Trickle down Econ already working for AT&T, Wells Fargo and Comcast employees...Thanks Donny!

[The Derp]

Unlike all the Liberals, back in 2005, saying there was a housing bubble?

Yes! They were! An entire article from Bruce Bartlett from Forbes in 2008 details all the folks who were right about the housing bubble. On that list was the Brookings Institution, which is a liberal-leaning think tank.

In fact, economists Karl Case and Robert Shiller presented a very detailed analysis of the housing market to the Brookings Institution's panel on economic activity. While conceding that economic fundamentals were favorable to rising home prices, they also noted that there were elements of bubble psychology in the housing market. Case and Shiller pointed to an increase in the buying of real estate for investment purposes and high expectations of housing price increases.

And at the time, Greenspan, Bush, Kudlow, the Wall Street Journal were all cheering the bubble on.

 

[The Derp]

Are you admitting a lower rate is beneficial?

I never denied it wasn't.

What I've denied has been that you can increase pre-tax revenues (growth) by decreasing the rate on after-tax profits.

You cut the corporate tax rate to a rate that is still higher than those countries that supposedly steal corporate HQ's. You said that we had to lower the rate to "bring them back". Well, why would they come back to a rate still higher than that of the places where they are currently? It's your shit policy that cut the rate...

 

[buckeye45_73]

Unlike all the Liberals, back in 2005, saying there was a housing bubble?

Yes! They were! An entire article from Bruce Bartlett from Forbes in 2008 details all the folks who were right about the housing bubble. On that list was the Brookings Institution, which is a liberal-leaning think tank.

In fact, economists Karl Case and Robert Shiller presented a very detailed analysis of the housing market to the Brookings Institution's panel on economic activity. While conceding that economic fundamentals were favorable to rising home prices, they also noted that there were elements of bubble psychology in the housing market. Case and Shiller pointed to an increase in the buying of real estate for investment purposes and high expectations of housing price increases.

And at the time, Greenspan, Bush, Kudlow, the Wall Street Journal were all cheering the bubble on.

What caused the housing bubble? Lending to people who couldn't pay their mortgages.....why would they do that?


oh Andre Cuomo has the answer...





but he's not done....He wants to do it again in New York

 

[The Derp]

What caused the housing bubble? Lending to people who couldn't pay their mortgages.....why would they do that?

What caused the bubble was, according to the Bush Working Group on Financial Markets, "a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

So it wasn't federal housing policy from the 90's or 70's, it was Conservative deregulation policy of the 00's that caused a subprime bubble to rise.

Now, remind me, who was in control of all three branches of government in 2004? Who had the power in 2004 to enforce lending standards?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Add U.S. Bank to the list of companies handing out extra bonuses and raising their minimum wage. They are also contributing over $150 million to their charitable trust.

U.S. Bank becomes latest bank to increase wages, hand out bonuses after tax reform | 2018-01-02 | HousingWire

 

[buckeye45_73]

What caused the housing bubble? Lending to people who couldn't pay their mortgages.....why would they do that?

What caused the bubble was, according to the Bush Working Group on Financial Markets, "a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

So it wasn't federal housing policy from the 90's or 70's, it was Conservative deregulation policy of the 00's that caused a subprime bubble to rise.

Now, remind me, who was in control of all three branches of government in 2004?

No it wasnt
Most banks HATE foreclosures.....it's more expensive for them

It was because they had to underwrite loans and why were they forced to do that , ANDREW CUOMO spelled it out for you......it's not hard....you guys wanted the government to fix a problem and it created a bigger one......and while the law was written in the 70s, Clinton through Cuomo changed and increased enforcement.........

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because AT&T cut a few hundred jobs the same day the tax bill was signed means tax cuts don't create jobs?You're actually getting dumber every time you post.

Why would they create any job since they're not increasing pre-tax revenues, and expanding pre-tax revenues is why you'd create jobs? Because growing pre-tax revenues means there's growing demand, and you hire to meet that demand. But if you're not increasing pre-tax revenues, and just increase after-tax profit, how are you creating demand? You're not. You're just inflating a bubble.

X (Revenues) * T (tax rate) = Profit.

Lowering T can increase profit.

Raising X can increase profit.

Lowering T and raising X can increase profit.

But lowering T does not increase X.

X is the important number here because X indicates if the business is growing. A business can grow profits without growing the business...that's done by cutting payroll or lowering the tax rate. But a business doesn't grow if pre-tax revenues don't grow. You ignore the one thing in the equation that is most important.

OK. So fucking what?

