Where is the US economy headed?

@MASSAGAT,

NO, the government was fully on board, but the motivation was that the beast had to be fed. Those who were bundling, slicing and selling had to have new mortgages to sell, and since no one felt compelled to see that the original mortgages were sound they just started to make **** up. This is the period where you had nearly min wage earners "buying" $400,ooo homes, and defaulting within months. But by that time the original loan maker had already sold the paper, so they were free and clear. Those who bundled and sliced had already done their work thus gotten paid, so they did not care.

Only the fool who bought the slices, after being assured that it was a very low risk investment, cared. Thing is, they did not know for months or years that the loans were not preforming to standard, that their slice of the action was worthless, or nearly so.

Government is responsible for letting our system became what it became, but it was not governments idea. Remember, this was back in the day where markets where never wrong, and governments' main job was t stay out of the way of business, because government cant do anything right.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I respectfully suggest that you get a copy of Dr. Sowell's book. You are correct about the bundlers, slicers and sellers, but you apparently do not know that there was enormous pressure ON THE ORIGINAL LOAN COMPANIES to sell homes to people who bought homes with NO MONEY DOWN AND WITH TERMS OFFERED UNDER "ARM" FINANCING.

Just one example among many( I have quite a few others)---
quote Dr. Sowell--P. 106

"...the Federal Reserve Board refused to approve an application by the Shawmut National Corporation to acquire the New Dartmouth Bank "because of the bank's record on racial fairness" as the New York Times put it. The bank had not been convicted of anything in a court of law but the Federal Reserve Board was not required to use such legal standards. After the Federal Reserve referred the case to the Justice Department, the mortgage subsidiary of Shawmut National Corporation settled out of court be agreeing to "pay at leaset $960,000 to compensate minority applicants who mauy have been unfairly denied loans" according to the Washington Times. ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO WARNED OTHER BANKS THAT THOSE WHO "CLOSELY EXAMINE THEIR LENDING PRACTICES AND MAKE NECESSARY CHANGES TO ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION" WOULD 'FARE BETTER IN THIS DEPARTMENT'S STEPPED UP ENFORCEMENT EFFORT THAN THOSE WHO DO NOT".

end of quote

1 Reply

@MASSAGAT,

It should be totally obvious that government intervention into the private market of lending has had very serious effects upon the collapse of the housing market. This obvious fact has been posted numerous times here, but the liberals will of course deny that their beloved government has any blame whatsoever, because they want even greater control by the government. But the evidence is overwhelming. Besides the reading that I have done that supports that obvious fact, another big thing that helped seal it for me was to hear a very respected, experienced, and credible banker in the area speak about this. His family has been in banking for decades, and he laid out the facts about the serious effects of government intervention, as he knew of them personally, and that sealed it for me. His bank is very well run, very solvent, and very sound, and if he came to that conclusion, given the credibility I view him as having, there is little doubt in my mind about the government's culpability in this.

0 Replies

I am going to quote what I wrote on another thread, because I think it is brilliantly appropriate for the economy thread. The reason is that if an administration does not believe in the free market, the power, freedom, liberty, and the responsibility of the citizens of this country, but they instead believe primarily in their own power and the government, they are the wrong ones to be making any policy. Here is my quote:

You cannot trust a fox to design the henhouse, plain and simple. The fox will design the thing to later fit his desires, not the desires and safety of the chickens.

In this case folks, the henhouse is the economy, and we need to get the foxes out of it, vote them out next election.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I am going to quote what I wrote on another thread, because I think it is brilliantly appropriate for the economy thread. The reason is that if an administration does not believe in the free market, the power, freedom, liberty, and the responsibility of the citizens of this country, but they instead believe primarily in their own power and the government, they are the wrong ones to be making any policy. Here is my quote:

You cannot trust a fox to design the henhouse, plain and simple. The fox will design the thing to later fit his desires, not the desires and safety of the chickens.

In this case folks, the henhouse is the economy, and we need to get the foxes out of it, vote them out next election.

Funny, that's exactly how we feel about you fiscal 'conservatives,' who can't wait to get into power and enact permanent tax cuts for the rich. It's the only thing you bunch ever seem interested in: more tax cuts for the rich. It's like a national duty to keep you guys out of office.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Well, you may be aware of it, but I have posted my opinion that I could endorse higher marginal personal income tax rates on very high income, perhaps 500k, a million, and more, but would also along with that, to favor the elimination of taxing businesses and corporations. I believe such a policy could lead to another huge round of economic expansion. We need to unleash and reward the ambition, hard work, and ingenuity of the American people. People will provide prosperity, not government taxing our work to death. And corporations should earn millions or billions without being penalized, because stockholders will benefit, which includes many average Americans with investments and retirement funds.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Well, you may be aware of it, but I have posted my opinion that I could endorse higher marginal personal income tax rates on very high income, perhaps 500k, a million, and more, but would also along with that, to favor the elimination of taxing businesses and corporations.

