Romney Turns Liability into Profit

[Jhhnn]

You conveniently forget that government forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them and they subsidized them so obviously banks would do things they normally wouldn't do.

The govt didn't force lending to anybody.

Whenever some right wing shill tells you what you want to hear, you believe it, because it helps to maintain your delusional state, avoid cognitive dissonance-

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

 

[buckshot24]

The govt didn't force lending to anybody.

It forced them to loosen their standards in an effort to increase home ownership.

 

[buckshot24]

3. Then we go into the tax cuts. These have been an utter fiscal disaster. None of them have resulted in the promised growth. None of them have done anything other than run up a ton of debt, *EXACTLY* what they have done for the last 30 years, gutting the middle class, increasing the upper class and fucking the debt.

First, how do lower taxes gut the middle class? Second, don't you think spending has more to do with our debt than what revenues we have coming in? Thirdly, what would the economy have been like for the last 30 years under the Carter tax rates?

Under Bush we had the highest single year of revenue collected after adjusting for inflation. The problem was that they spent too much during those years.

 

[LegendKiller]

First, how do lower taxes gut the middle class? Second, don't you think spending has more to do with our debt than what revenues we have coming in? Thirdly, what would the economy have been like for the last 30 years under the Carter tax rates?

Under Bush we had the highest single year of revenue collected after adjusting for inflation. The problem was that they spent too much during those years.

1. Lower taxes overall increase mal-investment and has incentivized the wealthy to offshore production, both of which has affected the middle class disproportionately.

2. Spending is only part of the equation. I have posted this graph at least a dozen times here, only to be ignored by every single person.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849

3. Who knows. How was it under the prior years' tax regimes?

4. So what? Do you think taxing the period of mal-investment and cap-gains driven taxes as well as the financial market churn and burn machine makes a lick of difference? The reason why there was the highest tax collections had nothing to do with the fact the tax rate had declined, nor was it Bush's doing.

 

[Jhhnn]

It forced them to loosen their standards in an effort to increase home ownership.

Who is "them", Buckshot? Obviously not the private lenders referenced in the link above...

How do you force a non-bank entity to create shaky loans, bundle them into bunk securities, take a cut off the top, sell them on the open market?

The short answer, the honest answer, is that you don't.

It's true that the Bush Admin called on the GSE's to make more "affordable" loans, even as their market share fell. That's the enabling & cheerleading referenced earlier.

When you want to rave about how it's de Gubmint's fault, you need to recognize who was running de Gubmint at the time...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/22/AR2008112202213.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[buckshot24]

1. Lower taxes overall increase mal-investment and has incentivized the wealthy to offshore production, both of which has affected the middle class disproportionately.

What is a "mal-investment" in your opinion? Also how does lower rates move stuff offshore? What is a level of taxation that you think helps the middle class?

2. Spending is only part of the equation. I have posted this graph at least a dozen times here, only to be ignored by every single person.

How big a part do you think?

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849

I don't have time to go through the whole thing but this part I think may be indicative of a flaw in their analysis.
"The deficit for fiscal year 2009 — which began more than three months before President Obama’s inauguration — was $1.4 trillion and, at 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the largest deficit relative to the economy since the end of World War II."
The problem here is that the deficit for that fiscal year was mostly TARP that got mostly paid back which the congress promptly spent. Also that year (2009) had just under the all time record in revenue (inflation adjusted dollars) that was set the prior year. Obviously the Bush cuts wasn't hampering revenue too badly.

3. Who knows. How was it under the prior years' tax regimes?

I guess that's the point.

4. So what? Do you think taxing the period of mal-investment and cap-gains driven taxes as well as the financial market churn and burn machine makes a lick of difference? The reason why there was the highest tax collections had nothing to do with the fact the tax rate had declined, nor was it Bush's doing.

The only take away from that fact is that the lower rates weren't causing revenue problems. I don't really care who's fault it was.

 

[Incorruptible]

The govt didn't force lending to anybody.

Whenever some right wing shill tells you what you want to hear, you believe it, because it helps to maintain your delusional state, avoid cognitive dissonance-

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

Another ignorant leftist repeating his talking points

 

[buckshot24]

It's true that the Bush Admin called on the GSE's to make more "affordable" loans, even as their market share fell. That's the enabling & cheerleading referenced earlier.

When you want to rave about how it's de Gubmint's fault, you need to recognize who was running de Gubmint at the time...

You don't think the Community Reinvestment Act had anything to do with it? Or the quota system that it turned into?

 

[Jhhnn]

You don't think the Community Reinvestment Act had anything to do with it? Or the quota system that it turned into?

Can you not read?

Can you not reason?

The CRA was passed in 1977. If it we a primary contributor to the problem, it wouldn't have taken enterprising lenders 30 years to exploit it, ya think?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-coates/republican-truth-and-real_b_1240191.html

 

[Jhhnn]

Another ignorant leftist repeating his talking points

Straight to denial, of course. Confronted with reason & evidence, you just recite your laundry list of faith based assertions.

 

[buckshot24]

Can you not read?

Can you not reason?

