of the 1980s, despite wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 2008 recession was the result of failing to properly regulate the economy.

Banks making stupid loans to poor credit risks was because the government lifted an earlier regulation against making stupid loans? When did that happen? Do you have a date for a bill signing?
What about HUD telling Fannie and Freddie to buy trillions of dollars in subprime mortgages?
That was a failure to regulate?

The Glass Steagal act signed by Clinton was the largest act of de-regulation in the years before the 2008 recession.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Not at all true.
Those who defaulted on mortgages had been paying them for years.
I was only when their ARM rates almost doubled their payments after the 3 year freeze was over, that they defaulted.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to buy up mortgages, by law.

You have Glass Steagall backwards. It was Clinton's fault for signing, but what he signed was a repeal of Glass Steagall.

And yes, Glass Steagall did prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Those who defaulted on mortgages had been paying them for years.

Some people started defaulting almost immediately.

I was only when their ARM rates almost doubled their payments after the 3 year freeze was over

Not everyone had an ARM and not all ARMs had a 3 year teaser rate.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to buy up mortgages, by law.

I know, and when the law requires them to buy 30% subprime loans and then 50% subprime and finally 55% subprime, you can't say their issues were because they were deregulated. Well, you could say that, but you'd be an idiot.

And yes, Glass Steagall did prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Prove it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

.

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

What a load of BS. In FY 2007, the deficit was $161 billion, but the recession started in Dec 2007.
In FY 2009, the deficit was $1.4 trillion, but the recession ended in June 2009.

The 5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT in the budget.
The deficit was irrelevant.
Military war spending is never part of the budget.

The 5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT in the budget.

Liar.

The deficit was irrelevant.

But some moron said,

"When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business."

You don't think the debt increases without annual deficits, do you?

Military war spending is never part of the budget.

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

 

[Rigby5]

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

The 2008 recession was the result of failing to properly regulate the economy. The Glass Steagal act signed by Clinton was the largest act of de-regulation in the years before the 2008 recession.

The Bush tax cuts were a mistake, but their impact on the recession was minimal if anything. The borrowing for the war and other government functions was normal and in line with what the United States had done in the past. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP was actually lower while Bush was President than it was during the peacetime of the 1980s, despite wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 2008 recession was the result of failing to properly regulate the economy.

Banks making stupid loans to poor credit risks was because the government lifted an earlier regulation against making stupid loans? When did that happen? Do you have a date for a bill signing?
What about HUD telling Fannie and Freddie to buy trillions of dollars in subprime mortgages?
That was a failure to regulate?

The Glass Steagal act signed by Clinton was the largest act of de-regulation in the years before the 2008 recession.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Not at all true.
Those who defaulted on mortgages had been paying them for years.
I was only when their ARM rates almost doubled their payments after the 3 year freeze was over, that they defaulted.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to buy up mortgages, by law.

You have Glass Steagall backwards. It was Clinton's fault for signing, but what he signed was a repeal of Glass Steagall.

And yes, Glass Steagall did prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Those who defaulted on mortgages had been paying them for years.

Some people started defaulting almost immediately.

I was only when their ARM rates almost doubled their payments after the 3 year freeze was over

Not everyone had an ARM and not all ARMs had a 3 year teaser rate.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to buy up mortgages, by law.

I know, and when the law requires them to buy 30% subprime loans and then 50% subprime and finally 55% subprime, you can't say their issues were because they were deregulated. Well, you could say that, but you'd be an idiot.

And yes, Glass Steagall did prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Prove it.

Of course some 0.5% or so always default right away, but that does not cause a real estate debacle or banks to default.
The major problem in 2008 was from massive ARM payment charge increases.

It was the repeal of Glass Steagall that CAUSED the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to by ALL the toxic derivatives containing subprime mortgages.
That was exactly and entirely what caused the whole economic problem!

Certainly you are free to disagree, as some others do as well.
But read this.

The Road to Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act

 

[Rigby5]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

.

