Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Whether the rich have "lost a lot of the deductions, exclusions, and credits they once could take" or not they haven't shared the spoils of "increased economic activity" with those who supply 90% of the labor.Who the hell is Bruce Watson and who is "Smith"?
Your article must have taken a lot of digging, sadly it doesn't prove your statement.. Care to point out where it says the tax rates are lower than a half century ago? Saying you pay 35% today but your parents paid 30% back in the 60's is a false impression. Several factors need to be added in to show the "effective tax rate when comparing tax rates.
1. Inflation
2. Tax laws and exemptions that have changed over the years.
And many other things all make a claim like that nonsense.
But hey you go right on ahead spouting liberal propaganda and don't let reality or the truth stop you.
Yes. When comparing tax rates, much much more has to be considered in addition to the rate. Changes in how AGI is computed, the changing picture of deductions and credits, and what will be considered income and what can be excluded all have to be considered. For instance those 'rich' who saw their tax rates decline since the mid 1900's have also lost a lot of the deductions, exclusiions, and credits they once could take.
But once all the factors were counted in, the lowered tax rates actually spurred increased economic activity and generated more revenues from those same people because with certainty that they will be able to keep more of profits generated, they take the risks necessary to generate those profits.
It's an interesting economic world out there for those who can set aside their class envy and strident partisanship long enough to see the bigger picture.
"In 1980, the richest 1% of Americans "earned" about 8% of the total US income. In 2008 they "earned" 20%. They probably "earn" a greater share today after their financial gurus' pillaged $7.8 trillion of US home values in 2008, nearly crashing the global economy.
That "bigger picture" you referred to hasn't changed much in 5000 years.
Rich parasites use government to socialize cost and privatize profit to their exclusive benefit.
"Class envy and strident partisanship" are their biggest allies.
Damn evil rich people it was a vast conspiracy. The loss of jobs and an artificially inflated market had nothing to do with it.
When will you open your eyes and see who's getting rich, richer and richest from our decline into a "very ugly place."?It was Bush's meddling that caused the problem, and every time the GOP screws up they say "government" did it.You do understand that the "sub-prime mortgage scam" could NOT have happened without massive government involvement through Fannie/Freddie, laws designed to expand home ownership, and the promise of taxpayer backing through the Fed. Banks and other big businesses colluding with government caused the problem. Government meddling is to blame here so what's your solution? More government?
It was Bush's Dec 2003 American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) that changed the rules to allow no downpayment loans for more than the house was worth to people with bad credit who could not keep up with the payments and who were at least 20% below the standard of living for the neighborhood they were buying into.
The ADDI was passed in Dec 2003 and everything in housing started to go bad in 2004. Even your MessiahRushie admits 2004 was the turning point for the Bush Housing Crash.
July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.
Okay. Now what are you going to do? This administration is repeating the mistakes and taking them to new levels. His fault, your fault, my fault, nobody's fault, the economy is going to CRASH if the government does not stop spending. They could kill all the millionaires and take their money and it wouldn't be enough to support this government for more than a few months. Then what? At what point do you open your eyes and see we are in a really ugly place, and unless we do something, VERY soon, there will be a lot of people starving in THIS country.
When do you say the government has got to stop spending money that we don't have?
If they keep printing it (read about Zimbabwe), we will be paying $200 for a loaf of bread. The food will not be available because farmers will not sell it for worthless paper. The electricity will stop because people will be stealing the metal conductors for monetary exchange. When will you open your eyes?
Which 1% of Americans saw their net worth increase from the loss of jobs and an artificially inflated market? I'm guessing it wasn't the same people whose jobs, homes and retirements were wiped out when the housing/credit bubble popped.Whether the rich have "lost a lot of the deductions, exclusions, and credits they once could take" or not they haven't shared the spoils of "increased economic activity" with those who supply 90% of the labor.Yes. When comparing tax rates, much much more has to be considered in addition to the rate. Changes in how AGI is computed, the changing picture of deductions and credits, and what will be considered income and what can be excluded all have to be considered. For instance those 'rich' who saw their tax rates decline since the mid 1900's have also lost a lot of the deductions, exclusiions, and credits they once could take.
