You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[TruthNotBS]

Well you are trying your best to separate government from your premise, and there is a political motive behind it.

So what is your motive ?

Is it because it implicates Democrat government more so than Republican government when the government aspect of it is added ?

Corporations have no power or influence over government unless those who are in government want it too.

It all starts with breaking down government from the inside, and then the outside can get it's way with it. Yes, in some ways you hit on truths here and there, but your overall reasoning is being seen through easily.

Money rules our government. Politicians may originally go to Washington full of ideals and good intentions, but they soon discover that without getting in line with the status quo, the powers that be, their political careers are nullified, rendered null and void. Both the Republicans and Democrats are in the pockets of corporations. Our government is a plutocratic oligarchy, led by vested interests, rather than the public good.

 

[TruthNotBS]

How do corp tax cuts overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy?

For the reasons I explained in the post, you responded to.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Not much it doesn't.

If it doesn't as you say it's due to deregulation, paid for by the financial industry.

 

[jc456]

1. Effective Tax Rate vs. Marginal Tax Rate: While the tax brackets are the same, the effective tax rate (the percentage of income actually paid in taxes) often favors the wealthy.

How? You didn’t answer my question! The percentage is the same for everyone. How can wealthy pay less?

1. They can take advantage of various deductions, credits, and loopholes that significantly reduce their tax burden compared to the middle class.

Name something they get I don’t?

1. Capital Gains and Income Sources: The wealthy often earn a large portion of their income from capital gains,

That’s not income money and taxed at different rates still the same as everyone.

What a fking idiot

1. which are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income.

Post a link that they pay a different tax rate than me?

1. This means that while middle-class workers pay higher rates on their wages,

Explain how it’s different?

1. the wealthy pay less on investment income.

They report their money on 1040’s the same as everyone. You still failed

1. Additionally, the use of offshore accounts, tax havens, and sophisticated tax planning allows the wealthy to further minimize their tax obligations, exacerbating income inequality.

Same for everyone. You still haven’t explained how they are different than me?

The tax system's complexity and the benefits it offers to those with access to high-quality tax advice and planning are key to understanding why the wealthy often pay a lower effective tax rate than the middle class, despite nominally identical tax brackets.

You still can’t explain it

 

[jc456]

If it doesn't as you say it's due to deregulation, paid for by the financial industry.

You’re lost bubba

 

[struth]

For the reasons I explained in the post, you responded to.

You didn’t give a reason why…

 

[TruthNotBS]

You’re lost bubba

You're obviously the "bubba", not me.

 

[TruthNotBS]

How? You didn’t answer my question! The percentage is the same for everyone. How can wealthy pay less?

Name something they get I don’t?

That’s not income money and taxed at different rates still the same as everyone.

What a fking idiot

Post a link that they pay a different tax rate than me?

Explain how it’s different?

They report their money on 1040’s the same as everyone. You still failed

Same for everyone. You still haven’t explained how they are different than me?

You still can’t explain it

You're the bootlicking retard, not me. You should accept socialism ASAP, because advanced automation and artificial intelligence, make it inevitable. You're living during the last years of capitalism. It's going the way of the dodo.

 

[IDIOCRACY]

Trump was president during covid for about 11 months. Biden's been president during covid for about 43 months.

During Trump's 11 months, there were about 443,720 covid related deaths, about 40,339 deaths per month.

View attachment 1000515

During Biden's 43 months, there have been about 754,696 covid related deaths, about 17,551 deaths per month

View attachment 1000517

Trump: 40,339/month
Biden: 17,551/month

The covid death rate was about 2.3 times worse under Trump than it was under Biden.

All you need to know is if a conservative is speaking, they're lying.

How come you don't want to compare 2020 with 2021 for some apples and apples? And your vax was built on trumps watch, btw. I mean fuck.

since you want to play your game, compare 2017 through 2020 with 2021 through 2024, this is a fun, let's play, you made up the rules.

 

[jc456]

You're obviously the "bubba", not me.

I am!

 

[jc456]

You're the bootlicking retard, not me. You should accept socialism ASAP, because advanced automation and artificial intelligence, make it inevitable. You're living during the last years of capitalism. It's going the way of the dodo.

No idea huh

 

[TruthNotBS]

No idea huh

You definitely have "no idea".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. Corporate Greed and Government Corruption: Corporate greed corrupts government when powerful corporations use their wealth to influence legislation and policy decisions that benefit them, often at the expense of the public. This is evident when lobbyists push for deregulation, leading to financial instability. Corporate greed, in this context, refers to prioritizing profit over ethical responsibility and public welfare.
2. The 2008 Financial Crisis: The crisis was not simply the result of government actions but a direct consequence of corporate behavior in a deregulated environment. Private sector entities, including banks, pursued aggressive lending practices and securitization strategies to maximize profits, knowing that government entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would absorb much of the risk. These subprime mortgages ended up with government agencies because the financial industry created, bundled, and sold them as secure investments, exploiting the system they had lobbied to weaken.

