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

[Flopper]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

The devil is in the details. We once had rates as high as 90% but nobody paid it. There were so many deductions and tax loopholes, that most of those that fell in the 90% bracket were paying only slightly higher rate than middle income earners.
There will always be ways for the wealthy to avoid taxes just as there are ways the poorer folks avoid taxes. The difference is there are many tax loopholes that only the wealthy are able to use. There always have been and there always will be.

 

[Dale Smith]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

The devil is in the details. We once had rates as high as 90% but nobody paid it. There were so many deductions and tax loopholes, that most of those that fell in the 90% bracket were paying only slightly higher rate than middle income earners.
There will always be ways for the wealthy to avoid taxes just there are ways for the poorer folks. The difference is there are many tax loopholes that only the wealthy are able to use. There always have been and there always will be.

"Da gubermint" isn't entitled to any portion of what one earns via their labor......period.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the 16th amendment signed off during the same year......coincidence? Think again.

 

[task0778]

400 plus posts and not a one showing any indication of an understanding of macroeconomics, public policy, and tax strategy. When you increase the tax on cigarettes, alcohol, or even soft drinks everyone seems to understand that it discourages consumption. An income tax rate of seventy percent on income over ten million dollars a year does the same thing. When are you taxed on income, when you take it out of the business. A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Why do companies not invest in training their employees like they used to back in the day. Why do companies not provide benefit packages equivalent to those back in the day. Why do companies buy back their own stock instead of making even moderately risky capital investments like they did back in the day. Why do companies offer 401K's instead of pensions like they used to. Because their taxes, and the marginal tax rate, no longer provides them with the incentive to invest in that training, provide those benefits, make those riskier investments, or take on the risk of market loss that a pension entails. The "opportunity cost" of not taking profits is too steep. The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT. Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company. It is about expanding the frontier curve.

That is why the high tax rate's of the 50's resulted in a massive increase in production. That is why, back then, we often had double digit GDP growth not this puny ass two and three percent shit. That is why, back then, the wealthy actually paid less of the total tax burden than they do now, because they had the incentive to invest in their businesses and increase the revenue of their employees, not their investors.

But who am I kidding. You morons can go on ranting about the evils of socialism, or communism, or how about how damn lazy poor people are. In reality, you guys don't even understand the fundamentals of the capitalism you are so enamored with.

So raising the tax rates to 70% encourages investments in businesses here in the US? If that isn't the craziest idea I have ever heard, I don't know what is. In every other country in the world that has raised tax rates precipitously, the rich people left but you think it'll be different here. Rich people left in droves in places like Sweden, Britain, and France to name a few when some liberal progressive idiot thought it would be great to get more tax revenue by raising the highest tax rates on the rich guys. Who, being rich, could afford to sell out, pack up, and move out to somewhere else that is more conducive to higher profits. Ever hear the phrase that money flows to where it gets the highest returns? News flash: a 70% marginal rate in today's world sure as hell does not incentivize new businesses or expanding existing businesses. Check out what happened in Sweden in the 80s, or France not long ago when Hollande raised their highest tax rates. Did you learn nothing at all when Reagan cut taxes in the 80s and set off one of the biggest economic boom cycles that lasted until 2007.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

400 plus posts and not a one showing any indication of an understanding of macroeconomics, public policy, and tax strategy. When you increase the tax on cigarettes, alcohol, or even soft drinks everyone seems to understand that it discourages consumption. An income tax rate of seventy percent on income over ten million dollars a year does the same thing. When are you taxed on income, when you take it out of the business. A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Why do companies not invest in training their employees like they used to back in the day. Why do companies not provide benefit packages equivalent to those back in the day. Why do companies buy back their own stock instead of making even moderately risky capital investments like they did back in the day. Why do companies offer 401K's instead of pensions like they used to. Because their taxes, and the marginal tax rate, no longer provides them with the incentive to invest in that training, provide those benefits, make those riskier investments, or take on the risk of market loss that a pension entails. The "opportunity cost" of not taking profits is too steep. The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT. Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company. It is about expanding the frontier curve.

That is why the high tax rate's of the 50's resulted in a massive increase in production. That is why, back then, we often had double digit GDP growth not this puny ass two and three percent shit. That is why, back then, the wealthy actually paid less of the total tax burden than they do now, because they had the incentive to invest in their businesses and increase the revenue of their employees, not their investors.

But who am I kidding. You morons can go on ranting about the evils of socialism, or communism, or how about how damn lazy poor people are. In reality, you guys don't even understand the fundamentals of the capitalism you are so enamored with.

A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Business owners? Who wants to ever start a business when the government is going to take 70 cents out of every dollar of profit?