But once all the factors were counted in, the lowered tax rates actually spurred increased economic activity and generated more revenues from those same people because with certainty that they will be able to keep more of profits generated, they take the risks necessary to generate those profits.
It's an interesting economic world out there for those who can set aside their class envy and strident partisanship long enough to see the bigger picture.
"In 1980, the richest 1% of Americans "earned" about 8% of the total US income. In 2008 they "earned" 20%. They probably "earn" a greater share today after their financial gurus' pillaged $7.8 trillion of US home values in 2008, nearly crashing the global economy.
That "bigger picture" you referred to hasn't changed much in 5000 years.
Rich parasites use government to socialize cost and privatize profit to their exclusive benefit.
"Class envy and strident partisanship" are their biggest allies.
Reference point. I was building homes in a neighborhood with my avg price of 250k. I sold one home to a state trooper and his wife, 8 months later they sold the house at a 100k profit. I tire of hearing about inflated wealth numbers.
Awww...is the little gslut gonna cryI am pretty sure georgephillip is trolling to get people riled up. He doesn't defend any position and when he does try to use a link to back a claim, the link rarely if at all is related to his claim. Even when it does, its usually nonsense...
He just re-posted a response, I would bet we will see him do that a lot... I refuse to feed a troll, and I refuse to empower anyone who has no desire to back up a claim they make. Not to mentions anyone who shows so little actual common sense or knowledge on what they do post... georgephillip, you are not going to get anymore responses from me until you show that you are actually wanting to back up your claims...
Wrong again.Any rich Republicans work for Goldman Sachs?Any rich Republicans work for Fannie Mae?
"While Mr. Paulson spoke to many Wall Street executives during [the early days of the economic crisis], he was in very frequent contact with Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldmans chief executive, according to a copy of Mr. Paulsons calendars acquired by The New York Times through a Freedom of Information Act request.
"During the week of the A.I.G. bailout alone, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Blankfein spoke two dozen times, the calendars show, far more frequently than Mr. Paulson did with other Wall Street executives.
"What did they talk about? We are left to draw reasonable inferences. Clearly they discussed how to launder money through A.I.G. into Goldman Sachs."
Crime & Federalism: Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs Are RICO Enterprises
I don't know of any rich Republicans who work for Goldman, just rich Democrats.
They were Obama's largest contributors in 2008.
Which 1% of Americans saw their net worth increase from the loss of jobs and an artificially inflated market? I'm guessing it wasn't the same people whose jobs, homes and retirements were wiped out when the housing/credit bubble popped
Wrong again.Any rich Republicans work for Goldman Sachs?
"While Mr. Paulson spoke to many Wall Street executives during [the early days of the economic crisis], he was in very frequent contact with Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldmans chief executive, according to a copy of Mr. Paulsons calendars acquired by The New York Times through a Freedom of Information Act request.
"During the week of the A.I.G. bailout alone, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Blankfein spoke two dozen times, the calendars show, far more frequently than Mr. Paulson did with other Wall Street executives.
"What did they talk about? We are left to draw reasonable inferences. Clearly they discussed how to launder money through A.I.G. into Goldman Sachs."
Crime & Federalism: Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs Are RICO Enterprises
I don't know of any rich Republicans who work for Goldman, just rich Democrats.
They were Obama's largest contributors in 2008.
Your predictability is silly.
Goldman Sachs was not Obama's biggest campaign contributor in 2008.
Want to guess again?
Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets
"The latest data from the Washington D.C.-based Center for Responsive Politics shows that Goldman has doled out roughly $914,000 to Republican candidates compared to about $776,000 to Democrats in this year's election cycle...