The private sector's manipulation of the financial system for short-term gain was the core issue, not just the involvement of government agencies. Blaming the government alone ignores the extensive lobbying and exploitation by the financial sector.

The crisis was not simply the result of government actions

Not simply, no.

Private sector entities, including banks, pursued aggressive lending practices and securitization strategies to maximize profits, knowing that government entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would absorb much of the risk.

The HUD mandates to force Fannie and Freddie to buy crappy mortgages started in 1993, 6 years before Glass-Steagall was removed. Moron.


These subprime mortgages ended up with government agencies because...


Because of government stupidity.

Blaming the government alone

Not alone, no.

 

[jc456]

You definitely have "no idea".

Thanks for your concession

 

[TruthNotBS]

The crisis was not simply the result of government actions

Not simply, no.

Private sector entities, including banks, pursued aggressive lending practices and securitization strategies to maximize profits, knowing that government entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would absorb much of the risk.

The HUD mandates to force Fannie and Freddie to buy crappy mortgages started in 1993, 6 years before Glass-Steagall was removed. Moron.


These subprime mortgages ended up with government agencies because...


Because of government stupidity.

Blaming the government alone

Not alone, no.

Dismissing the importance of Glass-Steagall’s repeal by pointing to HUD’s actions in 1993 is a red herring. The banking industry's drive to merge commercial and investment activities amplified the risk exponentially. Your narrative conveniently shifts blame without acknowledging the full extent of the private sector’s complicity. Can you provide concrete evidence that the financial collapse would have occurred on the same scale without the banks’ aggressive and reckless behaviors post-Glass-Steagall repeal?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're twisting the facts to suit your narrative. The fact that government agencies held a large share of subprime mortgages doesn’t absolve the private sector of its leading role in creating and pushing these risky loans. Private banks were the primary engine behind the subprime mortgage machine, aggressively marketing these loans and securitizing them into toxic assets.

You keep citing the HUD mandate as if it forced banks to engage in reckless behavior, but where’s your evidence? The banks lobbied hard to repeal Glass-Steagall to deregulate the industry, which allowed them to maximize profits at the public’s expense. How much money did these private banks pour into lobbying efforts to ensure that they could exploit the financial system without sufficient oversight? Where’s your evidence that this was purely a government failure and not driven by corporate greed?

Furthermore, your claim that Glass-Steagall is irrelevant because banks were allowed to write subprime mortgages under it is a misdirection. Glass-Steagall's repeal enabled the merging of commercial and investment banking, which amplified the risk by allowing banks to speculate with depositor funds, leading to the systemic collapse we saw in 2008. Can you provide evidence that Glass-Steagall’s repeal had no significant impact on the financial crisis? Or are you just deflecting from the real issue? All you have presented so far are right-wing opinions. Not a shred of evidence.

You're twisting the facts to suit your narrative.

I'm posting the facts. Facts that refute your feelings.

The fact that government agencies held a large share of subprime mortgages doesn’t absolve the private sector of its leading role in creating and pushing these risky loans.

I've already shown that the government pushed, forced, encouraged and incentivized banks to make riskier loans. I've already shown that the government forced Fannie and Freddie to buy TRILLIONs of dollars of crappy mortgages. You have to admit that when the government offers seemingly guaranteed profits to encourage behavior, that behavior increases.

You keep citing the HUD mandate as if it forced banks to engage in reckless behavior

Wrong, I keep citing the HUD mandate because it forced Fannie and Freddie to engage in reckless behavior.

Where’s your evidence that this was purely a government failure

Stop lying, I never said "purely" or "soley" or "only" about anything. Liar.

Furthermore, your claim that Glass-Steagall is irrelevant because banks were allowed to write subprime mortgages under it is a misdirection.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent or encourage crappy loans.
Glass-Steagall didn't prevent or encourage turning crappy loans into MBS.
Glass-Steagall didn't prevent or encourage Bear or Lehman from holding crappy loans.
Glass-Steagall didn't prevent or encourage the GSEs to buy crappy loans.
Glass-Steagall didn't prevent or encourage non-banks from writing crappy loans.
Glass-Steagall didn't prevent or encourage non-banks from creating crappy MBS.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dismissing the importance of Glass-Steagall’s repeal by pointing to HUD’s actions in 1993 is a red herring. The banking industry's drive to merge commercial and investment activities amplified the risk exponentially. Your narrative conveniently shifts blame without acknowledging the full extent of the private sector’s complicity. Can you provide concrete evidence that the financial collapse would have occurred on the same scale without the banks’ aggressive and reckless behaviors post-Glass-Steagall repeal?