The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT.

What will more likely encourage a businessman to risk his money to start up a new company?

Country A, where his profit, if any, is 70% taken away by government, or Country B where his profit, if any, is only 21% taken away by government?

Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company.

Only morons think more taxes provides an incentive.

 

[Markle]

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.

Proving how little AOC knows about economics is her suggestion of a 70% tax on incomes above $10 million. Apparently, she doesn't know that there are only about 2,000 people who have incomes at and above that level.

How much revenue will that raise?

 

[Markle]

Stupid is believing that tax cuts actually increase revenues while tax increases reduce them.

Yes, I agree, you are far more than a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

If lowering taxes does not increase revenue, why did JFK reduce taxes?

In addition, if reducing taxes does not increase revenues, why does this happen?

IRS revenue 2017 $3,760,542.00 millions

Estimated revenue so far for 2018 $3,973,974.00 millions

That's an increase of about $200 BILLION. How did that happen?

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 | Tax Foundation

 

[Markle]

There's Plenty of Money in the World, It's Just in the Wrong Hands

You and de Blasio are a joke. If you want more money in your hand, work for it. Simple solution.

 

[Rigby5]

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.
...}

Thanks for the source.
I love it when someone posts a source that refutes their stupid claim

Military war spending is never part of the budget.

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.

See the phrase "supplemental budget"? That means it is part of a budget submitted to and approved by Congress. The expense is on the books, adds to the deficit and adds to the debt.

Maybe you'll make more accurate claims in the future?

WRONG! The phrase "supplemental budget" means it definitely was NOT at all part of the annual budget as planned for the year, but something unexpected that came up LATER, and had to be called supplemental. Anything later, after the annual budget predicted expenses has been approved by congress, is NOT part of the budget and is called supplemental.

It is foolish for you to even try to say what obviously can't be true because clearly all the Bush budgets put together do not include even a tiny portion of the $5 trillion Bush is documented as having added to the national debt. And I already linked and quoted how Bush tried to hide his massive debt. As well as the fact Obama was very critical of the process of hiding debt in supplemental allocations, and was embarrassed to have to do it even once.

You clearly did not read any of the links, because they flatly state the opposite of what you now are claiming.

The phrase "supplemental budget" means it definitely was NOT at all part of the annual budget as planned for the year, but something unexpected that came up LATER, and had to be called supplemental.

It was still part of a budget. Still counts toward the deficit. Still counts toward the debt.

And I already linked and quoted how Bush tried to hide his massive debt.

How does a supplemental spending bill hide debt?

No, all the links were quite clear that supplemental requests for money are handled as emergencies that then the president is not liable for. It is like when Katrina hit and funds had to be allocated for that. These funds are NOT part of the budget, are not detailed, and do NOT count towards the annual deficit. All they count towards is the national debt. But LOTS of thing not in the budget count towards the national debt, such as previous interest on past national debt. The annual budget only includes a little more than half the actual federal spending in any given year. The budget is intentionally leaving major expenses out. For example, Social Security is never part of the annual budget. Supplementals hide spending because they don't list details. They are are almost like a blank check, to deliberately bypass the congressional oversight of federal spending.

I don't mind explaining this, but if you had actually read the links, you would have not needed any more explanation.

No, all the links were quite clear that supplemental requests for money are handled as emergencies that then the president is not liable for. It is like when Katrina hit and funds had to be allocated for that. These funds are NOT part of the budget, are not detailed, and do NOT count towards the annual deficit.
You're wrong. All spending counts toward the deficit. Obama's stimulus wasn't part of the annual budget,
but the wasteful spending still counted toward the deficit.

For example, Social Security is never part of the annual budget.

It's an entitlement. They did that so they would never have to vote on it.
The spending still counts toward the deficit though.

if you had actually read the links, you would have not needed any more explanation.

I don't need to read your links to point out your errors.

Wrong.
Unlike a Bush's war, Obama has to work according to budget rules, and the stimulus was a preplanned part of the budget.
{...
President Barack Obama outlined the economic stimulus package during his 2008 campaign. Congress approved the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February 2009. The Congressional Budget Office estimated it would add $787 billion in budget deficits by 2019.
..}
Did Obama's Stimulus Plan Work?

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Yes, before Clinton signed the bill past by Congress, to repeal Glass Steagall, banks only made high quality, conforming mortgage loans

Is there a nicer way to say you're full of shit? Let me know.

so Fannie Mae only bought up high quality, conforming loans.

You're lying. In the early 90s HUD mandated the GSEs buy 30% subprime mortgages.
While Glass-Steagall was still in place.