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

What a load of BS. In FY 2007, the deficit was $161 billion, but the recession started in Dec 2007.
In FY 2009, the deficit was $1.4 trillion, but the recession ended in June 2009.

The 5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT in the budget.
The deficit was irrelevant.
Military war spending is never part of the budget.

The 5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT in the budget.

Liar.

The deficit was irrelevant.

But some moron said,

"When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business."

You don't think the debt increases without annual deficits, do you?

Military war spending is never part of the budget.

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

You seem very uninformed.
The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.
It was additional emergency funding at irregular intervals.
That is always how wars are funded.
Annual deficits are NOT the only way you can add to the national debt.

It is obvious to anyone Bush increased the national debt by $5 trillion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

The 2008 recession was the result of failing to properly regulate the economy. The Glass Steagal act signed by Clinton was the largest act of de-regulation in the years before the 2008 recession.

The Bush tax cuts were a mistake, but their impact on the recession was minimal if anything. The borrowing for the war and other government functions was normal and in line with what the United States had done in the past. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP was actually lower while Bush was President than it was during the peacetime of the 1980s, despite wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 2008 recession was the result of failing to properly regulate the economy.

Banks making stupid loans to poor credit risks was because the government lifted an earlier regulation against making stupid loans? When did that happen? Do you have a date for a bill signing?
What about HUD telling Fannie and Freddie to buy trillions of dollars in subprime mortgages?
That was a failure to regulate?

The Glass Steagal act signed by Clinton was the largest act of de-regulation in the years before the 2008 recession.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Not at all true.
Those who defaulted on mortgages had been paying them for years.
I was only when their ARM rates almost doubled their payments after the 3 year freeze was over, that they defaulted.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to buy up mortgages, by law.

You have Glass Steagall backwards. It was Clinton's fault for signing, but what he signed was a repeal of Glass Steagall.

And yes, Glass Steagall did prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Those who defaulted on mortgages had been paying them for years.

Some people started defaulting almost immediately.

I was only when their ARM rates almost doubled their payments after the 3 year freeze was over

Not everyone had an ARM and not all ARMs had a 3 year teaser rate.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to buy up mortgages, by law.

I know, and when the law requires them to buy 30% subprime loans and then 50% subprime and finally 55% subprime, you can't say their issues were because they were deregulated. Well, you could say that, but you'd be an idiot.

And yes, Glass Steagall did prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Prove it.

Of course some 0.5% or so always default right away, but that does not cause a real estate debacle or banks to default.
The major problem in 2008 was from massive ARM payment charge increases.

It was the repeal of Glass Steagall that CAUSED the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to by ALL the toxic derivatives containing subprime mortgages.
That was exactly and entirely what caused the whole economic problem!

Certainly you are free to disagree, as some others do as well.
But read this.

The Road to Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act

It was the repeal of Glass Steagall that CAUSED the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to by ALL the toxic derivatives containing subprime mortgages.

Nope HUD forced them to buy crappy mortgages.

Thanks for the link.

Glass-Steagall was designed to stabilize the U.S. financial system by separating commercial banks from the capital markets and by prohibiting nonbanks from accepting deposits.

Weird, not a word about mortgages.

 

[Rigby5]

The 2008 recession was the result of failing to properly regulate the economy. The Glass Steagal act signed by Clinton was the largest act of de-regulation in the years before the 2008 recession.

The Bush tax cuts were a mistake, but their impact on the recession was minimal if anything. The borrowing for the war and other government functions was normal and in line with what the United States had done in the past. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP was actually lower while Bush was President than it was during the peacetime of the 1980s, despite wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 2008 recession was the result of failing to properly regulate the economy.

Banks making stupid loans to poor credit risks was because the government lifted an earlier regulation against making stupid loans? When did that happen? Do you have a date for a bill signing?
What about HUD telling Fannie and Freddie to buy trillions of dollars in subprime mortgages?
That was a failure to regulate?