This essentially the same thing as a massive tax cut for the rich, Okie. The money saved on corporate and business taxes would flow directly into their pockets.

Quote:

I believe such a policy could lead to another huge round of economic expansion. We need to unleash and reward the ambition, hard work, and ingenuity of the American people. People will provide prosperity, not government taxing our work to death. And corporations should earn millions or billions without being penalized, because stockholders will benefit, which includes many average Americans with investments and retirement funds.

I don't think there's any evidence that this would bring about any economic expansion at all; it would merely reward those who are already at the top of the current system. These people are not struggling in any way and neither need nor deserve reward.

Paying taxes isn't a penalty; it's doing your part to support your nation.

I would remind you that Corporations have, under our system, limited status as Persons; that being the case, they deserve to pay taxes like other Persons do. If they would like to take away some of their rights, I'd be more than happy to take away some of their taxes.

Besides. You know as well as I do that most major corporations pay very little in taxes anyway, using loopholes to get around them.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

We need to unleash and reward the ambition, hard work, and ingenuity of the American people.

I don't think there's any evidence that this would bring about any economic expansion at all; it would merely reward those who are already at the top of the current system.

Cyclotroll is saying we should increase the tax job providers pay so they can't afford to hire and expand.
Unemployment continues to rise and tax revenues continue to drop... brilliant!

Okie, you are correct! - We need to unleash and reward the ambition, hard work, and ingenuity of the American people.

Cut taxes put more people to work and tax revenues will increase.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Funny, that's exactly how we feel about you fiscal 'conservatives,' who can't wait to get into power and enact permanent tax cuts for the rich. It's the only thing you bunch ever seem interested in: more tax cuts for the rich. It's like a national duty to keep you guys out of office.

When are you coverters going to admit the truth about Bush's tax cuts. He cut taxes on every class: the poor, the middle class , and the rich. It is a baldface lie to claim the Bush tax cuts were "tax cuts for the rich."

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
...
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
...
1971-1981: 15 tax brackets; min= 14%; max =70%
1982-1986: 12 tax brackets; min = 12%; max = 50%
1987-1987: 5 tax brackets; min = 11%; max = 38.5%
1988-1990: 3 tax brackets; min = 15%; max =33%
1991-1992: 3 tax brackets; min = 15%; max = 31%
1993-2000: 5 tax brackets; min = 15%; max = 39.6%
2001-2001: 5 tax brackets; min = 15%; max = 39.1%
2002-2002: 6 tax brackets; min = 10%; max = 38.6%
2003-2008: 6 tax brackets; min = 10%; max = 35%

The Bush tax cuts reduced the minimum tax rate by a third--from 15% to 10%-- and reduced the maximum tax rate by less than an eighth--from 39.6% to 35%. The Bush tax cuts were for both the less wealthy and the more wealthy. However, the less weathy had their taxes reduced by greater factors than were the tax rates reduced for the more wealthy.

It's the only thing you coveters ever seem interested in: more tax INCREASES for the rich. IT IS a national duty to REMOVE AND keep you GODDAMN COVETORS out of office!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

When are you coverters going to admit the truth about Bush's tax cuts. He cut taxes on every class: the poor, the middle class , and the rich. It is a baldface lie to claim the Bush tax cuts were "tax cuts for the rich."

The tax-cuts for the poor and middle class were a pittance. They lead to a small amount of extra money for those people. However, the tax cuts for the rich lead to millions of extra dollars for them. The tax cuts were clearly designed to give the rich as much benefit as possible - very regressive.

And we saw the effects of these skewed priorities: the rich got richer while the poor got poorer.

Quote:

But there is one key difference between the trends in average income under Presidents Hoover and Bush. In the Hoover years, people of all incomes experienced income declines, but in the Bush years the top 10 percent of income earners boosted their income while the rest of the country experienced a decline. Between 1929 and 1932 the average income of the top 10 percent of wage earners fell to $52,026 in 1932 from $76,625 in 1929, a decline of 32 percent, or roughly the same percentage decline experienced by all other Americans over the same period. In contrast, between 2001 and 2006, the average income of the top 10 percent of wage earners increased to $254,296 in 2006 from $221,115 in 2001, an increase of 15 percent. This makes President Bush the first president since 1917 (the first year for which data is available) under which the average income of the wealthiest Americans went up while the average income of everyone else went down.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/two_conservatives.html

Quote:

It's the only thing you coveters ever seem interested in: more tax INCREASES for the rich.

You are correct. I am interested in higher taxes on the rich; much higher. These higher tax brackets are not inimical to our growth in any fashion and we don't need an Economic Nobility here in the States.