Fannie Mae never bought up individual mortgages, but bundles called derivatives.

Could you be more clueless?

Banks did not lose any money at all.

What are you smoking? Is it legal in your state?

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.


Since the early 1990s, the government has been attempting to expand home ownership in full disregard of the prudent lending principles that had previously governed the U.S. mortgage market. Now the motives of the GSEs fall into place. Fannie and Freddie were subject to "affordable housing" regulations, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which required them to buy mortgages made to home buyers who were at or below the median income. This quota began at 30% of all purchases in the early 1990s, and was gradually ratcheted up until it called for 55% of all mortgage purchases to be "affordable" in 2007, including 25% that had to be made to low-income home buyers.

How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis

Wow! Don't you feel like an idiot now?


​

Yes of course HUD had been using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to encourage more low income, owner occupied housing.
But that had NOTHING at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.
HUD loans are very hard to get, are very well investigated ahead of time, and have an incredibly LOW default rate.
HUD defaults were extremely low around 2008, and had absolutely NOTHING at all to do with the real estate foreclosures.

And you seem to not understand how banks make money. They greatly profit from foreclosures. They essentially get to keep the down payment and all the money payed in over the years before the foreclosure. Then they arrange to sell the foreclosures to their buddies, and make each other very wealthy, as the properties eventually bounce back to an even higher appreciation value than when originally purchased by the buyer who defaulted. Home foreclosures are almost always highly unethical, and probably should be illegal. If someone suffers some great loss of income, HUD probably should provide some sort of catastrophic relief. While the 2008 real estate bust temporarily reduced housing values, anyone who could weather that, made out big time. It was easy to pick up properties for half their actual value. And since rents went up, it was immediately possible to gain a cash flow as a landlord. That is why real estate busts like this are deliberately caused by people like banks, looking to shift owner occupied homes into rental cash cows.

Yes of course HUD had been using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to encourage more low income, owner occupied housing.

Thanks for admitting to your previous lie.

But that had NOTHING at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.

Forcing Fannie and Freddie to buy trillions in crap didn't greatly increase incentives to write crap mortgages? Dude!

HUD loans are very hard to get, are very well investigated ahead of time, and have an incredibly LOW default rate.

Moron, we're not talking about loans from HUD. We're talking about HUD forcing....FORCING Fannie and Freddie to buy crap.

And you seem to not understand how banks make money. They greatly profit from foreclosures.

You're full of shit. Banks lose money on foreclosures.

They essentially get to keep the down payment and all the money payed in over the years before the foreclosure.

And in the good old days of 20% down payments, before banks started giving mortgages with 3% or 0% down payments, thanks, in part, to government pressure to lend to people with poor credit, that was enough to allow the lender to break even or make money.

That is why real estate busts like this are deliberately caused by people like banks,

Yeah, banks deliberately lost trillions, sneaky bastards. DURR!

Again you are lying.
HUD had nothing to do with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac having to buy toxic derivatives.
That was the repeal of Glass Steagall that did that.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were already required by law to buy what ever the banks sold them.
It was up to legislation like Glass Steagall to prevent banks from trying to sell junk to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Almost NEVER does a bank lose a cent on foreclosures.
The bank gets the property at much less than full price, not only because of the down payment and monthly payments made up until then, but the property appreciates in general over time, even if there slight temporary devaluation.
In general, foreclosures are extremely profitable to banks, and that is why there have been so many attempts are trying to regulate this obvious potential abuse by banks. But clearly 2008 was a total failure of bank regulation, that allowed banks to commit wholesale fraud against buyers, which made trillions in undeserved profits for banks. Banks did not at all lose money over the 2008 real estate market collapse. Otherwise they would not have deliberately caused it by deliberately causing the defaults with high ARM increases and flooding the market with foreclosed homes. They could easily instead of accepted the same old payments, without jacking them way up. It is obvious to anyone that the foreclosures were deliberate, in order to depress the market, making it easier for those who did have their own credit, to swallow up properties at half price.

HUD had nothing to do with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac having to buy toxic derivatives.

HUD forced them to buy crappy mortgages. They didn't buy derivatives.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were already required by law to buy what ever the banks sold them.

You're wrong. Fannie and Freddie decided what to buy, the banks couldn't force them to buy.

It was up to legislation like Glass Steagall to prevent banks from trying to sell junk to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I'd love to see you post the portion of the legislation that you feel did that.

The bank gets the property at much less than full price,

And since the value during the crisis fell substantially below the previous price, banks lost trillions.

In general, foreclosures are extremely profitable to banks,

In general, you're full of shit.

Banks did not at all lose money over the 2008 real estate market collapse.

Show me.

