The massive tax cut like the one in the Bush years didn’t benefit workers for a very simple reason

[francoHFW]

The 2008 recession had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts, but with federal interference in the housing and home loan industries and with the suicidal Sarbanes-Oxley mark-to-market rule (which was quietly ditched under Obama).

The Bush tax cuts *did* pay for themselves. Federal revenue *increased* after the Bush tax cuts--for four years in a row. The problem was that Congress went on a spending spree.

Right and here are the FACTS to back you UP!
Receipts dropped due to the reasons outlined and with the tax cuts ACTUALLY increased.
And as far as the housing bubble-caused recession... Here is what the LEADING democrat during GWB said was the cause!
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie


View attachment 202249

Three-quarters of the bailouts were for private lending institutions, cronies and Pals of the corrupt GOP, that the GOP allowed to screw up the whole Market totally. Fannie and Freddie got in late. They lost about 70% of the market in 2003 and 2004 when the damage was done super dupe.

Where are your facts? Your proof other than your wild ass speculation. Who the hell are you that anyone should believe what YOU write?

My facts are everywhere outside your GOP bubble of total BS, super dupe.
Fannie Freddie data - The New York Times
The New York Times › blogs › krugman › ...
Nov 17, 2008 · Isn't the most likely story that, in response to lost market share, Fannie & Freddie began lowering their own lending ...
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008 - Investopedia
Investopedia › articles › economics › fan...
Mar 19, 2018 · When the housing bubble of 2001-2007 burst, it caused a mortgage ... For most of the twentieth century, mortgage lending took place mostly at banks, thrifts, credit ...


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast
The Daily Beast › wall-street-not-fannie-a...
Jan 17, 2011 · Ask many Americans who's to blame for the nation's .... Fannie and Freddie lost market share to Wall Street during the ...

Very good! Now explain to me how GWB was at fault for the Fannie&Freddie Credit Crisis of 2008?

You said it yourself quoting Investopedia.... lost share Fannie & Freddie lowered their standards.

And guess who warned about Fannie & Freddie

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"
New York Times, 9/11/03)
* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also
ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised"
position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

And remember Barney Frank ADMITTED that was the case!
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts By Larry Kudlow August 21, 2010

But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."

Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie

And remember Congress was controlled by Democrats in 2007 and 2008!

And Larry Kudlow is full of crap... Starting to get the picture yet? I didn't think so

 

[francoHFW]

Do you liberals keep lying about this because your salaries were low enough in the Bush years that you received little or no benefit from the Bush tax cuts? Is that the problem?

Well, let me tell you: My annual salary in the Bush years was right around $70K-$76K, and I saw a big difference in my take-home pay thanks to the Bush tax cuts.

Did you notice the 2008 corrupt GOP World depression? How about your state and local taxes and fees skyrocketing to make up 4 lower federal aid, super dupe? State and local taxes and fees are much higher 4 the non rich and that has happened the last 35 years of GOP give away to the rich and cuts in services for the rest... Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you.... The rich paying the same percentage as the middle class gives us this ungodly unequal mess, brainwashed functional morons..

The 2008 recession had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts, but with federal interference in the housing and home loan industries and with the suicidal Sarbanes-Oxley mark-to-market rule (which was quietly ditched under Obama).

The Bush tax cuts *did* pay for themselves. Federal revenue *increased* after the Bush tax cuts--for four years in a row. The problem was that Congress went on a spending spree.

Right and here are the FACTS to back you UP!
Receipts dropped due to the reasons outlined and with the tax cuts ACTUALLY increased.
And as far as the housing bubble-caused recession... Here is what the LEADING democrat during GWB said was the cause!
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie


View attachment 202249

Three-quarters of the bailouts were for private lending institutions, cronies and Pals of the corrupt GOP, that the GOP allowed to screw up the whole Market totally. Fannie and Freddie got in late. They lost about 70% of the market in 2003 and 2004 when the damage was done super dupe.

And guess who benefited when TARP was repaid??? Obama and he blew the TARP repayments with profits!View attachment 202334

Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

Obama did what? Try and remain calm LOL.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So much that he caused another corrupt GOP depression worldwide.

