Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 10:11:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 17:02:55 GMT -5
You understand that if i reinvest the money in my business... i PAY NO TAXES on it...? ... NO one is taking away all a person's cash... And in fact i could see how increased tax rates could encourage you to hire or spend... because when you hire/spend... you don't pay taxes on that money....
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 10, 2011 17:58:27 GMT -5
Can I stick my two cents in? I see it thiss way. When a family looses part of it's income it has to review it's spending habits. If that family has no savings to draw from it's standard of living will suffer. (Anyone can fill in the blanks on what will suffer first.) When a company takes in less, it also has to review it's spending habits. The reason for taking in less could be a sluggish economy, or it "might" be an increase in taxes. Today is is more likely a combination of both. Assuming the company is properly administered, the first thing to look at is reducing labor costs. Do they cut back on wages and pay each worker less, or do they let workers go who contribute the least to the company's economic health? If that company were the US Government, what would be the first steps it should take to reduce the drain on it's income? And the kicker is: Just about every family and every company in America has gone through this except the Government. The government has not cut back on anything, and may have done just the opposite. Here is something that caught my eye. It is the income and projected spending growth of government since 1960. It tells me that raising taxes will result in taking more out of an already fragile economy and ultimately resulot in even less government income. In my belief that it is time for the government to recognize there is a financial crisis in this country and, instread of raising taxes, to revisit some of it's labor costs. (costs that are entirely paid for by the already stretched taxpayers of the country: The Government income has been steadily going down with respect to what would have been if we would have maintained a steady growth since 2002 as the graph shows. We seem unable to catch up or recoup that loss while our spending has not abated. This reflects our Gross National Income has been going down or flat with respect to our projected standard of living. Can we continue this way much longer? Thanks, It's just my two cents.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 10:11:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 18:33:13 GMT -5
And in fact i could see how increased tax rates could encourage you to hire or spend... because when you hire/spend... you don't pay taxes on that money....
But would you do that JUST because you don't pay taxes on those extra workers? I'm betting that you wouldn't or at least very few companies will pay say $1,000 for a $100 tax advantage.
I actually knew a person that did that exact thing. At the end of the year the wife pushed him to buy specialty equipment (he was a saddle maker) for the sole reason that the government gave them a tax credit & the equipment was cheaper. Yes they did that & (of course) yes they ended up filing for bankruptcy (even though they had a contract with a company to buy every saddle that he could make). As a general rule you don't spend large amounts of money (like hire a new employee) to get a little bit of money (like 10 or 15% of that employee's pay) back. If you do that often enough you will end up going bankrupt like the people that I know. But I will admit that if you have a need for another employee that could be some incentive to hire one, just not the only incentive.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 10:11:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 18:55:31 GMT -5
Lol.... Which is it Tex? Are taxes all of the available cash, or just a small percentage ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 10:11:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 18:56:33 GMT -5
I think I've been pretty clear that taxes or not.... Demand is why companies generally hire...
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 10, 2011 18:59:24 GMT -5
No company, no individual, and no group of companies or individuals is going to bankrupt this country.
But a governemt that refuses to cut it's costs will.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 20:02:05 GMT -5
No company, no individual, and no group of companies or individuals is going to bankrupt this country. But a governemt that refuses to cut it's costs will. that's only true if revenues don't keep pace. ;]
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 20:03:59 GMT -5
Can I stick my two cents in? I see it thiss way. When a family looses part of it's income it has to review it's spending habits. If that family has no savings to draw from it's standard of living will suffer. (Anyone can fill in the blanks on what will suffer first.) When a company takes in less, it also has to review it's spending habits. The reason for taking in less could be a sluggish economy, or it "might" be an increase in taxes. Today is is more likely a combination of both. that is not what Keynes said. ;]
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 20:07:35 GMT -5
The question asked was not, "What is the theoretical concept of tax cuts to help create jobs?" The question asked was, "How did cutting taxes on the employers help create jobs?" The past decade of data is available for your use.