Wrong again. All Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ever buy are packages of mortgages called derivatives.
And they can not examine them individually, much less reject risky ones.

Glass Steagall essentially prevents the banks from using federal bank insurance to prop up risky ventures.
Subprime mortgages were illegal to sell to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the means by which banks are federally insured.

The banks lost nothing on the foreclosed propeties, because they sold them all for much more than the loan, and they held onto them until they were more valuable again. They help on to some foreclosures for over 5 years.

 

[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.

HUH??!?

Of course Fannie and Freddie had a choice in buying them. They had to lower their own standards to do so. .... what are you smoking! They didn't have a choice? Of course they had a choice! The very first....> FIRST < mortgage backed security that involved sub-prime loans... was through Freddie Mac!

First Union, Bear, Stearns Price Securities Offering Backed By Affordable Mortgages (1997)

October 20, 1997
First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering Backed By Affordable Mortgages


Unique Transaction To Benefit Underserved Housing Market



CHARLOTTE - First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.


The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact - they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.
​

And notice who was involved? Bear Stearns and First Union which became Wachovia, two of the largest crashes in the sub-prime crisis.

They not only had a choice, they were the first to dive into the market.

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.

But most of the banks that failed, would not have been illegal under Glass Steagall.

That is totally false.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not at all know the derivatives were toxic.
And all the toxic mortgages would have been illegal to sell to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac under Glass Steagall.
The fact almost no mortgages by HUD defaulted, proves that only banks that were cheating had any problem with defaults.
Later all banks, including ones that did not cheat, needed a bail out, but that was only because their real estate holding devalued and no longer gave them the legal ratio of assets to loans.

 

[Rigby5]

Its quite obvious that you have no idea what the two systems consist of or what they are based on. Stop wasting our time here.

I know exactly what all the systems are based on, and there are not just two of them, but an infinite set of principles that can be orthogonal in some ways, and coincident in others. It is not nearly as simple as you claim, and it is likely all you know about is Stalinism, which any knowledgeable person knows is a form of capitalism called "State Capitalism".
From what little you have written, likely you know nothing about economics or politics at all.
Socialism is from our genetic code in our DNA, and is what allows any social animal to survive, like Meerkats.

Socialism may be in our genetic code, Meerkats too, but they don't pay taxes. So they would have that in common with illegals.

Not sure I understand, because the whole point of socialism is an inherent responsibility to the group. Before currency, that meant mutual defense, bringing food to those temporarily unable to fend for themselves, etc. These days of currency, that means taxes. Taxes are EXACTLY what is socialist about modern government. And illegals likely do not only pay taxes, but increase production, which also increases tax revenue.

Actually, 94% of illegal adult males work, 65% pay taxes, and 35% own homes.They have basically been invited in by the GOP refusal of a national ID card like other modern countries have to end this problem. And no they don't vote or get welfare.

65% pay taxes,

How do they pay taxes? They don't have a Social Security number.

You can even make one up. You can also borrow one from someone else, use one from someone who has died, or buy a fake one for $20.
The reality is they not only pay income taxes, but also FICA, and they are too afraid to file for a refund.

 

[Winston]

400 plus posts and not a one showing any indication of an understanding of macroeconomics, public policy, and tax strategy. When you increase the tax on cigarettes, alcohol, or even soft drinks everyone seems to understand that it discourages consumption. An income tax rate of seventy percent on income over ten million dollars a year does the same thing. When are you taxed on income, when you take it out of the business. A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Why do companies not invest in training their employees like they used to back in the day. Why do companies not provide benefit packages equivalent to those back in the day. Why do companies buy back their own stock instead of making even moderately risky capital investments like they did back in the day. Why do companies offer 401K's instead of pensions like they used to. Because their taxes, and the marginal tax rate, no longer provides them with the incentive to invest in that training, provide those benefits, make those riskier investments, or take on the risk of market loss that a pension entails. The "opportunity cost" of not taking profits is too steep. The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT. Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company. It is about expanding the frontier curve.

That is why the high tax rate's of the 50's resulted in a massive increase in production. That is why, back then, we often had double digit GDP growth not this puny ass two and three percent shit. That is why, back then, the wealthy actually paid less of the total tax burden than they do now, because they had the incentive to invest in their businesses and increase the revenue of their employees, not their investors.

But who am I kidding. You morons can go on ranting about the evils of socialism, or communism, or how about how damn lazy poor people are. In reality, you guys don't even understand the fundamentals of the capitalism you are so enamored with.

A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Business owners? Who wants to ever start a business when the government is going to take 70 cents out of every dollar of profit?

The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT.

What will more likely encourage a businessman to risk his money to start up a new company?