50% crappy mortgages are okay, 55% cause a depression. Wait, whut?

Millions and millions of them... And the difference was a hell of a lot more than that...

Millions and millions of them..

Yes, Clinton forced Fanny and Freddy to buy millions of crappy mortgages.
It was awful!

And the difference was a hell of a lot more than that...

Nope. Clinton mandated 50%. Bush raised it to 55%.

Fannie and Freddie had 70% of the market before Bush and the GOP opened the floodgates in 2003. Fannie and Freddie lost half to 65% of of the market.. try and try to remember! You are a waste of time. You learn nothing.

Fannie and Freddie lost half to 65% of of the market..

Of course they did.
After Franklin Raines and his huge accounting scandal, the government almost put them out of business.

Think how much less bailout money they'd have needed if they hadn't doubled down on their crappy mortgage purchases after they jumped back in.

Under GOP pressure to do so, dipstick.

Under GOP pressure to do so,

Obviously, Clinton's 50% mandate wasn't enough...…..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right and here are the FACTS to back you UP!
Receipts dropped due to the reasons outlined and with the tax cuts ACTUALLY increased.
And as far as the housing bubble-caused recession... Here is what the LEADING democrat during GWB said was the cause!
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie


View attachment 202249

Three-quarters of the bailouts were for private lending institutions, cronies and Pals of the corrupt GOP, that the GOP allowed to screw up the whole Market totally. Fannie and Freddie got in late. They lost about 70% of the market in 2003 and 2004 when the damage was done super dupe.

Where are your facts? Your proof other than your wild ass speculation. Who the hell are you that anyone should believe what YOU write?

My facts are everywhere outside your GOP bubble of total BS, super dupe.
Fannie Freddie data - The New York Times
The New York Times › blogs › krugman › ...
Nov 17, 2008 · Isn't the most likely story that, in response to lost market share, Fannie & Freddie began lowering their own lending ...
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008 - Investopedia
Investopedia › articles › economics › fan...
Mar 19, 2018 · When the housing bubble of 2001-2007 burst, it caused a mortgage ... For most of the twentieth century, mortgage lending took place mostly at banks, thrifts, credit ...


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast
The Daily Beast › wall-street-not-fannie-a...
Jan 17, 2011 · Ask many Americans who's to blame for the nation's .... Fannie and Freddie lost market share to Wall Street during the ...

Very good! Now explain to me how GWB was at fault for the Fannie&Freddie Credit Crisis of 2008?

You said it yourself quoting Investopedia.... lost share Fannie & Freddie lowered their standards.

And guess who warned about Fannie & Freddie

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"
New York Times, 9/11/03)
* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also
ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised"
position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

And remember Barney Frank ADMITTED that was the case!
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts By Larry Kudlow August 21, 2010

But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."

Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie

And remember Congress was controlled by Democrats in 2007 and 2008!

Fannie and Freddie were never the problem, brainwashed functional jackass. But the GOP hates Fannie and always try to destroy it with lies like that...

Fannie and Freddie were never the problem,

How much subprime debt did those two "not problems" end up holding?

 

[edthecynic]

And can you believe it, Clinton forced them to buy crappy mortgages

You can believe it ONLY if you are a FOOL!

Clinton didn't force the GSEs to buy crappy mortgages? Are you sure?

Yes, that was BUSH!
But you knew that already!

 

[edthecynic]

Several economists are predicting close to 5% growth for this quarter mostly due to Trumps tax cut and deregulation

Yeah, and they predicted 5.4% for the previous quarter and it turned out to be 2.0%

 

[edthecynic]

The Democrats wanted to put pressure on the lending institutions to give credit to minorities and low income people that could not otherwise qualify and who neither had the means nor the inclination to pay back the money. You know, for social justice reasons.

That was BUSH, you know for reelection reasons, and we lived through what went wrong.

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

By Thomas A. Fogarty, USA TODAY

In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.

In announcing the plan Monday at a home builders show in Las Vegas, Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher called the proposal the "most significant FHA initiative in more than a decade." It would lead to 150,000 first-time owners annually, he said.

Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market, but, in general, they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.