The Glass Steagal act signed by Clinton was the largest act of de-regulation in the years before the 2008 recession.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Not at all true.
Those who defaulted on mortgages had been paying them for years.
I was only when their ARM rates almost doubled their payments after the 3 year freeze was over, that they defaulted.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to buy up mortgages, by law.

You have Glass Steagall backwards. It was Clinton's fault for signing, but what he signed was a repeal of Glass Steagall.

And yes, Glass Steagall did prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Those who defaulted on mortgages had been paying them for years.

Some people started defaulting almost immediately.

I was only when their ARM rates almost doubled their payments after the 3 year freeze was over

Not everyone had an ARM and not all ARMs had a 3 year teaser rate.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to buy up mortgages, by law.

I know, and when the law requires them to buy 30% subprime loans and then 50% subprime and finally 55% subprime, you can't say their issues were because they were deregulated. Well, you could say that, but you'd be an idiot.

And yes, Glass Steagall did prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Prove it.

Of course some 0.5% or so always default right away, but that does not cause a real estate debacle or banks to default.
The major problem in 2008 was from massive ARM payment charge increases.

It was the repeal of Glass Steagall that CAUSED the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to by ALL the toxic derivatives containing subprime mortgages.
That was exactly and entirely what caused the whole economic problem!

Certainly you are free to disagree, as some others do as well.
But read this.

The Road to Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act

It was the repeal of Glass Steagall that CAUSED the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to by ALL the toxic derivatives containing subprime mortgages.

Nope HUD forced them to buy crappy mortgages.

Thanks for the link.

Glass-Steagall was designed to stabilize the U.S. financial system by separating commercial banks from the capital markets and by prohibiting nonbanks from accepting deposits.

Weird, not a word about mortgages.

Wrong. Glass Steagall was to prevent banks from investing in their own risky ventures. Those toxic derivatives were their own risky ventures and would have been illegal under Glass Steagall. Neither HUD nor Fannie Mae had any choice in buying them. It is what their legal purpose was, once the banks created these toxic mortgage derivatives.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

What a load of BS. In FY 2007, the deficit was $161 billion, but the recession started in Dec 2007.
In FY 2009, the deficit was $1.4 trillion, but the recession ended in June 2009.

The 5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT in the budget.
The deficit was irrelevant.
Military war spending is never part of the budget.

The 5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT in the budget.

Liar.

The deficit was irrelevant.

But some moron said,

"When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business."

You don't think the debt increases without annual deficits, do you?

Military war spending is never part of the budget.

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

You seem very uninformed.
The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.
It was additional emergency funding at irregular intervals.
That is always how wars are funded.
Annual deficits are NOT the only way you can add to the national debt.

It is obvious to anyone Bush increased the national debt by $5 trillion.

The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.

Prove it.

Annual deficits are NOT the only way you can add to the national debt.

You're wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

What a load of BS. In FY 2007, the deficit was $161 billion, but the recession started in Dec 2007.
In FY 2009, the deficit was $1.4 trillion, but the recession ended in June 2009.

The 5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT in the budget.
The deficit was irrelevant.
Military war spending is never part of the budget.

The 5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT in the budget.

Liar.

The deficit was irrelevant.

But some moron said,

"When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business."

You don't think the debt increases without annual deficits, do you?

Military war spending is never part of the budget.

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

You seem very uninformed.
The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.
It was additional emergency funding at irregular intervals.
That is always how wars are funded.
Annual deficits are NOT the only way you can add to the national debt.

It is obvious to anyone Bush increased the national debt by $5 trillion.

The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.

Prove it.

Annual deficits are NOT the only way you can add to the national debt.

You're wrong.

I already did prove it. Clearly Bush added over $5 trillion to the national debt. I already showed you the graph. It is documented general knowledge. Are you saying you do not believe Bush added $5 trillion to the national debt? If so, then I can just start ignoring you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The 2008 recession was the result of failing to properly regulate the economy.