So the tax cuts didn't increase demand to justify expansion, and they never will. So arguing that lowering the tax rate will create jobs is a fucking lie, isn't it?

Yup. And they could have fired a few thousand instead of a few hundred.

Ummm, AT&T is firing thousands of people

AT&T ANNOUNCES THOUSANDS OF LAYOFFS, FIRINGS JUST IN TIME FOR CHRISTMAS
BY CARLOS BALLESTEROS ON 12/24/17 AT 3:53 PM
AT&T plans to lay off and fire more than a thousand workers starting early next year, according to local reports.​

So then cutting the corporate income tax does nothing to increase consumer growth.
Not directly. So what?

Whoa, there! Hold those horses! That's not what y'all were saying before. You were saying that these businesses would expand and invest if their income tax rate was cut. Now you're telling me that it's not a direct correlation? So at what point does the tax cut actually create a job? You know I'm leading you with this question, right? Because I expect your answer to be trickle-down in not as few words.

Because it was too fucking high.

It's still higher than the rate of those countries to whom you were screeching that we were losing corporate HQ's to.

So, if we use your shit argument from before:

What is more? 21% of $100,000 or 15% of $100,000?

That's your shit argument and why we had to cuit our corporate rate. You said we had to cut it because we were losing HQ's to other territories. Well, you didn't cut the rate below the rate in those other territories, so why would any business relocating from those to territories with a higher rate? YOU WERE ARGUING AGAINST THAT VERY THING A WEEK AGO. This corporate rate cut still has our rate above those nations like Ireland and the Caymans.

and why cut it to a rate still above the rate in Ireland and the Caymans?
You've convinced me. We should cut it to 10%.

You've redefined parameters yet again. So if the recent rate cut wasn't low enough, why did you support it? The answer is obvious; you're a partisan hack and fraud.

I didn't tell you that. I think growth will be higher.

What makes you think that?

X = Net Revenues
T = Tax rate
P = Profits

X x T = P

How does lowering T increase X?

And the higher dividends. Don't forget the dividends.

Which benefits the wealthy who we now know save more than they spend when given a tax cut, and that there's no amount of economic activity generated by higher dividends that makes up for the gap in revenues lost thanks to the tax cut. Your big promise was that increasing after-tax profits will generate growth that increases pre-tax revenues. But now you're telling me that isn't true, and they're not linked, and you're just guessing (without showing your work). Why the fuck should anyone listen to you? Remind me.

We will be in a recession by this time next year. It's inevitable.
A recession is inevitable. It won't be by January 2019.

I hope you're right, but I know you're wrong.

Why would they create any job since they're not increasing pre-tax revenues,

Why aren't they increasing pre-tax revenues?

Because growing pre-tax revenues means there's growing demand

There isn't growing demand?

So the tax cuts didn't increase demand to justify expansion

Did anyone say demand was going to increase in that exact area in a few hours, to alleviate the overstaffing they saw? Link?

AT&T plans to lay off and fire more than a thousand workers starting early next year, according to local reports.

Darn it, if only we had raised our already highest in the 1st world corporate rates, they would never have fired another employee ever again.......

Whoa, there! Hold those horses! That's not what y'all were saying before.

Really? I said something before that conflicted with what I just said? Link?

You were saying that these businesses would expand and invest if their income tax rate was cut.

Yes. Abso-fucking-lutely.

Now you're telling me that it's not a direct correlation?

Read my post again. Maybe if you read it out loud, you'll notice your error?

It's still higher than the rate of those countries to whom you were screeching that we were losing corporate HQ's to.

Yup. And?

So if the recent rate cut wasn't low enough, why did you support it?

A 10% rate cut is good, a 14% cut is better.
20% is better than 14%......25% better still.
I wouldn't mind a 5% corporate rate.

What makes you think that?

A lower rate on profits and immediate 100% expensing will lead to growth.
More incentive to invest, more incentive to expand.

X x T = P

You need to recheck your formula.

Which benefits the wealthy

Benefits me too.

Your big promise was that increasing after-tax profits will generate growth that increases pre-tax revenues.

Yup. I think we'll see decent growth in corporate revenues this year.
But you should definitely short the market. Use leverage!!!
Be sure to tell me when you do.

But now you're telling me that isn't true

I did? Where?

I hope you're right, but I know you're wrong.

Great. Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unlike all the Liberals, back in 2005, saying there was a housing bubble?

Yes! They were! An entire article from Bruce Bartlett from Forbes in 2008 details all the folks who were right about the housing bubble. On that list was the Brookings Institution, which is a liberal-leaning think tank.