The good news is that you, Ican, cannot stop taxes on the rich from rising in 2010 to the levels before the Bush tax cuts. The Dems don't even have to do anything, the tax cuts sunset on their own. I predict that we will see increased economic growth in the years to come, in direct opposition to your and other economic morons insistence that these tax rates are inimical to growth.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt

Total employment in the USA in:
December 2006 = 144,427,000
December 2007 = 146,047,000
December 2008 = 143,338,000
January 2009 = 142,099,000.
October 2009 = 138,275 ,000.
November 2009 = ?
December 2009 = ?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Well, you may be aware of it, but I have posted my opinion that I could endorse higher marginal personal income tax rates on very high income, perhaps 500k, a million, and more, but would also along with that, to favor the elimination of taxing businesses and corporations.

This essentially the same thing as a massive tax cut for the rich, Okie. The money saved on corporate and business taxes would flow directly into their pockets.Cycloptichorn

Taxes will be collected, but at a different point in the system. People with very high incomes would be taxed at a higher rate, so I think you are wrong, cyclops. What my policy would do would be to allow businesses and corporations to be better able to compete with foreign competition, thus being able to sell more goods and services, thus able to hire more people and to expand their businesses. I would tax individuals that make an ridiculously high amounts, and so this would also cut down on the outrageous employment and pay packages for movie stars, sports figures, and corporate officers. The people that would reap more reward would then go to the rank and file people among us. If somebody owns alot of stock that would return high profits, then they would be taxed if their personal income went over the margins at which higher rates would kick in. So you either did not understand what I meant or you don't know what you are talking about, cyclops.

1 Reply

@okie,

Our country's companies already pay one of the lowest taxes in the world; it's not the rate, but what they actually pay. It's been repeated many times that most corporations do not pay income taxes. As usual, you have your head up your arse, and you keep in the dark by choice. I'm surprised you can't smell your own increment!

The following is from CBS News, a liberal organization in the US:

Quote:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 12, 2008
Most Companies Pay No Federal Income Tax
GAO Study Also Finds 68% Of Foreign Companies In U.S. Avoid Corporate Taxes

(AP) Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.

One of the ways this country can become more competitive in the world marketplace is to have universal health care. But, according to you and your compatriots, that's only the socialist way of wealth redistribution.

You are an idiot!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

[ican's response is in blue]
Ican wrote:

Quote:

When are you coverters going to admit the truth about Bush's tax cuts. He cut taxes on every class: the poor, the middle class , and the rich. It is a baldface lie to claim the Bush tax cuts were "tax cuts for the rich."

Cyclop wrote:

Quote:

The tax-cuts for the poor and middle class were a pittance. They lead to a small amount of extra money for those people. However, the tax cuts for the rich lead to millions of extra dollars for them. The tax cuts were clearly designed to give the rich as much benefit as possible - very regressive.

Quote:

Schedule Y-1--Use if your 2009 filing status is
Married filing jointly

If taxable income is:......................Then the Tax is:
Over............But not over...............................................of the amount over
..........$0...........$16,700................------------ + 10%.......................$0
...16,700.............67,900................$1,670.00 + 15%...................16,700
...67,900...........137,060..................9,350.00 + 25%...................67,900
137,050............208,850................26,637.50 + 28%..................137,050
208,850............372,950................46,741.50 + 33%..................208,850
372,950............----------...............100,894.50 + 35%..................372,950

The tax cuts for the poor are zero, for those poor whose taxable income is zero. But, of course, their income is a pittance. Those poor whose taxable income is $16,700 per year paid $2,505 income tax prior to the Bush tax cuts, but pay only $1,670 with the Bush tax cuts. I'll bet that $835 or 5% cut in their income tax is not likely to be viewed by those poor as a pittance.

Those rich people whose taxable income is $1,372,950 per year had their income tax cut about $50,000 with the Bush tax cuts. I'll bet that $50,000 or 3.6% cut in their income tax is likely to be viewed by those rich as a pittance.

Cyclop wrote:

Quote:

And we saw the effects of these skewed priorities: the rich got richer while the poor got poorer.

The number of employed increased by 9 million in Bush's two terms. It looks to me like the poor as well as the rich got richer. Finding employment they did not previously have makes everyone richer.

Cyclop wrote:

Quote:

But there is one key difference between the trends in average income under Presidents Hoover and Bush. In the Hoover years, people of all incomes experienced income declines, but in the Bush years the top 10 percent of income earners boosted their income while the rest of the country experienced a decline. Between 1929 and 1932 the average income of the top 10 percent of wage earners fell to $52,026 in 1932 from $76,625 in 1929, a decline of 32 percent, or roughly the same percentage decline experienced by all other Americans over the same period. In contrast, between 2001 and 2006, the average income of the top 10 percent of wage earners increased to $254,296 in 2006 from $221,115 in 2001, an increase of 15 percent. This makes President Bush the first president since 1917 (the first year for which data is available) under which the average income of the wealthiest Americans went up while the average income of everyone else went down.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/two_conservatives.html

Your reference failed to show what the incomes were of the bottom 10% before and after Bush's tax cut. It had to be huge for those people not previously employed who found employment.

