Who's to blame for the slow recovery?

[Moderate Right]

Payroll, fuel....taxes aren't enough.

The rich are Super Patriots!


The poor are Anti-Patriots!


You should sell this script to a comic book company.

OK. We'll have it your way. Everyone who pays "Payroll, fuel....taxes" is exempt from paying federal income taxes.

 

[Moderate Right]

You are arguing for the effective elimination of deductions for low income individuals they are legally entitled to.....justifying it with a "patriotism" argument, it is insane, it is not based on any sort of intellectual basis, it is comic book nonsense. YOU are arguing for a change in the tax system, I am explaining how it exists currently.....and I am not arguing for a change in this debate right here, right now.....YOU ARE. Where in this current debate did I argue for a change?If I ever argue for increased rates for the upper earners, my justification is never based on "patriotism", I tend to use rational arguments based on real economic realities.

You base so many arguments on emotional/irrational/morality ploys....but then, yer a conservative...it is whut you guys do.

I guess that's settled then. We'll leave the current tax system in place and not tax the rich more.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

This has nothing to do with refunds Sherlock.

Good grief, you are completely out of touch. Yes Virginia, it has everything to do with deductions on WHY currently low income earners pay no taxes.

It has to do with how much federal income taxes a person or family should pay per year and only 15% should pay zero, not 43%.

I know, you want to ignore how it is.....so you can spout off about your fantasy of how it SHOULD BE!

Once again, if you are going to use the current tax code as a defense for those 43% paying zero in federal income taxes then this means you are content with the current tax code and we shouldn't tax the rich more.
Which way do you want it? Do you want to change the tax code or leave it as is? If you want to change it then you can't use the current tax code as a defense for those paying zero in federal income taxes.

This is just not getting through, I say words, they don't lodge in your brain....I'll try this:

If I ever argue for increased rates for the upper earners, my justification is never based on "patriotism", I tend to use rational arguments based on real economic realities.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I guess that's settled then. We'll leave the current tax system in place and not tax the rich more.

If I ever argue for increased rates for the upper earners, my justification is never based on "patriotism", I tend to use rational arguments based on real economic realities.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

OK. We'll have it your way. Everyone who pays "Payroll, fuel....taxes" is exempt from paying federal income taxes.

If I ever argue for increased rates for the upper earners, my justification is never based on "patriotism", I tend to use rational arguments based on real economic realities.

 

[eohrnberger]

You are here, right now, focusing on homeowners. Homeowners were small, bit players, way down on the food chain, it is a pointless argument....but you get to say it, you get someone else to respond, and your game is made, you got the focus of who was in control of environment of the hook, the focus has changed. Im done playing your game, your argument is one of an absolute where if a bit player did something wrong, any amount, then they get press....and to hell with the big picture, you get to make your play.

Now your next step is to deny this, to ignore the scaling of your argument, to protect the big players, you have small fish to fry, the whales need to be saved.

Thousands of small ones add up to a great big one.

No, I'm not protecting anyone. Where I have stated that the banksters, AIG, or anyone else is blameless?
Previous posts I called them out for their misdeeds, did I not? Can't you grasp the overall context across multiple posts?

You are inventing things that I didn't post, and wouldn't.

Fine, you are free to do whatever you wish.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Thousands of small ones add up to a great big one.

You go ahead show yer math.

No, I'm not protecting anyone. Where I have stated that the banksters, AIG, or anyone else is blameless?

Going with an absolute, unrealistic argument...is not a win....it is a loss.

You are inventing things that I didn't post, and wouldn't.

I am specifically responding to your framing, you don't like that I showed the unrealistic basis of your argument.

Fine, you are free to do whatever you wish.

You betcha.

 

[KLATTU]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-second-quarter-growth-trimmed-1-1-percent-123519369--business.html
So the economy still sux.
This puts granny dirtbag in a bit of a box.
Her economic platform is the same old same old for Democrats . Tax the rich and spend more on roads.

But haven't we sort of done that?

I guess not enough of either . LOL

 

[eohrnberger]

You go ahead show yer math.

Going with an absolute, unrealistic argument...is not a win....it is a loss.

I am specifically responding to your framing, you don't like that I showed the unrealistic basis of your argument.

My framing is that there were many people and many organizations that had their hands in setting the conditions, or allowing the conditions to be set, in which the mortgage bubble formed, started, and grew to the proportions that it did; that both parties failed to address the obviously coming bubble bursting when they had a chance to do so, and that there isn't a single person, administration, party, or organization which can reasonably be held responsible for entire fiasco, and yes, that includes home owners as well, particularly the house ATM addicts and the house flippers, both of which also contributed to feeding the feedback loop in the system.

So I don't see how your claim of my 'scapegoating homeowners' is justified in the least. Or is it that you just want to play pointless accusatory word games?

You betcha.