Banks making stupid loans to poor credit risks was because the government lifted an earlier regulation against making stupid loans? When did that happen? Do you have a date for a bill signing?
What about HUD telling Fannie and Freddie to buy trillions of dollars in subprime mortgages?
That was a failure to regulate?

The Glass Steagal act signed by Clinton was the largest act of de-regulation in the years before the 2008 recession.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Not at all true.
Those who defaulted on mortgages had been paying them for years.
I was only when their ARM rates almost doubled their payments after the 3 year freeze was over, that they defaulted.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to buy up mortgages, by law.

You have Glass Steagall backwards. It was Clinton's fault for signing, but what he signed was a repeal of Glass Steagall.

And yes, Glass Steagall did prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Those who defaulted on mortgages had been paying them for years.

Some people started defaulting almost immediately.

I was only when their ARM rates almost doubled their payments after the 3 year freeze was over

Not everyone had an ARM and not all ARMs had a 3 year teaser rate.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to buy up mortgages, by law.

I know, and when the law requires them to buy 30% subprime loans and then 50% subprime and finally 55% subprime, you can't say their issues were because they were deregulated. Well, you could say that, but you'd be an idiot.

And yes, Glass Steagall did prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Prove it.

Of course some 0.5% or so always default right away, but that does not cause a real estate debacle or banks to default.
The major problem in 2008 was from massive ARM payment charge increases.

It was the repeal of Glass Steagall that CAUSED the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to by ALL the toxic derivatives containing subprime mortgages.
That was exactly and entirely what caused the whole economic problem!

Certainly you are free to disagree, as some others do as well.
But read this.

The Road to Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act

It was the repeal of Glass Steagall that CAUSED the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to by ALL the toxic derivatives containing subprime mortgages.

Nope HUD forced them to buy crappy mortgages.

Thanks for the link.

Glass-Steagall was designed to stabilize the U.S. financial system by separating commercial banks from the capital markets and by prohibiting nonbanks from accepting deposits.

Weird, not a word about mortgages.

Wrong. Glass Steagall was to prevent banks from investing in their own risky ventures. Those toxic derivatives were their own risky ventures and would have been illegal under Glass Steagall. Neither HUD nor Fannie Mae had any choice in buying them. It is what their legal purpose was, once the banks created these toxic mortgage derivatives.

Glass Steagall was to prevent banks from investing in their own risky ventures.

And yet, not a single word about mortgages.

Those toxic derivatives were their own risky ventures and would have been illegal under Glass Steagall.

Banks didn't lose trillions on derivatives, banks lost trillions on mortgages.

Neither HUD nor Fannie Mae had any choice in buying them.

HUD didn't have to force Fannie and Freddie to buy crap, but starting in the early 1990s, HUD forced them to buy at first, 30% crappy mortgages and by 2007, HUD was forcing them to buy 55% crappy mortgages.

How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis

It is what their legal purpose was

Before Clinton, they only bought high quality, conforming loans

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

What a load of BS. In FY 2007, the deficit was $161 billion, but the recession started in Dec 2007.
In FY 2009, the deficit was $1.4 trillion, but the recession ended in June 2009.

The 5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT in the budget.
The deficit was irrelevant.
Military war spending is never part of the budget.

The 5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT in the budget.

Liar.

The deficit was irrelevant.

But some moron said,

"When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business."

You don't think the debt increases without annual deficits, do you?

Military war spending is never part of the budget.

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

You seem very uninformed.
The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.
It was additional emergency funding at irregular intervals.
That is always how wars are funded.
Annual deficits are NOT the only way you can add to the national debt.

It is obvious to anyone Bush increased the national debt by $5 trillion.

The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.

Prove it.

Annual deficits are NOT the only way you can add to the national debt.

You're wrong.

I already did prove it. Clearly Bush added over $5 trillion to the national debt. I already showed you the graph. It is documented general knowledge. Are you saying you do not believe Bush added $5 trillion to the national debt? If so, then I can just start ignoring you.