Country A, where his profit, if any, is 70% taken away by government, or Country B where his profit, if any, is only 21% taken away by government?

Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company.

Only morons think more taxes provides an incentive.

This from the dude who was explaining how taxes are progressive. Remember, the seventy percent tax rate would only apply to the income over ten million dollars. So lots of people would start a business and bust their ass so that they could reach ten million dollars of income and the seventy percent rate. What, did nobody start any businesses back in 1950? What about Dunkin Donusts, Denny's, Sonic, and HR Block? You are just spouting off nonsense. Did anyone ever refuse to turn in their winning lottery ticket because the taxes were so high? Besides, taxes come out on the back end, not the front end, which all you conservatives fail to understand. What is it Warren Buffet said, he never knew anyone who ran away from a successful endeavor because of the tax rate.

But yes, higher taxes actually encourage greater risk. The weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the tax-rate. Higher tax rates increase a companies risk appetite. I mean companies are like investors, it is not the return on their money that they are mostly concerned with. It is the return OF their money. Investors who worry more about the return on their money than the return of their money usually end up with no money.

And your company a, company b choice is just stupid. There are many decisions when it comes to locating a business and the tax rate is not high among them. The United Arab Emirates has the highest corporate tax rate in the world and they sure as hell have no shortage of foreign investment, nor of business Matter of fact, the United States has more new businesses than any country in the world and that was when we had one of the highest corporate tax rates. Now, with the lower corporate tax rate, a dumbshit president, and a dysfunctional government, I fully expect that position to be lost. Number two was Great Britain. Watch them fall in the ratings as well for many of the same reasons.

 

[Winston]

Stupid is believing that tax cuts actually increase revenues while tax increases reduce them.

Yes, I agree, you are far more than a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

If lowering taxes does not increase revenue, why did JFK reduce taxes?

In addition, if reducing taxes does not increase revenues, why does this happen?

IRS revenue 2017 $3,760,542.00 millions

Estimated revenue so far for 2018 $3,973,974.00 millions

That's an increase of about $200 BILLION. How did that happen?

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 | Tax Foundation

It didn't happen. Those are "estimates".

 

[Winston]

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.

Proving how little AOC knows about economics is her suggestion of a 70% tax on incomes above $10 million. Apparently, she doesn't know that there are only about 2,000 people who have incomes at and above that level.

How much revenue will that raise?

Perfect demonstration of the inability to grasp the purpose behind AOC's proposal and proof positive that she knows more about Economics than you do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks for the source.
I love it when someone posts a source that refutes their stupid claim

Military war spending is never part of the budget.

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.

See the phrase "supplemental budget"? That means it is part of a budget submitted to and approved by Congress. The expense is on the books, adds to the deficit and adds to the debt.

Maybe you'll make more accurate claims in the future?

WRONG! The phrase "supplemental budget" means it definitely was NOT at all part of the annual budget as planned for the year, but something unexpected that came up LATER, and had to be called supplemental. Anything later, after the annual budget predicted expenses has been approved by congress, is NOT part of the budget and is called supplemental.

It is foolish for you to even try to say what obviously can't be true because clearly all the Bush budgets put together do not include even a tiny portion of the $5 trillion Bush is documented as having added to the national debt. And I already linked and quoted how Bush tried to hide his massive debt. As well as the fact Obama was very critical of the process of hiding debt in supplemental allocations, and was embarrassed to have to do it even once.

You clearly did not read any of the links, because they flatly state the opposite of what you now are claiming.

The phrase "supplemental budget" means it definitely was NOT at all part of the annual budget as planned for the year, but something unexpected that came up LATER, and had to be called supplemental.

It was still part of a budget. Still counts toward the deficit. Still counts toward the debt.

And I already linked and quoted how Bush tried to hide his massive debt.

How does a supplemental spending bill hide debt?

No, all the links were quite clear that supplemental requests for money are handled as emergencies that then the president is not liable for. It is like when Katrina hit and funds had to be allocated for that. These funds are NOT part of the budget, are not detailed, and do NOT count towards the annual deficit. All they count towards is the national debt. But LOTS of thing not in the budget count towards the national debt, such as previous interest on past national debt. The annual budget only includes a little more than half the actual federal spending in any given year. The budget is intentionally leaving major expenses out. For example, Social Security is never part of the annual budget. Supplementals hide spending because they don't list details. They are are almost like a blank check, to deliberately bypass the congressional oversight of federal spending.

I don't mind explaining this, but if you had actually read the links, you would have not needed any more explanation.