 

[Absentglare]

My framing is that there were many people and many organizations that had their hands in setting the conditions, or allowing the conditions to be set, in which the mortgage bubble formed, started, and grew to the proportions that it did; that both parties failed to address the obviously coming bubble bursting when they had a chance to do so, and that there isn't a single person, administration, party, or organization which can reasonably be held responsible for entire fiasco, and yes, that includes home owners as well, particularly the house ATM addicts and the house flippers, both of which also contributed to feeding the feedback loop in the system.

So I don't see how your claim of my 'scapegoating homeowners' is justified in the least. Or is it that you just want to play pointless accusatory word games?

President Bush 2 is responsible. His own working group identified the deregulations that began in 2004 that directly created the problem. That's why older loans did much better. President Bush 2 paved the way for mortgage fraud, and when the risk was obfuscated by the fraud, the market over-leveraged itself on doomed loans.

 

[Gaea]

The idea that someone will not appreciate society if they do not pay is also ludicrous.

It's reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovtinAAqb_Y

 

[Ganesh]

Why do Americans pay federal income tax at all? You sound like a right wing extremist anti-taxer. Every American over the poverty level should contribute to government expenses, even if it is only $100 per year. Zero is unacceptable. It is Americans' patriotic duty to help fund the federal government. The rich already pay the huge majority of taxes now and it is extremely hypocritical to tell them they are not paying their fair share while 28% of Americans over the poverty level pay zero. Zero is not a fair share, accept to the 15% under the poverty level.

I see. So there are no economic or moral reasons for your tax insistence (you haven't given any here), the issue patriotism.

Patriotism means doing what is best for the country as a whole, regardless of personal expediency. One of the biggest problems facing the country today is the skewing of income due to various factors, almost all of them outside the control of the average individual. This goes far beyond personal discomfort, and has the potential to alter society in a very negative way. Funding government operations on the other hand, at a time of an ultra-efficient, high GDP per capita economy, is a long way down the list of potential problems.

Given this, the patriotic thing to do would be to work to revive the middle class, through tax breaks and other means, and substantially increase taxes on the very rich. Petty, fearful demands for $100 could be seen in this light as, well... unpatriotic.

 

[Kushinator]

My framing is that there were many people and many organizations that had their hands in setting the conditions, or allowing the conditions to be set, in which the mortgage bubble formed, started, and grew to the proportions that it did; that both parties failed to address the obviously coming bubble bursting when they had a chance to do so, and that there isn't a single person, administration, party, or organization which can reasonably be held responsible for entire fiasco, and yes, that includes home owners as well, particularly the house ATM addicts and the house flippers, both of which also contributed to feeding the feedback loop in the system.

So I don't see how your claim of my 'scapegoating homeowners' is justified in the least. Or is it that you just want to play pointless accusatory word games?

The bankers and lenders are supposed to be the experts, who deal in this industry day in and day out. A typical homeowner is likely to only purchase a home once or twice in their lifetimes; which is why they are not as seasoned in the residential financial world. A prudent lender wouldn't push people to use their homes as an ATM machine.

 

[eohrnberger]

President Bush 2 is responsible. His own working group identified the deregulations that began in 2004 that directly created the problem. That's why older loans did much better. President Bush 2 paved the way for mortgage fraud, and when the risk was obfuscated by the fraud, the market over-leveraged itself on doomed loans.

I disagree, as you can well imagine. While, yes, Bush has some blame and responsibility, he's by far not the only one in what spanned several industries and many others.

Given those facts, it's not credible to blame Bush solely, nor anyone else solely, nor any single organization solely. What part of 'systemic' is a single individual?

 

[chuckiechan]

Is there something wrong with that?

It is if you see the national debt as "taxes not collected".

 

[eohrnberger]

The bankers and lenders are supposed to be the experts, who deal in this industry day in and day out. A typical homeowner is likely to only purchase a home once or twice in their lifetimes; which is why they are not as seasoned in the residential financial world. A prudent lender wouldn't push people to use their homes as an ATM machine.

Agreed. But also a prudent home owner wouldn't / shouldn't treat their homes as an ATM either. Takes two to tango (and in this case, many, many more).

 

[Kushinator]

Agreed. But also a prudent home owner wouldn't / shouldn't treat their homes as an ATM either. Takes two to tango (and in this case, many, many more).

Inexperienced homeowners heed to the experts. They trust them to both provide expert advice and apply proper risk management practices, e.g. approving them for loans they can afford.

 

[mmi]

If you think this system is no good and want the rich to pay more then you can't use the very same system as a justification that those 28% can't pay more federal income taxes.

I think the current tax system is flawed, not "no good," and yes, I do want wealthy households, the ones that have collected just about all the expansion in national income over the past thirty-five years while they've received massive and completely unproductive tax cuts, to pay more.