I already did prove it. Clearly Bush added over $5 trillion to the national debt.

Clearly, no one denied he added $4.9 trillion to the total public debt.

And no one denied that Obama added $9.3 trillion.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)


Now, if you can prove your claim...…

The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.

We can continue.

 

[Rigby5]

Not at all true.
Those who defaulted on mortgages had been paying them for years.
I was only when their ARM rates almost doubled their payments after the 3 year freeze was over, that they defaulted.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to buy up mortgages, by law.

You have Glass Steagall backwards. It was Clinton's fault for signing, but what he signed was a repeal of Glass Steagall.

And yes, Glass Steagall did prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Those who defaulted on mortgages had been paying them for years.

Some people started defaulting almost immediately.

I was only when their ARM rates almost doubled their payments after the 3 year freeze was over

Not everyone had an ARM and not all ARMs had a 3 year teaser rate.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to buy up mortgages, by law.

I know, and when the law requires them to buy 30% subprime loans and then 50% subprime and finally 55% subprime, you can't say their issues were because they were deregulated. Well, you could say that, but you'd be an idiot.

And yes, Glass Steagall did prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Prove it.

Of course some 0.5% or so always default right away, but that does not cause a real estate debacle or banks to default.
The major problem in 2008 was from massive ARM payment charge increases.

It was the repeal of Glass Steagall that CAUSED the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to by ALL the toxic derivatives containing subprime mortgages.
That was exactly and entirely what caused the whole economic problem!

Certainly you are free to disagree, as some others do as well.
But read this.

The Road to Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act

It was the repeal of Glass Steagall that CAUSED the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to by ALL the toxic derivatives containing subprime mortgages.

Nope HUD forced them to buy crappy mortgages.

Thanks for the link.

Glass-Steagall was designed to stabilize the U.S. financial system by separating commercial banks from the capital markets and by prohibiting nonbanks from accepting deposits.

Weird, not a word about mortgages.

Wrong. Glass Steagall was to prevent banks from investing in their own risky ventures. Those toxic derivatives were their own risky ventures and would have been illegal under Glass Steagall. Neither HUD nor Fannie Mae had any choice in buying them. It is what their legal purpose was, once the banks created these toxic mortgage derivatives.

Glass Steagall was to prevent banks from investing in their own risky ventures.

And yet, not a single word about mortgages.

Those toxic derivatives were their own risky ventures and would have been illegal under Glass Steagall.

Banks didn't lose trillions on derivatives, banks lost trillions on mortgages.

Neither HUD nor Fannie Mae had any choice in buying them.

HUD didn't have to force Fannie and Freddie to buy crap, but starting in the early 1990s, HUD forced them to buy at first, 30% crappy mortgages and by 2007, HUD was forcing them to buy 55% crappy mortgages.

How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis

It is what their legal purpose was

Before Clinton, they only bought high quality, conforming loans

Yes, before Clinton signed the bill past by Congress, to repeal Glass Steagall, banks only made high quality, conforming mortgage loans, so Fannie Mae only bought up high quality, conforming loans.

But the rest make no sense.
Fannie Mae never bought up individual mortgages, but bundles called derivatives.

Banks did not lose any money at all.
They created deceptive ARM loans they deceptively sold to Fannie Mae, and then we people could not make the new increased payments, they defaulted and were foreclosed. The banks made a bundle years later when they sold all these foreclosures.
But in the mean time, Obama bailed them out because they did not have enough working assets any more, since there were so many defaults. Obama should not have done that. He should have either bailed out the home buyers, or let the banks go under.
It was all the fault of the banks, so they did not deserve being bailed out.

You are wrong about Fannie Mae. Their whole purpose is to buy up mortgages from banks, so that banks can move on to new mortgages.
HUD has nothing to do with it.
It is Congress that set up the rules.
And neither HUD nor Fannie Mae knew they were getting crap.
That is the whole point of the toxic derivatives, in that they hid the details in bundles.
And no one had the authority to refuse to buy the bundles once Glass Steagall had been repealled.