and the answer is, of course, it created the worst 10 year job growth record since the depression. My question would be: Since the Democrats started this recession by lowering standards on buying houses to the point where people that couldn't afford them wha? you are kidding right? are you claiming that lax lending standards created the recession? no, lax lending standards prolonged the inevitable. but there was actually substantial economic growth during the Bush administration due to these lax standards. but just like most bad ideas, it came to a nasty end in 2008. but just remember- Bush campaigned on these crappy loans in 2004. if you don't remember it, i can post the youtube vids. he probably would not have been elected without that feather in his cap: home ownership was at a record high. and now we know why.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 10, 2011 20:36:18 GMT -5
djlungrot said:
Yep. We sure do. ACORN, Obama,(and his buuddy Rezko) Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were undermining the entire spirit of borrowing other people's retirement funds and life's savings to promote home ownership to people that already had their credit cards maxed out and couldn't even pay their light bills. Everybody got paid, (especially the Obamas, the Dodds and the Barney Franks), except the banks that had been politically coerced into putting up retirement funds and people's CD's to satisfy President Obamas who took a rake off the top of it all.
Yep. We sure do know why now.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 20:39:32 GMT -5
Good post TEX: Taxing the rich gains little and it is only a temporary fix at best. A working person contributes to the government every payday. A much more sound approach. It is time we quit falling all over ourselves to do what the rest of the world wants and put American interests first. From trade agreements on down. when you say American, do you mean the average American, or the American businessman? don't say both. i think they are on a collision course.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 20:40:46 GMT -5
djlungrot said: Yep. We sure do. ACORN, Obama,(and his buuddy Rezko) Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were undermining the entire spirit of borrowing other people's retirement funds and life's savings to promote home ownership to people that already had their credit cards maxed out and couldn't even pay their light bills. Everybody got paid, (especially the Obamas, the Dodds and the Barney Franks), except the banks that had been politically coerced into putting up retirement funds and people's CD's to satisfy President Obamas who took a rake off the top of it all. Yep. We sure do know why now. ACORN and Obama had almost nothing to do with it. but i will grant you the rest.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 10:11:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 20:50:39 GMT -5
wha? you are kidding right? are you claiming that lax lending standards created the recession?
no, lax lending standards prolonged the inevitable. but there was actually substantial economic growth during the Bush administration due to these lax standards. but just like most bad ideas
No, the bubble popped, that's what caused the recession. The bubble popped because lax lending standards made it to easy to buy houses that you couldn't afford. Those standards were lowered so that more poor people could qualify for "the American Dream" of owning a house. As for it being a Republican bill that changed the standards you liberals need to make up your mind. You say that Republicans hate the poor so why would they make it easier for them to buy houses. Liberals are ape shit to help the poor, your the ones that lowered the standards. That info has been posted here before. I would look it up but you would just find some reason that it wasn't valid, so why bother.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 20:57:10 GMT -5
wha? you are kidding right? are you claiming that lax lending standards created the recession?
no, lax lending standards prolonged the inevitable. but there was actually substantial economic growth during the Bush administration due to these lax standards. but just like most bad ideasNo, the bubble popped, that's what caused the recession. i was talking about the job growth, which was bad during the entire stretch, and has not improved since then. but the bubble had to do with equitizing worthless assets, not making crappy loans. if the originators of those loans got stuck with them there is a good chance that: a) they would have never made them or b) if they did, they would have been more proactive about them furthermore, being able to sell those loans created more liquidity. so it was actually a failure to REGULATE the instruments which caused that refinancing that caused the collapse. without the liquidity, more crappy loans could never have been made, and the process would have stopped in it's tracks. now, i can go on a long time about why all of that happened. but i am not sure how relevant it is. suffice to say that it benefitted those in power, and that the lack of oversight was an idea that started with Reagan and worked it's way right down to Obama.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 10:11:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 21:39:19 GMT -5
You might try doing a search "recession attributed to". I think that you will find that most "experts" say that it was caused by the housing bubble popping. Of course I never believe in listening to experts but that's what they say.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 21:43:42 GMT -5
You might try doing a search "recession attributed to". I think that you will find that most "experts" say that it was caused by the housing bubble popping. Of course I never believe in listening to experts but that's what they say. me neither. but again, the bad loans would have been stopped dead in their tracks long before the bubble if the instrument for bundling them had been disallowed by the SEC (it should have been). i think we are talking about two aspects of the same problem, tho, tex. the lax standards created the bad loans, which then were used by unscrupulous wall street firms to create insolvent instruments that were AAA rated. in other words, lax standards were wed to lax regulations and bad financial instruments. agreed?