In fact, economists Karl Case and Robert Shiller presented a very detailed analysis of the housing market to the Brookings Institution's panel on economic activity. While conceding that economic fundamentals were favorable to rising home prices, they also noted that there were elements of bubble psychology in the housing market. Case and Shiller pointed to an increase in the buying of real estate for investment purposes and high expectations of housing price increases.

And at the time, Greenspan, Bush, Kudlow, the Wall Street Journal were all cheering the bubble on.

An entire article from Bruce Bartlett from Forbes in 2008 details all the folks who were right about the housing bubble.

Wow! A handful of folks!!
Not quite all the liberals though......

they also noted that there were elements of bubble psychology in the housing market.

Yes, bubble psychology. Kind of like Bitcoin today. So what?

And at the time, Greenspan, Bush, Kudlow, the Wall Street Journal were all cheering the bubble on.

And Barney Frank and some other liberal politicians. So what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you admitting a lower rate is beneficial?

I never denied it wasn't.

What I've denied has been that you can increase pre-tax revenues (growth) by decreasing the rate on after-tax profits.

You cut the corporate tax rate to a rate that is still higher than those countries that supposedly steal corporate HQ's. You said that we had to lower the rate to "bring them back". Well, why would they come back to a rate still higher than that of the places where they are currently? It's your shit policy that cut the rate...

Are you admitting a lower rate is beneficial?​

I never denied it wasn't.

You've been saying, countless times, that a lower rate won't influence corporations to invest in one location over another location, because investment is done pre-tax.

Now that you've come out and admitted a lower rate IS beneficial, explain how it's beneficial.......

 

[Reasonable]

No Trump bump here: This company killed its holiday bonus

Nullifies this whole thread circle jerk.

 

[Reasonable]

 

[The Derp]

Wow! A handful of folks!!
Not quite all the liberals though......

Well, Brookings is a liberal-leaning think tank. The point is that you had everyone but Conservatives warning of a bubble.

Yes, bubble psychology. Kind of like Bitcoin today. So what?

So...bubble economies aren't good. And Bitcoin is another bubble waiting to pop.

The question is; will you be savvy enough to know when it will pop?
The answer is; no.

And Barney Frank and some other liberal politicians. So what?

Conservatives controlled all three branches of government during the Bubble years beginning in 2004. So Democrats had nothing to do with it. And BTW - the only reason Frank didn't think the bubble was going to harm the economy was because that's what Bush's Treasury Secretary told him in October 2003.

Mr. Frank: Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow: No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it. ​

So is this another instance (like Iraq's WMDs), when people should have known better than to trust what the Bush Administration was telling them???? Because you're sure framing it as such. And if that's the case, why the fuck should we listen to any Conservatives when they tell us things today?

 

[The Derp]

Most banks HATE foreclosures.....it's more expensive for them.

Normally, yes, you'd be right.

However, in 2004-7 banks were betting on those mortgages defaulting, so they wanted delinquencies.

It was because they had to underwrite loans and why were they forced to do that , ANDREW CUOMO spelled it out for you......it's not hard....you guys wanted the government to fix a problem and it created a bigger one......and while the law was written in the 70s, Clinton through Cuomo changed and increased enforcement.........

There is nothing in the CRA or any changes to that law that forced regulators to cease enforcement of lending standards beginning in 2004.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Most banks HATE foreclosures.....it's more expensive for them.

Normally, yes, you'd be right.

However, in 2004-7 banks were betting on those mortgages defaulting, so they wanted delinquencies.

It was because they had to underwrite loans and why were they forced to do that , ANDREW CUOMO spelled it out for you......it's not hard....you guys wanted the government to fix a problem and it created a bigger one......and while the law was written in the 70s, Clinton through Cuomo changed and increased enforcement.........

There is nothing in the CRA or any changes to that law that forced regulators to cease enforcement of lending standards beginning in 2004.

yes he did

NY's Cuomo Is 'Father of Subprime Crisis:' Bove


Cuomo, who was secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1997 to 2001, has been blamed in some quarters for helping to trigger the financial crisis by pushing Fannie and Freddie to buy more subprime mortgages to increase home ownership among the poor. Many of those homeowners eventually defaulted, and the mortgage-backed securities market later collapsed.

The poor...they cant afford it.....that's why they are poor......

 

[The Derp]

Why aren't they increasing pre-tax revenues?.

Because there's no demand increase. You haven't baked that into anything. You think that just by virtue of higher profits, consumers will increase their demand and that's silly, magical, faith-based thinking. It's voodoo economics.

There isn't growing demand?