 

[Rigby5]

The 5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT in the budget.
The deficit was irrelevant.
Military war spending is never part of the budget.

The 5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT in the budget.

Liar.

The deficit was irrelevant.

But some moron said,

"When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business."

You don't think the debt increases without annual deficits, do you?

Military war spending is never part of the budget.

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

You seem very uninformed.
The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.
It was additional emergency funding at irregular intervals.
That is always how wars are funded.
Annual deficits are NOT the only way you can add to the national debt.

It is obvious to anyone Bush increased the national debt by $5 trillion.

The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.

Prove it.

Annual deficits are NOT the only way you can add to the national debt.

You're wrong.

I already did prove it. Clearly Bush added over $5 trillion to the national debt. I already showed you the graph. It is documented general knowledge. Are you saying you do not believe Bush added $5 trillion to the national debt? If so, then I can just start ignoring you.

I already did prove it. Clearly Bush added over $5 trillion to the national debt.

Clearly, no one denied he added $4.9 trillion to the total public debt.

View attachment 240066

View attachment 240067

And no one denied that Obama added $9.3 trillion.

View attachment 240068
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)


Now, if you can prove your claim...…

The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.

We can continue.

This is not as clear as I would like it, but does indicate that previous was funding was done in a supplemental way and not through the annual budget.

Updated - The Obameter: End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war

{...
Money in budgets, but supplementals aren't going away
By Lukas Pleva on Thursday, September 16th, 2010 at 10:38 a.m.

It's been a while since we last reviewed President Obama's campaign pledge to end the use of supplemental budgets for funding wars. Supplementals provide money that comes on top of funds from annual budgets. During the campaign, Obama criticized this method of funding and promised to include war costs in the budget proposals that the White House submits to Congress at the beginning of every year.

At the time, we rated the promise In the Works, since Obama's budget for 2010 included the price tag for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were curious to see how things have unfolded since then.

As we said, the president's budget for 2010 included funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. On December 16, 2009, Obama signed a law which provided $101.1 billion "for operations and maintenance and military personnel requirements for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to support preparations to continue withdrawal from Iraq."

Earlier, however, in June, 2009, Obama had also signed a $105.9 billion supplemental spending bill to fund escalating military operations in the Middle East. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said at the time that "this [was] the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan." We'll cut the president some slack on this one. Because of the way the budget process works, the only way for Obama to step up military efforts in his first year was via supplemental funding. The 2009 budget was approved in 2008, when Bush was still President.

Alas, it was not the last supplemental. On February 1, 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged Congress to pass a $33 billion emergency legislation to fund a 30,000 troop-surge in Afghanistan. After repeated requests from Gates and months of debate, the House finally passed the measure on July 27, 2010, sending the bill to President Obama for signature.

We should also note that the White House has already released its budget for 2011. The administration is asking for $159.3 billion in war funding.

We consulted two budget experts, both of whom told us that there is nothing mischievous about using supplementals to fund an unforeseen change in military strategy. Scott Lilly from the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning public policy think tank, said that supplemental funding becomes a problem when you use it to fund initiatives that you can anticipate far in advance. By the time Obama announced the 30,000-troop surge in December 2009, he had already submitted the 2010 budget.

The final ruling is a bit tricky. Obama never actually advocated getting rid of supplementals completely. His promise was to end their abuse, and his criticism centered on using them for year-to-year funding. The 2009 supplemental was an inevitable result of the budget process, and this year's supplemental pays for the 30,000 troop-surge that Obama announced after the 2010 budget had already been submitted. Most important, funding for Iraq and Afghanistan is now included in annual budgets. We'll keep a close eye on this one going forward, but for now, this is a Promise Kept.
...}

After that, I found this one which is likely better:

{...
How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war | Michael Boyle

When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government. This estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may eventually cost as much as $3.7tn when factoring in the long-term costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed.