The CRA was passed in 1977. If it we a primary contributor to the problem, it wouldn't have taken enterprising lenders 30 years to exploit it, ya think?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-coates/republican-truth-and-real_b_1240191.html

I'd ask you the same thing, can you not read? I asked you if it had anything to do with it. Well? Plus Clinton tweaked the thing in 1995 and Reno threatened "punishment" to banks who "discriminated" against minorities seeking loans.

 

[LegendKiller]

I'd ask you the same thing, can you not read? I asked you if it had anything to do with it. Well? Plus Clinton tweaked the thing in 1995 and Reno threatened "punishment" to banks who "discriminated" against minorities seeking loans.

Was Countrywide a bank? How about the lenders attached to Lehman? Or the one attached to Bear? Were those CRA regulated?

CRA was nothing compared to the shit that was running.

The fact of the matter is that the insane stuff going on weren't CRA loans, they were flippers and investors, none of which were CRA borrowers. They were middle class rich wannabes who went after crazy loans to lever up.

 

[blackangst1]

Who is "them", Buckshot? Obviously not the private lenders referenced in the link above...

How do you force a non-bank entity to create shaky loans, bundle them into bunk securities, take a cut off the top, sell them on the open market?

The short answer, the honest answer, is that you don't.

It's true that the Bush Admin called on the GSE's to make more "affordable" loans, even as their market share fell. That's the enabling & cheerleading referenced earlier.

When you want to rave about how it's de Gubmint's fault, you need to recognize who was running de Gubmint at the time...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/22/AR2008112202213.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

CRA was signed into law in 1977 by Democratic president Jimmy Carter. In 1995 Democratic president Bill Clinton revises it to meet a quota for low income loans, and increases punishment for banks who dont do enough low income loans. This forces banks and lenders to write loans they normally wouldnt have.

Oh and then there is the deregulation of what youre talking about above...credit default swaps. Again, done by Democratic president Bill Clinton.

Talk about delusional

 

[LegendKiller]

CRA was signed into law in 1977 by Democratic president Jimmy Carter. In 1995 Democratic president Bill Clinton revises it to meet a quota for low income loans, and increases punishment for banks who dont do enough low income loans. This forces banks and lenders to write loans they normally wouldnt have.

Oh and then there is the deregulation of what youre talking about above...credit default swaps. Again, done by Democratic president Bill Clinton.

Talk about delusional

To be fair he had a tremendous amount of pressure to roll them back, look at the legislative complexion and context around that situation.

Furthermore, the biggest problem wasn't until Paulson let the banks run wild with leverage and allowed traditional IBs, which traditionally have small balance sheets, to run huge balance sheets with short-term funding (Repos and CP). Or allowing SIVs.

 

[Incorruptible]

Straight to denial, of course. Confronted with reason & evidence, you just recite your laundry list of faith based assertions.

I thought that was typical of you leftists.

 

[1prophet]

Excuse? You don't really need an excuse when the private sector has forced half the country onto food stamps and forced the government to provide us with health insurance. You see, when people make less money they need more help from their government, thus you see the consistent balloon effect on our spending. This has been going on for decades now. The only life leeches are you people who go around worshipping the big names in the private sector, oddly enough the same people who would sell you for a quarter and a pack of bubble gum and not think twice about it.

How did the private sector do this?

First it's not the private sector per se, the local deli, grocery store, hardware store, etc. are all private sector, but I'm sure they don't have personal lobbyists in congress or caused any of this,

it's the large corporations who happen to be in the private sector whose leaderships have been brainwashed into the immediate profit only matters mentality,

first they used the republicans to push their lower tax/lax regulations agenda while claiming it will trickle down to everybody, then they used the corporatist democrats to silence the unions so they can push their outsourcing madness like NAFTA, GATT, KORUS FTA, etc.

meanwhile they brainwashed Americans by claiming they were only getting rid of jobs Americans didn't need and promoting Democracy through this perverted form of Capitalism to third world countries.

Both were a lie and the results speak for themselves.

 

[1prophet]

I'd ask you the same thing, can you not read? I asked you if it had anything to do with it. Well? Plus Clinton tweaked the thing in 1995 and Reno threatened "punishment" to banks who "discriminated" against minorities seeking loans.

And the Feds also assured the Banks they would cover them if minority loan defaults would become a problem.

 

[Incorruptible]

First it's not the private sector per se, the local deli, grocery store, hardware store, etc. are all private sector, but I'm sure they don't have personal lobbyists in congress or caused any of this,

it's the large corporations who happen to be in the private sector whose leaderships have been brainwashed into the immediate profit only matters mentality,

first they used the republicans to push their lower tax/lax regulations agenda while claiming it will trickle down to everybody, then they used the corporatist democrats to silence the unions so they can push their outsourcing madness like NAFTA, GATT, KORUS FTA, etc.

meanwhile they brainwashed Americans by claiming they were only getting rid of jobs Americans didn't need and promoting Democracy through this perverted form of Capitalism to third world countries.

Both were a lie and the results speak for themselves.

The government played the major role though, if they weren't involved then this never would have happened. This was big government in action.