No. Trickle-down doesn't exist. You've done nothing to increase demand...all you've done is increase after-tax profits. But that doesn't translate to increased pre-tax revenues. It doesn't affect increased pre-tax revenues.

Did anyone say demand was going to increase in that exact area in a few hours, to alleviate the overstaffing they saw? Link?

YOU SAID THAT! You all argued that if we cut the corporate income tax rate, it would lead to magical investing and expansion and unicorns and pixie farts. But you only invest and expand when there's demand to meet. And since the corporate income tax rate doesn't increase aggregate consumer demand, you've done nothing except balloon the deficit. A deficit you screeched like a barnyard animal about during Obama. So not only are you an economic illiterate, you're also a flaming hypocrite.

Darn it, if only we had raised our already highest in the 1st world corporate rates, they would never have fired another employee ever again.......

No, what it's proving is that it doesn't matter what the corporate tax rate is; businesses hire and fire workers based on aggregate demand for their product. You don't increase demand by boosting the share price temporarily. And that share price boost will be temporary. It will disappear just like it has so many times before.

Really? I said something before that conflicted with what I just said? Link?

Well, you said that businesses if given a tax cut will expand and invest. Now you're saying they won't and that it's "indirect". Which is just another word for "bullshit".

Yes. Abso-fucking-lutely.

Why would they? If there's no increased demand, why would a business expand? That makes no sense. This is where your lack of inexperience and your dogmatic supply-side theories come into play. A business isn't going to expand just because it got a tax cut; a business is going to expand if and only if there is demand for their product to justify the expansion. The corporate tax rate matters exactly 0% in that equation.

Read my post again. Maybe if you read it out loud, you'll notice your error?

That's what you said...your position now is that corporate tax cuts kinda, somehow increase aggregate demand, though you can't say how because you don't know how. Because you're just guessing here and coming up with shit off the top of your head. No effort put into anything you do; you're just a lazy know-nothing.

Yup. And?

So lowering the rate didn't lure any business back, didn't create any jobs, didn't increase consumer demand. All it did was balloon the deficit, the very deficit you screeched about like a barnyard animal throughout Obama.

A 10% rate cut is good, a 14% cut is better.
20% is better than 14%......25% better still.
I wouldn't mind a 5% corporate rate.

But the rate cut you supported was to 21%, which is still higher than all those countries to where corporations relocated their tax HQ's. So the cut was completely pointless, then, and only inflates a market bubble. So you screeched like a barnyard animal that we had to cut the corporate rate to be "more competitive", even though the rate cut wasn't competitive enough. So what made you guys settle on the 21% number, anyway? Why didn't you get a 15% or 10% or 5% rate? Why 21%? It makes no sense. You're here screeching that we need to bring these HQ's back to the US by cutting the corporate rate so you cut the corporate rate...to levels still higher elsewhere.

So it was never about bringing these corporations back; it was purely about transferring wealth from the workers to the corporations. If you intended to bring these HQ's back, you would have lowered the rate below the lowest rate out there. But you didn't do that; so this was never about bringing HQ's back, this was just about taking more wealth for the rich at your personal expense. Fucking dumb.

A lower rate on profits and immediate 100% expensing will lead to growth.More incentive to invest, more incentive to expand.

But if there's no demand, why expand at all? Because you believe "If you built it, they will come"? Do you use Hollywood movies as the basis for all your thinking or just your thinking around economics?

You told me, straight up, that revenues and profit growth would return to the same levels it was prior to 2018. So then that means consumer demand is untouched and doesn't increase. A business only expands and invests if there is requisite demand. But you've done nothing to increase demand.

X x T = P
You need to recheck your formula..

No, you need to reconcile that lowering the tax rate doesn't increase pre-tax revenues. In no world will it.

Yup. I think we'll see decent growth in corporate revenues this year.

We'll probably see the exact same growth we saw in 2017, which is pretty much the same growth we saw in 2016, which is pretty much the same growth we saw in 2015, 2014, and 2013. So this tax cut didn't do anything to increase that growth. And I'm not sure why you think it will unless you believe the corporations will "trickle down" their wealth...we already know they won't, because they didn't before when we had a corporate repatriation in 2004. So since it didn't work then -at a rate much, much lower than the rate you set now- there's no reason to believe it will work today.

 

[The Derp]

You've been saying, countless times, that a lower rate won't influence corporations to invest in one location over another location, because investment is done pre-tax.

And it won't. So once again, you're trying to conflate expanding into a market with relocating a headquarters. And you do that because you're a sophist fuckhead.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow! A handful of folks!!
Not quite all the liberals though......