 

[edthecynic]

People with less income, lower credit ratings and lower (even zero) down payments were given mortgages.

Again, as you well know that was BUSH in 2003 as part of his campaign for minority votes in the 2004 election.

Again, as you well know that was BUSH in 2003 as part of his campaign for minority votes in the 2004 election.


Absolutely!
Bush took Clinton's bad policy and made it even worse.

Nope no down payment loans to borrowers with bad credit was started by BUSH in 2003, not Clinton. Under Clinton borrowers had to have pristine credit!

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

By Thomas A. Fogarty, USA TODAY

In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.

In announcing the plan Monday at a home builders show in Las Vegas, Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher called the proposal the "most significant FHA initiative in more than a decade." It would lead to 150,000 first-time owners annually, he said.

Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market, but, in general, they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.

 

[edthecynic]

Clinton forced Fanny and Freddy to buy millions of crappy mortgages.
It was awful!

None of Clinton's mortgages were "crappy," that was BUSH!

 

[Tom Horn]

Why thank you, Billy, I am a manly man. This bicep flex is for you bruh

View attachment 201920

Your little alligator arms are hilarious.

 

[theHawk]

The massive tax cut like the one in the Bush years didn’t benefit workers for a very simple reason

They were never supposed to.

Is that why Harry and the Hussein didn’t end the “Bush tax cuts” in 2009-2011?

 

[Tom Horn]

Listen....the commies' pitiful attempts to downplay the tax cuts and ROARING economy are all they have left after the threats and vile jokes....they know Trump has crushed them and there will be no impeachment, blue wave, or anything else....they're finished.

 

[edthecynic]

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

Nope, by those who were pretending to want reform, namely Bush himself and his GOP cronies in Congress.
Every reform bill except one was blocked in the House by the GOP MAJORITY Party, where only a simple majority would be needed to advance the bill, and the one bill that got out of the House was blocked by the GOP MAJORITY leader who refused to bring it to the floor for a vote.

But you knew that already since you have posted that lie many times in many threads and I have pointed out the truth to you just as many times, and yet here you are selling the same lie on yet another thread!

 

[edthecynic]

Listen....the commies' pitiful attempts to downplay the tax cuts and ROARING economy

I love it, 2.0% GDP growth after Donnie Dirt Bag's tax cuts is suddenly a "ROARING economy."

 

[edthecynic]

The massive tax cut like the one in the Bush years didn’t benefit workers for a very simple reason

They were never supposed to.

Is that why Harry and the Hussein didn’t end the “Bush tax cuts” in 2009-2011?

Already explained to you earlier in this very thread, the GOP House refused to allow any Unemployment Insurance extension to the American workers whose lives they had destroyed if the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires was not also extended. The GOP held Americans hostage until they got tax cuts for the wealthy extended.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Corporations are already wealthier than ever before. There is no incentive for these corporations to invest in labor when it is just easier to save money on tax cuts. Meanwhile, the deficit explodes and only executives benefit.

Even if corporate profits weren’t at an all time high, there is still a feduciaery responsibility to maximize profit. How, in part. do you maximize profit? By not investing in labor and accepting the economy as is. Right now, higher wage jobs are extremely competitive among workers while lower income jobs fill quite easily.

Lower wage workers are at the mercy of the economy. While it may be easy for republicans to call them lazy, it ignores the complexity of what creates poverty. Low wage workers do not have the time or money to spend on education that would make them qualified for skilled jobs. Of course, let’s pretend ALL workers did this. Who would be left behind to fill those entry level jobs that keep any business afloat?

Well there are more jobs than "qualified" people to fill them. Fortunately dummies like you that can't even pay attention to a simple red dotted line indicating you completely misspelled
"fiduciary" (feduciaery responsibility)

Corporations are already wealthier than ever before. There is no incentive for these corporations to invest in labor when it is just easier to save money on tax cuts. Meanwhile, the deficit explodes and only executives benefit.

Even if corporate profits weren’t at an all time high, there is still a feduciaery responsibility to maximize profit. How, in part, do you maximize profit? By not investing in labor and accepting the economy as is. Right now, higher wage jobs are extremely competitive among workers while lower income jobs fill quite easily.