No, all the links were quite clear that supplemental requests for money are handled as emergencies that then the president is not liable for. It is like when Katrina hit and funds had to be allocated for that. These funds are NOT part of the budget, are not detailed, and do NOT count towards the annual deficit.
You're wrong. All spending counts toward the deficit. Obama's stimulus wasn't part of the annual budget,
but the wasteful spending still counted toward the deficit.

For example, Social Security is never part of the annual budget.

It's an entitlement. They did that so they would never have to vote on it.
The spending still counts toward the deficit though.

if you had actually read the links, you would have not needed any more explanation.

I don't need to read your links to point out your errors.

Wrong.
Unlike a Bush's war, Obama has to work according to budget rules, and the stimulus was a preplanned part of the budget.
{...
President Barack Obama outlined the economic stimulus package during his 2008 campaign. Congress approved the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February 2009. The Congressional Budget Office estimated it would add $787 billion in budget deficits by 2019.
..}
Did Obama's Stimulus Plan Work?

Unlike a Bush's war, Obama has to work according to budget rules, and the stimulus was a preplanned part of the budget.

The fiscal year started in October 2008. How can you say a bill passed in Feb 2009 was a preplanned part of the budget from October 2008?

And how were any of the budgets passed by Congress and signed by Bush, not "according to budget rules"?

Be specific.

 

[danielpalos]

Stupid is believing that tax cuts actually increase revenues while tax increases reduce them.

Yes, I agree, you are far more than a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

If lowering taxes does not increase revenue, why did JFK reduce taxes?

In addition, if reducing taxes does not increase revenues, why does this happen?

IRS revenue 2017 $3,760,542.00 millions

Estimated revenue so far for 2018 $3,973,974.00 millions

That's an increase of about $200 BILLION. How did that happen?

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 | Tax Foundation

tax cut economics are Worthless if they don't cover spending.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

400 plus posts and not a one showing any indication of an understanding of macroeconomics, public policy, and tax strategy. When you increase the tax on cigarettes, alcohol, or even soft drinks everyone seems to understand that it discourages consumption. An income tax rate of seventy percent on income over ten million dollars a year does the same thing. When are you taxed on income, when you take it out of the business. A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Why do companies not invest in training their employees like they used to back in the day. Why do companies not provide benefit packages equivalent to those back in the day. Why do companies buy back their own stock instead of making even moderately risky capital investments like they did back in the day. Why do companies offer 401K's instead of pensions like they used to. Because their taxes, and the marginal tax rate, no longer provides them with the incentive to invest in that training, provide those benefits, make those riskier investments, or take on the risk of market loss that a pension entails. The "opportunity cost" of not taking profits is too steep. The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT. Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company. It is about expanding the frontier curve.

That is why the high tax rate's of the 50's resulted in a massive increase in production. That is why, back then, we often had double digit GDP growth not this puny ass two and three percent shit. That is why, back then, the wealthy actually paid less of the total tax burden than they do now, because they had the incentive to invest in their businesses and increase the revenue of their employees, not their investors.

But who am I kidding. You morons can go on ranting about the evils of socialism, or communism, or how about how damn lazy poor people are. In reality, you guys don't even understand the fundamentals of the capitalism you are so enamored with.

A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Business owners? Who wants to ever start a business when the government is going to take 70 cents out of every dollar of profit?

The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT.

What will more likely encourage a businessman to risk his money to start up a new company?

Country A, where his profit, if any, is 70% taken away by government, or Country B where his profit, if any, is only 21% taken away by government?

Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company.

Only morons think more taxes provides an incentive.

This from the dude who was explaining how taxes are progressive. Remember, the seventy percent tax rate would only apply to the income over ten million dollars. So lots of people would start a business and bust their ass so that they could reach ten million dollars of income and the seventy percent rate. What, did nobody start any businesses back in 1950? What about Dunkin Donusts, Denny's, Sonic, and HR Block? You are just spouting off nonsense. Did anyone ever refuse to turn in their winning lottery ticket because the taxes were so high? Besides, taxes come out on the back end, not the front end, which all you conservatives fail to understand. What is it Warren Buffet said, he never knew anyone who ran away from a successful endeavor because of the tax rate.

But yes, higher taxes actually encourage greater risk. The weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the tax-rate. Higher tax rates increase a companies risk appetite. I mean companies are like investors, it is not the return on their money that they are mostly concerned with. It is the return OF their money. Investors who worry more about the return on their money than the return of their money usually end up with no money.

And your company a, company b choice is just stupid. There are many decisions when it comes to locating a business and the tax rate is not high among them. The United Arab Emirates has the highest corporate tax rate in the world and they sure as hell have no shortage of foreign investment, nor of business Matter of fact, the United States has more new businesses than any country in the world and that was when we had one of the highest corporate tax rates. Now, with the lower corporate tax rate, a dumbshit president, and a dysfunctional government, I fully expect that position to be lost. Number two was Great Britain. Watch them fall in the ratings as well for many of the same reasons.