Well, Brookings is a liberal-leaning think tank. The point is that you had everyone but Conservatives warning of a bubble.

Yes, bubble psychology. Kind of like Bitcoin today. So what?

So...bubble economies aren't good. And Bitcoin is another bubble waiting to pop.

The question is; will you be savvy enough to know when it will pop?
The answer is; no.

And Barney Frank and some other liberal politicians. So what?

Conservatives controlled all three branches of government during the Bubble years beginning in 2004. So Democrats had nothing to do with it. And BTW - the only reason Frank didn't think the bubble was going to harm the economy was because that's what Bush's Treasury Secretary told him in October 2003.

Mr. Frank: Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow: No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it. ​

So is this another instance (like Iraq's WMDs), when people should have known better than to trust what the Bush Administration was telling them???? Because you're sure framing it as such. And if that's the case, why the fuck should we listen to any Conservatives when they tell us things today?

Well, Brookings is a liberal-leaning think tank.

Yup.

The point is that you had everyone but Conservatives warning of a bubble.

Everyone was warning? Your link only showed a few folks.

The question is; will you be savvy enough to know when it will pop?

Nope.

Conservatives controlled all three branches of government during the Bubble years beginning in 2004.

Republicans, not conservatives.

So Democrats had nothing to do with it.

Not at that point. So?

the only reason Frank didn't think the bubble was going to harm the economy was because that's what Bush's Treasury Secretary told him in October 2003.

Gosh, two politicians who were wrong about something. That never happens.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Most banks HATE foreclosures.....it's more expensive for them.

Normally, yes, you'd be right.

However, in 2004-7 banks were betting on those mortgages defaulting, so they wanted delinquencies.

It was because they had to underwrite loans and why were they forced to do that , ANDREW CUOMO spelled it out for you......it's not hard....you guys wanted the government to fix a problem and it created a bigger one......and while the law was written in the 70s, Clinton through Cuomo changed and increased enforcement.........

There is nothing in the CRA or any changes to that law that forced regulators to cease enforcement of lending standards beginning in 2004.

However, in 2004-7 banks were betting on those mortgages defaulting

Bullshit

 

[The Derp]

Most banks HATE foreclosures.....it's more expensive for them.

Normally, yes, you'd be right.

However, in 2004-7 banks were betting on those mortgages defaulting, so they wanted delinquencies.

It was because they had to underwrite loans and why were they forced to do that , ANDREW CUOMO spelled it out for you......it's not hard....you guys wanted the government to fix a problem and it created a bigger one......and while the law was written in the 70s, Clinton through Cuomo changed and increased enforcement.........

There is nothing in the CRA or any changes to that law that forced regulators to cease enforcement of lending standards beginning in 2004.

yes he did

NY's Cuomo Is 'Father of Subprime Crisis:' Bove


Cuomo, who was secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1997 to 2001, has been blamed in some quarters for helping to trigger the financial crisis by pushing Fannie and Freddie to buy more subprime mortgages to increase home ownership among the poor. Many of those homeowners eventually defaulted, and the mortgage-backed securities market later collapsed.

The poor...they cant afford it.....that's why they are poor......

Sigh...

The mortgages that caused the crisis were the ones issued between 2004-7. Mortgages issued from 1997-2001 backed by GSE's were the last ones to enter delinquency.

What caused the mortgage bubble were the private-issued, subprime mortgages issued in 2004, that started defaulting beginning as early as 2006. Look at this chart and tell me what it is you see:

 

[The Derp]

Republicans, not conservatives.

Ah, so here's the part where you try to retroactively pretend that the policies you supported weren't what you actually supported. Of course, that's all bullshit and Republicans and Conservatives are interchangeable and always have been. Republicans are just the political party of Conservatives. A distinction without difference.

Not at that point. So?

And not after it either. In fact, Democrats had nothing to do with Bush's regulators ceasing the enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004. Your guy, Bush, even said that in his Working Group on Financial Markets in 2008. I know, I know...Bush's Working Group is just some Democratic ploy to get Bush to appoint a group that would pin the blame for the mortgage crisis on deregulatory policies toward standard enforcement in 2004, when Democrats had no political power, all so you could look like a fool 9 years later on an internet message board.

Gosh, two politicians who were wrong about something. That never happens.

No, not two politicians. ONE Bush Conservative appointee who told Barney Frank not to worry. So Barney Frank was wrong...to believe what Bush's people were saying? That's your defense? That everyone should have known better than to trust Conservatives when they say things? So why shouldn't that apply to you and your posts?