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 11, 2011 6:29:53 GMT -5
Wrong. The bubble held as long as Freddie and Fannie had any reserves to keep guaranting the bad loans that had been pushed for years by ACORN, Obama, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Loans were being pushed by more and more mortgage brokers even as the foreclosures were eating away at the reserves. And where did the bad loans first show up? In 2007 when the bubble was bursting it turned up in the most liberal cities of the country. Of the top 500 foreclosure zip codes, (we are talking ZIP CODES, NOT foreclosures), from the entire United States, (that's a 10 per state average), 34 of them were in Michigan, and 4 of them, (almost 1 percent of the top 500, and amounting to 573 individual foreclosures), were in Detriot: a place that had been morphing into a ghetto for over ten years. And all thiss was before the bubble really did burst. Who was it that had been pushing loans in such a place for so long to a community that had no possible way to sustain them? It was the people behind pushing Freddie and Fannise mortgages, (government guaranteed loans), and who was that? Why, it was all those greedy local bankers, of course. (At least that's what we'll hear from the people who know absolutely nothing abouit how government guaranteed home financing works.) No. It was the people who raked off finders fees for placing mortgages, (Read a loan disclosure statement. On page 2 near the top you'll find a line item labeled "Loan Origination Fee", and is most often 1% of the loan.), that they knew would never by repaid. . . (but they had their loan origination fee slice of the pie and were gone before sunset on each nd every single loan.) money.cnn.com/2007/06/19/real_estate/500_top_foreclosure_zip_codes/
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 10:11:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2011 7:02:51 GMT -5
Programs to help middle income families own houses have been around since the 70s. To perfectly good end... it was changes in the banking system... which allowed banks to package and re-sell loans immediately, so that they didn't have to worry about whether or not they could actually be paid back... and the abandonment of fiduciary responsiblity in exchange for credit swap trade etc.... Was the problem...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 11, 2011 10:10:03 GMT -5
Wrong. no. right.The bubble held as long as Freddie and Fannie had any reserves to keep guaranting the bad loans that had been pushed for years by ACORN, Obama, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. you keep bringing ACORN and Obama into this. ACORN's low income housing projects were less than 1% of bad loans. Obama wasn't even a SENATOR when this all started happening, and he was a junior senator with no political aspirations when it fell apart. your continued emphasis on these two players indicates that you are less interested in the facts than you are in obscuring them.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 11, 2011 10:13:24 GMT -5
And where did the bad loans first show up? In 2007 when the bubble was bursting it turned up in the most liberal cities of the country. Of the top 500 foreclosure zip codes, (we are talking ZIP CODES, NOT foreclosures), from the entire United States, (that's a 10 per state average), 34 of them were in Michigan, and 4 of them, (almost 1 percent of the top 500, and amounting to 573 individual foreclosures), were in Detriot: a place that had been morphing into a ghetto for over ten years. of course. subprime mortgages targeted poor communities. there are higher concentrations of them in urban areas. and they are primarily Democratic. all of these demographics are well known. i am not denying that these loans were pushed by well meaning idiots. but that does not change the fact that Bush benefitted from the policy, as well as corrupt companies that were not "liberal" in any sense than how much they paid their CEO's.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 11, 2011 10:15:13 GMT -5
Programs to help middle income families own houses have been around since the 70s. To perfectly good end... it was changes in the banking system... which allowed banks to package and re-sell loans immediately, so that they didn't have to worry about whether or not they could actually be paid back... and the abandonment of fiduciary responsiblity in exchange for credit swap trade etc.... Was the problem... precisely. it was the deregulation of banking and the lack of oversight that engendered the crisis, not the lowered standards per se. the lowered standards created a problem, not a crisis.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 10:11:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2011 10:43:08 GMT -5
The housing bubble was (this is my view) almost a perfect storm. Here's what I think happened.
1. We started off with incredibly high housing costs in some markets (like CA). Years of double didget gains had pushed housing prices to the roof. The cost of housing actually exceeded what many average middle class Americans could afford (wages hadn't kept pace with income).
2. Because of the double digit rises in housing (which had been going on for years) speculators were in a feeding frenzy to buy houses & then resell them. That drove up prices.
3. Home buyers were also in that feeding frenzy because if they didn't buy now, they wouldn't be able to afford a house when the price went higher.
Now as to the crash.
1. I think (but don't know this is true) that costs in those HCOL area had truly priced a lot of buyers out of the market.