Remember, the seventy percent tax rate would only apply to the income over ten million dollars.

Oh, so the corporate rate will remain 21% on the profit up to $10 million and then the rate will spike to 70%.

Well, that's much better. No disruptions possible there. DURR!

But yes, higher taxes actually encourage greater risk.

Of course, I'm more likely to invest in equipment to increase my profit from $10 million this year to $20 million next year when the payoff is an additional $3 million after-tax, than when the payoff is an additional $7.9 million.

That's hilarious!

And your company a, company b choice is just stupid. There are many decisions when it comes to locating a business and the tax rate is not high among them.

Right. Ireland had just as many companies before they cut their tax rate to 12.5% as after.

I mean companies are like investors, it is not the return on their money that they are mostly concerned with. It is the return OF their money.

It's both, except for idiots like you.

Matter of fact, the United States has more new businesses than any country in the world and that was when we had one of the highest corporate tax rates.

I'm pretty sure new business formation suffered with our highest in the 1st world corporate tax rates under the previous dumbshit President.

It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue.

Lie, lie, lie.

It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company.

Raise the tax rate to 100%, subsidize the shit out of risk, eh comrade?

 

[Redfish]

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

Nope. In fact we should eliminate all tax expenditures and LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

That would be a disaster for the country. Budget Deficits would balloon and the country would no longer be able to defend its interest around the world.

Nope. Eliminating tax expenditures would not only balance the budget, it would provide a surplus which could be used to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

agree, but taxes must be collected to support the constitutional functions of the federal government, protection of the nation, a court system, and basic infrastructure.

 

[Thinker101]

I know exactly what all the systems are based on, and there are not just two of them, but an infinite set of principles that can be orthogonal in some ways, and coincident in others. It is not nearly as simple as you claim, and it is likely all you know about is Stalinism, which any knowledgeable person knows is a form of capitalism called "State Capitalism".
From what little you have written, likely you know nothing about economics or politics at all.
Socialism is from our genetic code in our DNA, and is what allows any social animal to survive, like Meerkats.

Socialism may be in our genetic code, Meerkats too, but they don't pay taxes. So they would have that in common with illegals.

Not sure I understand, because the whole point of socialism is an inherent responsibility to the group. Before currency, that meant mutual defense, bringing food to those temporarily unable to fend for themselves, etc. These days of currency, that means taxes. Taxes are EXACTLY what is socialist about modern government. And illegals likely do not only pay taxes, but increase production, which also increases tax revenue.

Actually, 94% of illegal adult males work, 65% pay taxes, and 35% own homes.They have basically been invited in by the GOP refusal of a national ID card like other modern countries have to end this problem. And no they don't vote or get welfare.

65% pay taxes,

How do they pay taxes? They don't have a Social Security number.

You can even make one up. You can also borrow one from someone else, use one from someone who has died, or buy a fake one for $20.
The reality is they not only pay income taxes, but also FICA, and they are too afraid to file for a refund.

What Is the Penalty for Using a Fake Social Security Number?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, before Clinton signed the bill past by Congress, to repeal Glass Steagall, banks only made high quality, conforming mortgage loans

Is there a nicer way to say you're full of shit? Let me know.

so Fannie Mae only bought up high quality, conforming loans.

You're lying. In the early 90s HUD mandated the GSEs buy 30% subprime mortgages.
While Glass-Steagall was still in place.

Fannie Mae never bought up individual mortgages, but bundles called derivatives.

Could you be more clueless?

Banks did not lose any money at all.

What are you smoking? Is it legal in your state?

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.


Since the early 1990s, the government has been attempting to expand home ownership in full disregard of the prudent lending principles that had previously governed the U.S. mortgage market. Now the motives of the GSEs fall into place. Fannie and Freddie were subject to "affordable housing" regulations, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which required them to buy mortgages made to home buyers who were at or below the median income. This quota began at 30% of all purchases in the early 1990s, and was gradually ratcheted up until it called for 55% of all mortgage purchases to be "affordable" in 2007, including 25% that had to be made to low-income home buyers.

How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis

Wow! Don't you feel like an idiot now?


​

Yes of course HUD had been using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to encourage more low income, owner occupied housing.
But that had NOTHING at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.
HUD loans are very hard to get, are very well investigated ahead of time, and have an incredibly LOW default rate.
HUD defaults were extremely low around 2008, and had absolutely NOTHING at all to do with the real estate foreclosures.