The banking industry's drive to merge commercial and investment activities amplified the risk exponentially

Commercial banks didn't need to add investment banking to write bad mortgages or to sell them to Fannie and Freddie. Non-bank mortgage originators weren't impacted by Glass-Steagall. Non-bank MBS issuers weren't impacted by Glass-Steagall.

Your narrative conveniently shifts blame

My narrative refutes your convenient blame shifting.

Can you provide concrete evidence that the financial collapse would have occurred on the same scale without the banks’ aggressive and reckless behaviors post-Glass-Steagall repeal?

Can you provide concrete evidence that the financial collapse would have been materially smaller under an unchanged Glass-Steagall?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're twisting the facts to suit your narrative. The fact that government agencies held a large share of subprime mortgages doesn’t absolve the private sector of its leading role in creating and pushing these risky loans. Private banks were the primary engine behind the subprime mortgage machine, aggressively marketing these loans and securitizing them into toxic assets.

You keep citing the HUD mandate as if it forced banks to engage in reckless behavior, but where’s your evidence? The banks lobbied hard to repeal Glass-Steagall to deregulate the industry, which allowed them to maximize profits at the public’s expense. How much money did these private banks pour into lobbying efforts to ensure that they could exploit the financial system without sufficient oversight? Where’s your evidence that this was purely a government failure and not driven by corporate greed?

Furthermore, your claim that Glass-Steagall is irrelevant because banks were allowed to write subprime mortgages under it is a misdirection. Glass-Steagall's repeal enabled the merging of commercial and investment banking, which amplified the risk by allowing banks to speculate with depositor funds, leading to the systemic collapse we saw in 2008. Can you provide evidence that Glass-Steagall’s repeal had no significant impact on the financial crisis? Or are you just deflecting from the real issue? All you have presented so far are right-wing opinions. Not a shred of evidence.

You're twisting the facts to suit your narrative. The fact that government agencies held a large share of subprime mortgages

You've come a long way since Friday,


Fannie and Freddie’s involvement in the subprime market was relatively late and smaller in scale compared to the private sector. Moreover, their role has been widely mischaracterized by those seeking to deflect blame from the deregulation of the financial industry.

You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

Yeah, and spending it on illegal aliens. Now who could be behind that ? 🤔 You mean to tell me that Trump's plan to deport 11 million+ immigrants is not going to cause additional spending? You mean to say that Trump's wall, was going to be free? Mexico certainly was not going to pay for it...

www.usmessageboard.com

I'm always happy to educate the dimmer, leftist members of the board.

 

[jc456]

Dismissing the importance of Glass-Steagall’s repeal by pointing to HUD’s actions in 1993 is a red herring.

Nope

The banking industry's drive to merge commercial and investment activities amplified the risk exponentially.

Nothing whatsoever

Your narrative conveniently shifts blame without acknowledging the full extent of the private sector’s complicity.

Bad loans where it belongs. And your repeating the same word salad without other evidence is someone posting the same thing over and over again hoping for a different outcome without the change of the existing facts.

Can you provide concrete evidence that the financial collapse would have occurred on the same scale without the banks’ aggressive and reckless behaviors post-Glass-Steagall repeal?

Were there other loans at risk? Nope. The evidence you requested

 

[TruthNotBS]

You're twisting the facts to suit your narrative. The fact that government agencies held a large share of subprime mortgages

You've come a long way since Friday,


Fannie and Freddie’s involvement in the subprime market was relatively late and smaller in scale compared to the private sector. Moreover, their role has been widely mischaracterized by those seeking to deflect blame from the deregulation of the financial industry.

You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

Yeah, and spending it on illegal aliens. Now who could be behind that ? 🤔 You mean to tell me that Trump's plan to deport 11 million+ immigrants is not going to cause additional spending? You mean to say that Trump's wall, was going to be free? Mexico certainly was not going to pay for it...

www.usmessageboard.com

I'm always happy to educate the dimmer, leftist members of the board.

Todd, if you were as informed as you claim, you'd know that condescension doesn't make you more persuasive—it just exposes insecurity. Your argument ignores the broader context in which the government purchased subprime mortgages. From whom did the government buy these toxic assets? The private sector created, bundled, and sold these risky investments, largely due to deregulation and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which they lobbied for extensively. The government, in turn, bailed them out when their reckless profiteering led to the financial collapse.

The private sector's drive for profits at the expense of economic stability is the real issue here. Without Glass-Steagall's repeal, the scale of the crisis would have been far smaller. Your attempt to deflect blame away from deregulation and corporate greed onto government purchases of these bad loans misses the mark entirely. Also, the link you provided is broken, which makes your reference invalid. If you’re going to cite evidence, ensure it’s accessible and reliable.