2. The lowering of credit standards allowed people to buy houses that they couldn't afford. That resulted in dumping repo's back on the market.
3. The economy started slowing down. That also dumped houses back on the market.
4. As the slowdown hit speculators dumped their extra houses on the market so that they would lose money.
5. Media saturated coverage of this & scared the heck out of everybody making it worse. That made the buyers that were out there worried about "catching a falling knife" & they didn't buy.
6. Lastly as housing prices dropped people started walking away from their loans because they owed more on the houses than they were worth.
As all of this unfolded the banks of course started having trouble because:
1. They were holding a lot of paper on assets that were worth less than what they were worth (because prices had dropped).
2. Those assets were all mixed together & basically unrated for risk so know one actually knew what they owned & how risky it was. That lowered those "packages" of mortgages perceived value pretty much across the board.
3. Lending standards were so low that people were able to pay more for houses than they were worth. Also buy them with virtually nothing down. Owners had no money tied up in the homes making them easy to walk away from.
4. Again Media played a big part by covering area's like Detroit where local events (like auto jobs being lost) more than murdered the local housing market. That scared the hell out of all areas of the housing market.
Of course this isn't everything & to be honest I'm not real awake yet (late night) so I probably haven't stated it well.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 10:11:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2011 10:53:49 GMT -5
Programs to help middle income families own houses have been around since the 70s. To perfectly good end... it was changes in the banking system... which allowed banks to package and re-sell loans immediately, so that they didn't have to worry about whether or not they could actually be paid back...
Oped while I'm sure that was a factor I believe that your looking at it backward. Lower lending standards more or less "forced" the banks to give loans (if borrowers met the standards how could they justify turning them down without opening themselves to lawsuits?). (One of the loans that I remember was someone buying a house for $300,000 with an income of $30 -something- thousand per year). In the old days no bank would have made that loan. Oh & of course once those loans were made (& yes the banks knew what they had) the banks bundled them up & sold them. For them it was the smart thing to do.
One thing that I forgot in my last post was Liar loans. That was also a new concept that was used to buy houses that people couldn't afford.
Now I do agree that there were just some bad loans made. I think that applies more as the feeding frenzy of the banks to finance mortgages got into full swing. Greed does play a part but the stage was set for this whole mess with the drastic lowering of requirements for loans which was meant to allow poor people to have a better chance of buying a house. Sadly it resulted in a lot of poor people losing their dream & just about everything they had.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 10:11:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2011 20:01:57 GMT -5
The banks were not forced to give loans... They were loving giving loan.... For a long time we had qualications might allow more families to buy, 5-10% down rather than 20... etc. But not 110% of the value of the house, with 0 down and interest only for 18 months... and lying about your job... etc... which happened in the run up to this problem...
NO ONE said they had to give a 300K house to a person without the income... thats a lie. SHOW me where it said they had to do that... It is just not true... There were always perameters...
WHO sues for not getting a loan? I'd love a link to that information as well...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 10:11:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2011 20:49:56 GMT -5
The banks were not forced to give loans... They were loving giving loan....
In our sue happy society? Oh come on. You & I both know that someone would have sued them if they qualified under the new loan criteria & they didn't loan money. And it wouldn't have been just one loan. As soon as the media got a hold of the story (POOR PEOPLE TURNED DOWN) everybody would have sued them. Beside they were just making loans under the standards set by our laws.
Congress lowered the standards, it was Congresses fault. Your just upset because it's on record that the Democrats did it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 10:11:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2011 20:55:21 GMT -5
What new loan criteria... do you have a link to the new loan criteria set by the government that said the banks HAD to give loans of 300K to people who didn't make enough to afford it? ... I would love to see the link to those criteria...
Please show me a link to the lower standards set by law.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 10:11:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2011 22:47:16 GMT -5
Please show me a link to the lower standards set by law.
Nope they have been posted here before.
They last time I looked up a link for a liberal they did what they always do. They made some excuse & said that it didn't apply (or some such) & kept arguing. In other words it was a total waste of time. If you want to see what was changed then you need to research it or maybe some other conservative will quote it for you. I know that no liberal would have that reference (they would delete it from the congressional record if they could).
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 11, 2011 23:10:33 GMT -5
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 11, 2011 23:16:09 GMT -5
Good grief.
|
|