And you seem to not understand how banks make money. They greatly profit from foreclosures. They essentially get to keep the down payment and all the money payed in over the years before the foreclosure. Then they arrange to sell the foreclosures to their buddies, and make each other very wealthy, as the properties eventually bounce back to an even higher appreciation value than when originally purchased by the buyer who defaulted. Home foreclosures are almost always highly unethical, and probably should be illegal. If someone suffers some great loss of income, HUD probably should provide some sort of catastrophic relief. While the 2008 real estate bust temporarily reduced housing values, anyone who could weather that, made out big time. It was easy to pick up properties for half their actual value. And since rents went up, it was immediately possible to gain a cash flow as a landlord. That is why real estate busts like this are deliberately caused by people like banks, looking to shift owner occupied homes into rental cash cows.

Yes of course HUD had been using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to encourage more low income, owner occupied housing.

Thanks for admitting to your previous lie.

But that had NOTHING at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.

Forcing Fannie and Freddie to buy trillions in crap didn't greatly increase incentives to write crap mortgages? Dude!

HUD loans are very hard to get, are very well investigated ahead of time, and have an incredibly LOW default rate.

Moron, we're not talking about loans from HUD. We're talking about HUD forcing....FORCING Fannie and Freddie to buy crap.

And you seem to not understand how banks make money. They greatly profit from foreclosures.

You're full of shit. Banks lose money on foreclosures.

They essentially get to keep the down payment and all the money payed in over the years before the foreclosure.

And in the good old days of 20% down payments, before banks started giving mortgages with 3% or 0% down payments, thanks, in part, to government pressure to lend to people with poor credit, that was enough to allow the lender to break even or make money.

That is why real estate busts like this are deliberately caused by people like banks,

Yeah, banks deliberately lost trillions, sneaky bastards. DURR!

Again you are lying.
HUD had nothing to do with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac having to buy toxic derivatives.
That was the repeal of Glass Steagall that did that.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were already required by law to buy what ever the banks sold them.
It was up to legislation like Glass Steagall to prevent banks from trying to sell junk to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Almost NEVER does a bank lose a cent on foreclosures.
The bank gets the property at much less than full price, not only because of the down payment and monthly payments made up until then, but the property appreciates in general over time, even if there slight temporary devaluation.
In general, foreclosures are extremely profitable to banks, and that is why there have been so many attempts are trying to regulate this obvious potential abuse by banks. But clearly 2008 was a total failure of bank regulation, that allowed banks to commit wholesale fraud against buyers, which made trillions in undeserved profits for banks. Banks did not at all lose money over the 2008 real estate market collapse. Otherwise they would not have deliberately caused it by deliberately causing the defaults with high ARM increases and flooding the market with foreclosed homes. They could easily instead of accepted the same old payments, without jacking them way up. It is obvious to anyone that the foreclosures were deliberate, in order to depress the market, making it easier for those who did have their own credit, to swallow up properties at half price.

HUD had nothing to do with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac having to buy toxic derivatives.

HUD forced them to buy crappy mortgages. They didn't buy derivatives.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were already required by law to buy what ever the banks sold them.

You're wrong. Fannie and Freddie decided what to buy, the banks couldn't force them to buy.

It was up to legislation like Glass Steagall to prevent banks from trying to sell junk to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I'd love to see you post the portion of the legislation that you feel did that.

The bank gets the property at much less than full price,

And since the value during the crisis fell substantially below the previous price, banks lost trillions.

In general, foreclosures are extremely profitable to banks,

In general, you're full of shit.

Banks did not at all lose money over the 2008 real estate market collapse.

Show me.

Wrong again. All Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ever buy are packages of mortgages called derivatives.
And they can not examine them individually, much less reject risky ones.

Glass Steagall essentially prevents the banks from using federal bank insurance to prop up risky ventures.
Subprime mortgages were illegal to sell to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the means by which banks are federally insured.

The banks lost nothing on the foreclosed propeties, because they sold them all for much more than the loan, and they held onto them until they were more valuable again. They help on to some foreclosures for over 5 years.

All Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ever buy are packages of mortgages called derivatives.

No, they buy mortgages. And packages of mortgages are mortgages.

Glass Steagall essentially prevents the banks from using federal bank insurance to prop up risky ventures.

It never stopped banks from writing crappy mortgages or buying crappy mortgages written by others.
And if you have a section in mind that uses the phrase "risky venture(s)", post it.

Subprime mortgages were illegal to sell to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the means by which banks are federally insured.

Huh?

The banks lost nothing on the foreclosed propeties, because they sold them all for much more than the loan,

You're an idiot.