"'They're shorting the Obama administration,' said Nell Minow, co-founder and editor of the Corporate Library, a governance research firm. 'It is quite clear that the best friends of Wall Street are in the Republican Party...'"
Proving yet again...shit clumps.
Goldman Sachs Goes Republican, Gives More Campaign Money to GOP than Democrats - ABC News
Or Republicans.Which 1% of Americans saw their net worth increase from the loss of jobs and an artificially inflated market? I'm guessing it wasn't the same people whose jobs, homes and retirements were wiped out when the housing/credit bubble popped
Maybe next time they'll be smarter then to vote for Democrats...
Or Republicans.Which 1% of Americans saw their net worth increase from the loss of jobs and an artificially inflated market? I'm guessing it wasn't the same people whose jobs, homes and retirements were wiped out when the housing/credit bubble popped
Maybe next time they'll be smarter then to vote for Democrats...
FLUSH 'em all, Kazman.
Starting with the White House in 2012!
Time for HUNDREDS of Greens and Libertarians to have a stake in the big fight.
Democrats AND Republicans circumvented the will of 99% of all taxpayers by enabling Wall Street speculators bet against the US housing market and satisfy demand from institutional investors for high yield loans to people with poor credit.It's one thing to limit interest rates and its another to regulate the banks into being a tool that is forced to lend to whoever the government believes need money...
Let the banks give credit to those who are worthy of it.......
It's the poor mans fault hes poor and it's his fault he had a no credit and the government should have no say in whether he gets credit or not....
Of course the democrats come in and force the banks to make high risk loans and those ideas came back to bite them in the ass and all they can do is blame republicans...
It was never the republicans idea to force banks to make high risk loans - why the fuck would they do that???
Why the fuck would I knowingly lend you money if I knew you could never pay it back??
Democrats are big ass bullies and they had no right forcing banks to lend like the bullies they are.
Democrats circumvented the will of the banks...
Democrats AND Republicans circumvented the will of 99% of all taxpayers by enabling Wall Street speculators bet against the US housing market and satisfy demand from institutional investors for high yield loans to people with poor credit.It's one thing to limit interest rates and its another to regulate the banks into being a tool that is forced to lend to whoever the government believes need money...
Let the banks give credit to those who are worthy of it.......
It's the poor mans fault hes poor and it's his fault he had a no credit and the government should have no say in whether he gets credit or not....
Of course the democrats come in and force the banks to make high risk loans and those ideas came back to bite them in the ass and all they can do is blame republicans...
It was never the republicans idea to force banks to make high risk loans - why the fuck would they do that???
Why the fuck would I knowingly lend you money if I knew you could never pay it back??
Democrats are big ass bullies and they had no right forcing banks to lend like the bullies they are.
Democrats circumvented the will of the banks...
They knowingly loaned money to people they knew would never be able to repay the loan because Republicans AND Democrats were ready, willing and able to cover all loses with taxpayer monies.
Here's one place it started in 2004:
"Representatives of five of Wall Street's dominant investment banks gathered around a blonde wood conference table on a February night almost three years ago. Their talks over take-out Chinese food led to the perfect formula for a U.S. housing collapse...
The tools these traders, lawyers and others fabricated allowed firms to protect themselves from the risks of subprime mortgage defaults but they also magnified losses when boom turned to bust.
"The tools also magnified losses so much that a small number of defaulting subprime borrowers could devastate securities held by banks and pension funds globally, freeze corporate lending, and bring the world's credit markets to a standstill."
Subprime Securities Market Began as `Group of 5' Over Chinese - Bloomberg
Republicans and Democrats serve those who profit the most from crimes like the collapse of the US housing market. They are busy planning future heists as we speak.
As we celebrate year three of the Great Financial Crisis with the first official bailout of an entire country (Greece), Im still astounded by the complete and utter lack of coverage the underlying cause of this Crisis has received.
Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of articles and research reports have been written about the Crisis, and yet I would wager less than 1% of them actually bother talking about what caused it, let alone how the various efforts to stop it have in fact FAILED to address this key issue.
Remember back in 2007? At that time we were told it was all about Subprime mortgages. Then in 2008, we were told it was the investment banks, specifically Lehman Brothers (LEHMQ.PK) failure and AIGs credit default swaps. In 2009, we were told it was poor accounting standards and bad bets made by Wall Street. And here we are in 2010, and were still being told it was simply bad bets made by Wall Street.
All of these answers are partially right, but none of them are totally 100% accurate. Why? Because they fail to address the one underlying issue that links ALL of these items. Im talking about the Black Hole of Finance: a bottomless pit that no official or regulator bothers mentioning in public because acknowledging it would mean acknowledging that all of the efforts to stop the Crisis are truly paltry.
What caused the Crisis?
Derivatives.
Youve probably heard this term before, or have some vague understanding of what the term means. But the actual reality of derivatives and what they represent for the financial markets remains a topic no one in the mainstream media (or the regulators for that matter) wants to touch.
Why?
Lets do some quick math.
If you add up the value of every stock on the planet, the entire market capitalization would be about $36 trillion. If you do the same process for bonds, youd get a market capitalization of roughly $72 trillion.
The notional value of the derivative market is roughly $1.4 QUADRILLION.
I realize that number sounds like something out of Looney tunes, so Ill try to put it into perspective.
$1.4 Quadrillion is roughly:
-40 TIMES THE WORLDS STOCK MARKET.
-10 TIMES the value of EVERY STOCK & EVERY BOND ON THE PLANET.
-23 TIMES WORLD GDP.
Why Derivatives Caused Financial Crisis - Seeking Alpha
Not for nothing did US billionaire Warren Buffett call them the real 'weapons of mass destruction'
The market is worth more than $516 trillion, (£303 trillion), roughly 10 times the value of the entire world's output: it's been called the "ticking time-bomb".
It's a market in which the lead protagonists typically aggressive, highly educated, and now wealthy young men have flourished in the derivatives boom. But it's a market that is set to come to a crashing halt the Great Unwind has begun.
Last week the beginning of the end started for many hedge funds with the combination of diving market values and worried investors pulling out their cash for safer climes.
Some of the world's biggest hedge funds SAC Capital, Lone Pine and Tiger Global all revealed they were sitting on double-digit losses this year. September's falls wiped out any profits made in the rest of the year. Polygon, once a darling of the London hedge fund circuit, last week said it was capping the basic salaries of its managers to £100,000 each. Not bad for the average punter but some way off the tens of millions plundered by these hotshots during the good times. But few will be shedding any tears.
The complex and opaque derivatives markets in which these hedge funds played has been dubbed the world's biggest black hole because they operate outside of the grasp of governments, tax inspectors and regulators. They operate in a parallel, shadow world to the rest of the banking system. They are private contracts between two companies or institutions which can't be controlled or properly assessed. In themselves derivative contracts are not dangerous, but if one of them should go wrong the bad 2 per cent as it's been called then it is the domino effect which could be so enormous and scary.
Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction: A $516 Trillion Derivatives 'Time-Bomb'
Barack Obama's sheer gutlessness has some far-lefties taking a second looking at John McCain:Was just reading over the list of Barack Obama's biggest contributors and it reminded me all over again. We deplore the high cost of a college education that is prohibitive to anybody of limited means without a large amount of grant or scholarship monies. So why in the hell aren't universities using any 'extra' cash they have to reduce tuition and other costs for their students instead of giving a million or hundreds of thousands to political candidates? Because they hope those candidates will funnel even great quantities of the taxpayer's money back to them of course.
I still say, make it illegal for the federal government to dispense charity or benevolence to ANYBODY for ANY reason and you not only correct 90% of what is wrong with Washington in the first place but you will see costs being lowered elsewhere also.