Ican wrote:

Quote:

It's the only thing you coveters ever seem interested in: more tax INCREASES for the rich.

Cyclop wrote:

Quote:

You are correct. I am interested in higher taxes on the rich; much higher. These higher tax brackets are not inimical to our growth in any fashion and we don't need an Economic Nobility here in the States.

Higher taxes were introduced by Hoover in 1931 and that along with the Smoot-Halley tariff increases caused employment to plummet. Roosevelt increased taxes more and employment fell even more. John Kennedy reduced income taxes and employment increased. Ronald Reagan reduced income taxes and employment grew. Bush reduced income taxes and employment grew. Obama is planning to inrease income taxes and employment will ???

Cyclop wrote:

Quote:

The good news is that you, Ican, cannot stop taxes on the rich from rising in 2010 to the levels before the Bush tax cuts. The Dems don't even have to do anything, the tax cuts sunset on their own. I predict that we will see increased economic growth in the years to come, in direct opposition to your and other economic morons insistence that these tax rates are inimical to growth.

Those folks who "repeat the same actions" over and over, "each time expecting a different result are insane" or fools.

It is difficult for me to believe that you are actually the fool you appear to be. Rather, I think you not only expect, but also want, employment to drop further and our free-market capitalism to be replaced by "something" that will assuage your resentment of those who accomplish more than you.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican, You really don't understand our tax laws do you? Those rates are based on "Taxable Income" for 2009. FYI, it's still 2009 (December 12 as of today). If that's the tax rate for 2009, how could they have paid $2,505 in income taxes? Where did you get your info? FOX News?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

It is difficult for me to believe that you are actually the fool you appear to be. Rather, I think you not only expect, but also want, employment to drop further and our free-market capitalism to be replaced by "something" that will assuage your resentment of those who accomplish more than you.[/color]

I have gotten cyclops to actually admit that he likes aspects of Marxism and or communism, and he also thinks that we should inject elements of it into our system here. I am not yet sure if he wants to go all the way, or just go part of the way, and I am also not sure if he realizes that a mixture of Marxist policy in with capitalism results into something that has been labeled in history as the "Third Way, which is essentially Fascism, which Mussolini and Hitler tried. As I said, I do not know if he realizes this or not.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, We already have elements of socialism in this country, and so does most developed countries of the world. I know this is news to you, but quit making asinine statements about things you don't know.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I don't know if you are not acquainted with the literature or are just being obtuse, cicerone imposter, but since you boast of being a wunderkind in business, you must certainly realize that Socialism is on a continuum. Yes, Socialism is on a continuum. There is less Socialism and more Socialism.

Most of our great economists have decried a movement towards Socialism because it inevitably gives more and more power to a Central Government and takes power away from the Private Sector, which, as Adam Smith pointed out, is far superior to massive centralized power.

Anyone who does not recognize that the capture of 16% of our economy by the Central Government will lead to Soviet and early Chinese type governmental organizations.

That is not a formula which leads to Freedom and Liberty.

The Constitution is quite clear. Powers are numerated for the federal government, The rest are left to the states.

A power grab for 16% of the GDP by the Central Government will inevitably lead to t yranny since the people who control the Health Apparatus will certainly have a great sway with the majority of the voters.

THAT WOULD BE A MOVE DOWN THE CONTINUUM TOWARDS
EUROPEAN STYLE SOCIALISM.

0 Replies

Okie wrote:

Good for you, Okie--You caught that, didn't you. Cyclops is at least a Crypt Socialist.

I am of the opinion that, if you go back in American History, you will find( and evidence can be gathered to show this clearly) many American Socialists and Communists hated this country for a great variety of reasons, the most prominent of which is that they were incredibly jealous of anyone who made fortunes under the capitalist system.

Incidentally, more than 85% of the US upper 5% made their OWN money and did not get it from a legacy.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, You really don't understand our tax laws do you? Those rates are based on "Taxable Income" for 2009. FYI, it's still 2009 (December 12 as of today). If that's the tax rate for 2009, how could they have paid $2,505 in income taxes? Where did you get your info? FOX News?

It is time you realize you are the one who doesn't understand our tax laws. However, with your mind set I doubt you can be helped. But I'll try anyway.

The income tax table for taxable income that I posted, while labeled 2009, also applied to the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, plus also applies to 2010.

Prior to the Bush tax cuts--for example 2003-- is when those who had taxable incomes of $16,700 had to pay $2,505 or 15%. After the Bush tax cuts they had to pay $1,670 or 10%, $835 less..

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know