The most striking fact about the cost of the war in Iraq has been the extent to which it has been kept "off the books" of the government's ledgers and hidden from the American people. This was done by design. A fundamental assumption of the Bush administration's approach to the war was that it was only politically sustainable if it was portrayed as near-costless to the American public and to key constituencies in Washington. The dirty little secret of the Iraq war – one that both Bush and the war hawks in the Democratic party knew, but would never admit – was that the American people would only support a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein if they could be assured that they would pay almost nothing for it.

The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation. By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations.

With the Iraq war treated as an "off the books" expense, the Pentagon was allowed to keep spending on high-end military equipment and cutting-edge technology. In fiscal terms, it was as if the messy wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were never happening.

More fundamentally, the Bush administration masked the cost of the war with deficit spending to ensure that the American people would not face up to its costs while President Bush was in office. Despite their recent discovery of outrage over the national debt, the Republicans followed the advice of Vice-President Dick Cheney that "deficits don't matter" and spent freely on domestic programs throughout the Bush years. The Bush administration encouraged the American people to keep spending and "enjoy life", while the government paid for the occupation of Iraq on a credit card they hoped never to have to repay.
...}

 

[mikegriffith1]

Yes, because doing so would hurt the economy. Raising the top marginal rate to 70% would suck a huge amount of capital out of the economy, capital that would otherwise be available for investment and savings, and would hand that money over to the government, which typically wastes at least 30 cents of every dollar it spends.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not directly.

But since most of my customers are rich people, if you take 70% of their income, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that they will purchase less stuff.

So I might be out of a job, thanks to this idiotic tax scheme. And last I checked, $0 income, is less than a full pay check. So yes, AOC's dumb tax policy could very much affect my income.

But since most of my customers are rich people, if you take 70% of their income, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that they will purchase less stuff.

LOL
That's not obvious at all. What is obvious is they are still rich after. Just as they were rich before they received the latest tax cuts.

 

[Andylusion]

Not directly.

But since most of my customers are rich people, if you take 70% of their income, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that they will purchase less stuff.

So I might be out of a job, thanks to this idiotic tax scheme. And last I checked, $0 income, is less than a full pay check. So yes, AOC's dumb tax policy could very much affect my income.

But since most of my customers are rich people, if you take 70% of their income, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that they will purchase less stuff.

LOL
That's not obvious at all. What is obvious is they are still rich after. Just as they were rich before they received the latest tax cuts.

Really? It isn't obvious that if you take more of someone's money, that they buy less stuff? Really? That's is the argument you wish to make?

Well yes it is obvious that the rich are still rich. Think about it..... an income tax, is a tax on getting rich... not being rich.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

Well obviously that tax is going to harm the person who isn't wealth, more than the person who already is.

Again, just think about it. If I have a $1 Billion dollars. I could buy a small island, and live there with bikini babes serving me martinis for the rest of my life. I could quit my job, close my business, lay off thousands of workers, and still live in luxury until the day I die. And if I did that, I would never pay one single penny of your 70% tax.

Who would pay that 70% tax? It would be the people trying to get rich. Not the people who already are rich.

An income tax is really a tax on people trying to become wealthy. Not a tax on people who already are wealthy.

If you doubt that, look at Mark Zuckerberg.
Tax-Smart Billionaires Who Work For $1

Zuckerberg earns a salary of $1. That's one dollar. You could raise even the lowest income bracket to 70%, and Mark wouldn't pay 1 penny more in taxes. (standard deduction elminates taxing that $1 of income).

Look at Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet's salary is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 100%, and he wouldn't pay a penny more in tax.

Even if he did pay more...

Let's pretend for a moment, that you raised taxes, and he did pay more tax on that $100,000 income. He's worth $80 Billion, with zero income.

Are you seeing the problem? A tax on income, is a tax on becoming wealthy. Not a tax on being wealthy. Like I said before, all these people could close their companies, lay off all the workers, and still live a life of luxury until they die, and have billions left over for their kids.