Lower wage workers are at the mercy of the economy. While it may be easy for republicans to call them lazy, it ignores the complexity of what creates poverty. Low wage workers do not have the time or money to spend on education that would make them qualified for skilled jobs. Of course, let’s pretend ALL workers did this. Who would be left behind to fill those entry level jobs that keep any business afloat?

View attachment 201914

View attachment 201913
won't be getting those jobs because simple following instructions i.e. LIKE A LITTLE red dotted line is trying to show you is evidently too complicated!

Okay whatever. I misspelled the word. Whatever. All this red dotted line shit you’re saying means nothing of course

But see it does!!! The devil is in the details! If you can't even pay attention to the little red-dotted line... how can you be responsible for more important issues?
I mean seriously! Don't you every follow the instructions that evidently more intelligent people do and as a result very few misspelled words by folks who just pay attention
to the little details.
Learn...

A tiny software "bug" -- three faulty computer instructions lurking among several million that modern telephone switches use to route calls -- appears to have sparked the sudden, massive failures of local telephone systems in recent weeks, the manufacturer of the equipment said yesterday.
The flaws were hidden in minor software changes that the Plano, Tex.-based company, DSC Communications Corp., provided to its telephone company customers in an effort to improve the equipment's performance. The software was sent out without major testing because DSC judged that the changes were too small to require it, DSC Vice President Frank Perpiglia said yesterday.
It was the first detailed explanation of what caused the unprecedented string of failures. In rapid sequence in June and earlier this month, local phone service in the Washington region, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Los Angeles mysteriously crashed, for as long as eight hours.
TINY 'BUG' CAUSED PHONE BLACKOUTS

Talk about the devil is in the details!

you completely misspelled
"fiduciary" (feduciaery responsibility)

Don't you every follow the instructions

This is too funny.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And can you believe it, Clinton forced them to buy crappy mortgages

You can believe it ONLY if you are a FOOL!

Clinton didn't force the GSEs to buy crappy mortgages? Are you sure?

Yes, that was BUSH!
But you knew that already!

Clinton ordered the GSEs to buy half their mortgages from the subprime end of the pool.

You didn't know that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

People with less income, lower credit ratings and lower (even zero) down payments were given mortgages.

Again, as you well know that was BUSH in 2003 as part of his campaign for minority votes in the 2004 election.

Again, as you well know that was BUSH in 2003 as part of his campaign for minority votes in the 2004 election.


Absolutely!
Bush took Clinton's bad policy and made it even worse.

Nope no down payment loans to borrowers with bad credit was started by BUSH in 2003, not Clinton. Under Clinton borrowers had to have pristine credit!

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

By Thomas A. Fogarty, USA TODAY

In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.

In announcing the plan Monday at a home builders show in Las Vegas, Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher called the proposal the "most significant FHA initiative in more than a decade." It would lead to 150,000 first-time owners annually, he said.

Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market, but, in general, they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.

Nope no down payment loans to borrowers with bad credit was started by BUSH in 2003, not Clinton.

Like I said, Bush took Clinton's bad ideas and made them worse.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Clinton forced Fanny and Freddy to buy millions of crappy mortgages.
It was awful!

None of Clinton's mortgages were "crappy," that was BUSH!

None of Clinton's mortgages were "crappy,"

DERP!

 

[edthecynic]

And can you believe it, Clinton forced them to buy crappy mortgages

You can believe it ONLY if you are a FOOL!

Clinton didn't force the GSEs to buy crappy mortgages? Are you sure?

Yes, that was BUSH!
But you knew that already!

Clinton ordered the GSEs to buy half their mortgages from the subprime end of the pool.

You didn't know that?

They were NOT bad mortgages simply because they were subprime, that is a typical Right-wing lie by overgeneralization. Subprime loans are any loans not at the prime rate. The Clinton CRA loans were to QUALIFIED borrowers at a max of 97% of the value of the home and required a down payment for a fixed rate of 2% above prime, but if the borrower made their payments on time for two years the loan reverted to prime.

Bush's loans were ARMs to borrowers with bad credit with no money down and for more than the house was worth and who earned 20% less than the average income of the neighborhood they were buying into.
BIG difference!!!!!