You say that I am therefore required to support an increase in income taxes collected from low-income households. This strikes me as quite absurd. If it makes sense to change one aspect of a situation, does that mean that others must logically be changed as well, and in a particular way?

we are talking about federal income taxes to fund federal government expenses.

I'd say we're talking about taxes. not just FIT.

>>the rich … pay much more than the poor in other taxes

Yes, if they work, they pay more in payroll taxes because they collect more income. If they own property, they pay more property tax because their property has a higher assessed value. Buy more gas, pay more tax. Etc.

Every American over the poverty level should contribute to government expenses, even if it is only $100 per year.

Everyone does pay taxes.

>>The rich already pay the huge majority of taxes

And they collect the huge majority of income. Last year, the top one percent collected 22% of national income and paid 24% of taxes. The top quintile collected 61% of the income and paid 65% of the taxes.

>>it is extremely hypocritical to tell them they are not paying their fair share while 28% of Americans over the poverty level pay zero.

Everyone pays taxes.

>>Zero is not a fair share, accept to the 15% under the poverty level.

They pay taxes as well.

Homeowners were small, bit players, way down on the food chain, it is a pointless argument

Fwiw, I don't agree with eohrnberger about the causes of the collapse in some important aspects, but I'd say he's correct in pointing to this issue. I figure some homeowners behaved irresponsibly.

I guess that's settled then. We'll leave the current tax system in place and not tax the rich more.

No, we'll raise taxes on wealthy households.

the economy still sux.

No it doesn't.

>>granny dirtbag

That's soon-to-be-POTUS granny dirtbag.

>>Her economic platform is the same old same old for Democrats . Tax the rich and spend more on roads.

That and other stuff as well.

>>But haven't we sort of done that?

No, we've been shovelling money at the wealthy for many of the past thirty-five years and allowed our transportation and other infrastructure to seriously deteriorate.

both parties failed to address the obviously coming bubble bursting when they had a chance to do so

When was the Democrats' chance? I mean other than losing some important elections. And of course winning one but having it handed to the gentleman who lost.

It's reality.

Are you saying that renters who live in subsidised housing units are the only ones who trash their residences?

 

[eohrnberger]

Inexperienced homeowners heed to the experts. They trust them to both provide expert advice and apply proper risk management practices, e.g. approving them for loans they can afford.

Inexperienced homeowners most certainly shouldn't heed experts that are plying a line of irresponsible crap.
Nor should inexperienced homeowners be taking any one single person's word on anything as the final word.

Those who can't manage this simple thing, what are the chances that they'd successfully manage a mortgage?

 

[Kushinator]

Inexperienced homeowners most certainly shouldn't heed experts that are plying a line of irresponsible crap.
Nor should inexperienced homeowners be taking any one single person's word on anything as the final word.

Those who can't manage this simple thing, what are the chances that they'd successfully manage a mortgage?

They are the experts. You wish to absolve the fraudulent parties for some strange reason.

 

[Gaea]

Are you saying that renters who live in subsidised housing units are the only ones who trash their residences?

No, I'm saying they're more likely to do so.

 

[Gaea]

They are the experts. You wish to absolve the fraudulent parties for some strange reason.

I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying that the "experts" and homeowners both bear a share of the blame.

 

[Kushinator]

I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying that the "experts" and homeowners both bear a share of the blame.

Doing so absolves the experts of not exercising their expertise (and fiduciary duties). Part of their job is to sift.

 

[eohrnberger]

. . . .
When was the Democrats' chance? I mean other than losing some important elections. And of course winning one but having it handed to the gentleman who lost.
. . . .

By not denying that there was an obvious and ominous problem coming.

2005: April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America ... Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)


July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

That year: Fannie Mae pays millions to 354 congressmen and senators, from both parties.
Who got the most money?

Top 4 Recipients
#1 Sen. Christopher Dodd, (D-CT) Chairman of the Banking, Housing, & Urban Affairs Committee
#2 Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL) Federal Financial Management Committee
#3 Sen. Chuck Schumer, (D-NY) Chairman of the Finance Committee
#4 Rep. Barney Frank, (D-MA) Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee

The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act 190 is sponsored by:
#325 Sen. John McCain, (R-AZ), Armed Services, & Commerce, Science, & Transportation
By the end of 2005, it had died in committee. None of the top 4 recipients support the legislation.

Why would Congressional Democrats want to? Why would Congressional Republicans want to? They were getting millions from F&F who wanted to continue to ever greater levels of risk exposure.

2007 August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)

Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls 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," The New York Times, 8/11/07)

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs -and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

March: Bush Administration To Unveil Broadest Overhaul Of Wall Street Regulation Since Great Depression

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by ... helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

But by then, it was already too late to avert disaster.

Still, both parties are to blame for that missed opportunity to avert disaster.

 

[eohrnberger]

They are the experts. You wish to absolve the fraudulent parties for some strange reason.

I do not. Where in any of my posts have I absolved anyone of anything?