In effect, what an income tax really is, is a wealthy protection tax. It prevents the lower and middle class from moving up to the rich.

Regardless, those two points are not contradictory.
Whether someone is rich, or poor, the reality is, if they have more money, they'll spend more, invest more, and save more. If they have less money, whether rich or poor, they will spend less, invest less, and save less.

Just because a rich person is still rich with higher taxes, doesn't change the fact they will still spend, invest, and save less money if they have less money.

 

[Andylusion]

Funny how $Trillions for the MIC, tax cuts for the rich or bailing out too big to jail fail banks never seem to be a problem but when it's about programs for 'ordinary' people it's suddenly unaffordable..

Foolish, uninformed statement. Not surprising coming from a radical Progressive.

Specifically, who do you suggest take our place as the leader of the free world?

The tax cuts have stimulated what had been a lagging economy. Have you looked at the jobs market lately?

The rescued by the bank bailout was repaid early, with interest. Not so with the bailout of the American auto manufacturers.

Except

40% of American middle class face poverty by the time they reach age 65: Study

Working-Class Families Are Getting Hit From All Sides - Center for American Progress

Seems that the trump/Putin plan is working.

They are learning how to live from Democrats. They are spending more money than they collect in revenue, and then ended up in massive debt, in an effort to 'stimulate' their lives.

Anyone who lives, the way Democrats govern, will end up in poverty.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not directly.

But since most of my customers are rich people, if you take 70% of their income, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that they will purchase less stuff.

So I might be out of a job, thanks to this idiotic tax scheme. And last I checked, $0 income, is less than a full pay check. So yes, AOC's dumb tax policy could very much affect my income.

But since most of my customers are rich people, if you take 70% of their income, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that they will purchase less stuff.

LOL
That's not obvious at all. What is obvious is they are still rich after. Just as they were rich before they received the latest tax cuts.

Really? It isn't obvious that if you take more of someone's money, that they buy less stuff? Really? That's is the argument you wish to make?

Well yes it is obvious that the rich are still rich. Think about it..... an income tax, is a tax on getting rich... not being rich.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

Well obviously that tax is going to harm the person who isn't wealth, more than the person who already is.

Again, just think about it. If I have a $1 Billion dollars. I could buy a small island, and live there with bikini babes serving me martinis for the rest of my life. I could quit my job, close my business, lay off thousands of workers, and still live in luxury until the day I die. And if I did that, I would never pay one single penny of your 70% tax.

Who would pay that 70% tax? It would be the people trying to get rich. Not the people who already are rich.

An income tax is really a tax on people trying to become wealthy. Not a tax on people who already are wealthy.

If you doubt that, look at Mark Zuckerberg.
Tax-Smart Billionaires Who Work For $1

Zuckerberg earns a salary of $1. That's one dollar. You could raise even the lowest income bracket to 70%, and Mark wouldn't pay 1 penny more in taxes. (standard deduction elminates taxing that $1 of income).

Look at Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet's salary is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 100%, and he wouldn't pay a penny more in tax.

Even if he did pay more...

Let's pretend for a moment, that you raised taxes, and he did pay more tax on that $100,000 income. He's worth $80 Billion, with zero income.

Are you seeing the problem? A tax on income, is a tax on becoming wealthy. Not a tax on being wealthy. Like I said before, all these people could close their companies, lay off all the workers, and still live a life of luxury until they die, and have billions left over for their kids.

In effect, what an income tax really is, is a wealthy protection tax. It prevents the lower and middle class from moving up to the rich.

Regardless, those two points are not contradictory.
Whether someone is rich, or poor, the reality is, if they have more money, they'll spend more, invest more, and save more. If they have less money, whether rich or poor, they will spend less, invest less, and save less.

Just because a rich person is still rich with higher taxes, doesn't change the fact they will still spend, invest, and save less money if they have less money.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

The OP stipulated that the tax would be on those making over $10m, dope.

Not $100k.