Republican Tax Cuts For The Rich And The Debt Crisis

Trump, others wrong on US gear left with Taliban

For starters, most of the equipment provided to the Afghans was used in fighting over the last 20 years, and “we junked most of it,” Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told us in a phone interview. “War tends to use stuff up in a hurry.”

Nor should anyone assume the Taliban will have the expertise or wherewithal to operate all of the equipment.

“U.S. military equipment tends to require extensive support from technical specialists,” Loren Thompson, a defense industry consultant and military analyst at the Lexington Institute, told us via email. “In the absence of such specialists, much of it will run down due to wear and a lack of spare parts.”

“This applies in particular to aircraft, many of which will likely be grounded in short order,” Thompson said. “Vehicles will also tend to wear out fairly quickly because of inadequate maintenance. MRAPs [mine resistant ambush protected vehicles] will be especially hard to keep operating because they consume copious amounts of fuel which will likely be in scarce supply.”

During a news briefing on Aug. 30, Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., commander of U.S. Central Command, said of the equipment at the airport in Kabul, “We brought some of it out, and we demilitarized some of it.” By demilitarized, he means disabled — and likely means key components were blown up. There were reports of explosions at the airport, which Maj. Gen. Hank Taylor, the joint staff deputy director for regional operations, described as “controlled detonations.”

McKenzie said American forces had “demilitarized” up to 70 MRAPs “that will never be used again by anyone” and 27 Humvees, “that will never be driven again.”

In addition, he said, there were 73 aircraft on the ramp at the Kabul airport.

“Those aircraft will never fly again when we left,” McKenzie said. “They’ll never be able to be operated by anyone. Most of them were non-mission capable, to begin with, but certainly they’ll never be able to be flown again.”

Just before leaving, the military also destroyed a weapon system used to intercept rockets, artillery and mortars, known as C-RAM, McKenzie said. The New York Times reported that C-RAMs and several armored vehicles left behind at the U.S. Embassy were also destroyed or rendered inoperable.

Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said the military has been relocating and destroying equipment in Afghanistan for several years now.

“An awful lot of equipment, weapons, resources were drawn down even in the last years and months of the previous administration, as President Trump decided to move down to a — a force of 2,500,” Kirby said at a press conference on Aug. 23. “So there was a lot of retrograde of things up to that point.”

That continued under Biden, he said.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/09/republicans-inflate-cost-of-taliban-seized-u-s-military-equipment/


Did US Leave More Than $80B Worth of Equipment to the Taliban?
The "Taliban's New Arsenal" does not include 22,000 Humvees or 33 Black Hawk helicopters.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/us-taliban-arsenal-military-equipment/

 

Weird Dubya could get 2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS, 2 UNFUNDED WARS, UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION (PART D) THAT CBO SAYS WILL COST $119 BILLION THIS YEAR, BUT COULDN'T 'REFORM' WHAT?

108th United States Congress
January 3, 2003 – January 3, 2005

Senate majority Republican
Senate President Dick Cheney (R)
House majority Republican
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)


109th United States Congress
January 3, 2005 – January 3, 2007

Senate majority Republican
Senate President Dick Cheney (R)
House majority Republican
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)








Wall Street, Not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Led the Toxic Mortgage Market
https://www.responsiblelending.org/research-publication/wall-street-not-fannie-mae

White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire
https://archive.ph/UOGvr

 

What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

...Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.


...Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny. But that has not stopped people who should know better from repeating them.

https://archive.ph/UKFN4

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

Here are key things we know based on data. Together, they present a series of tough hurdles for the big lie proponents.

•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative. How did U.S. regulations against redlining in inner cities also cause a boom in Spain, Ireland and Australia? How can we explain the boom occurring in countries that do not have a tax deduction for mortgage interest or government-sponsored enterprises? And why, after nearly a century of mortgage interest deduction in the United States, did it suddenly cause a crisis?


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom. Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.

•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

https://archive.is/H62Rh

 

But a White House transcript of Biden’s remarks corrected the president, indicating that he should have said 98% of Americans who wanted to leave were evacuated from Afghanistan during Operation Allies Refuge, which started in July with the relocation of Afghan nationals and their families eligible for special immigrant visas.

The effort to get more Americans out of the country picked up in mid-August, just before the Taliban took complete control of the country.


Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., commander of U.S. Central Command, said in an Aug. 30 press briefing. “That includes 6,000 Americans and more than 73,500 third-country nationals and Afghan civilians. This last category includes special immigrant visas, consular staff, at-risk Afghans and their families.”

In total, he said, U.S. and coalition aircraft combined to evacuate more than 123,000 civilians.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken also has said that there are less than 200 Americans the U.S. still needs to get out of the country.

“We believe there are still a small number of Americans, under 200 and likely closer to 100, who remain in Afghanistan and want to leave. We’re trying to determine exactly how many,” Blinken said in an Aug. 30 speech.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/09/how-many-americans-and-allies-are-left-in-afghanistan/

 

GOOD THING BULLSEYE SAID THIS AND I RESPONED TO CORRECT HIS 'CONSERVATVE' ''MATH'' RIGHT


''I heard somewhere it the entire top 20% were taxed at 100% they'd pay for less than a week of government operations. I tend not to worry about what others get paid as long as I feel I'm getting paid fairly.''

CONTEXT MATTERS CRAZY RIGHT WINGERS, I SHOWED IF WE JUST TOOK THE TOP 1% IT FULLED FUNDED 100% OF INCOME TAXES FOR THE OTHER 99%. No not saying it should be 100%, it's HIS premise that they don't make enough to fund with the TOP 20%

HE THE F7KK IS ARGUING 20% VS 25%? LOL

 

But a White House transcript of Biden’s remarks corrected the president, indicating that he should have said 98% of Americans who wanted to leave were evacuated from Afghanistan during Operation Allies Refuge, which started in July with the relocation of Afghan nationals and their families eligible for special immigrant visas.

The effort to get more Americans out of the country picked up in mid-August, just before the Taliban took complete control of the country.

You mean as their SHARE of the pie went from 8%-10% of the pie historically, to over 22% AS THEIR EFFECTIVE TAX RATES HAVE DROPPED BY OVER 50%

Hint it's not the 1% probably not even the 1/10th of 1% (who do get over 50% of EVER DOLLAR OF DIVIDENDS AND CAPITAL GAINS EACH YEAR) but probably the top 1/100th of 1% who are screwing the US treasury from monies that used to go to the treasury, you know as Ronnie took it too 16% of GDP, Dubya to 14% and Diaper Donnie to 16%

Carter had it at 19%, Clinton at 20% (4 surpluses) Obama got it up to 18% his last year

 

Gawd you can't even follow links to ANTI TAX SITES I LINKED THAT SHOWED GAWDAMM INCOME, NOT TAXES


https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/

 

Conflating? Oh you mean the billionaire the right loves to bend over for, shouldn't be called out on the FACT that their total tax "burden" is smaller than a butcher or teacher?

 

I appreciate your post. But, you don't sound much like a conservative democrat, you sound like a regular liberal democrat.

Works for me.

Tchau,
Patricio Da Silva

 

HINT REGARDLESS OF YOUR 'BELIEFS' BARNEY FRANK HAD ZERO POWER IN THE REPUG HOUSE UNTIL JAN 2007, LONG AFTER DUBYA CHEERED ON HIS SUBPRIME PONZI SCHEME

WALLISON IS A LOON WHO CREATED HIS OWN NARRATIVE OF THE FIN CRISIS INQUARY COMMITTEE THAT NOT EVEN THE OTHER GOPers were dumb enough to agree on, lol

BARNEY FRANK? LMAOROG

 

If you pay $500 for a Rolls Royce, and the car is worth $100,000, you stole $99,500 from the person who sold it to you. "In theory", legally, it's an acceptable trade. But, in theory, the principle is sound.

The upper 50% own 97% of the nation's wealth, so any amount they pay that is less than 97% of the tax burden is stealing from the lower 50%. The deficit is financed, partially by the sales of US Treasury bonds and partially by fiat currency issues, which result in inflation. Inflation is a tax on those who cannot hedge (the poor) to the benefit of those who can hedge (the rich). So, in essence, inflation is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. See, poverty is it's own tax.

 

•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative. How did U.S. regulations against redlining in inner cities also cause a boom in Spain, Ireland and Australia? How can we explain the boom occurring in countries that do not have a tax deduction for mortgage interest or government-sponsored enterprises? And why, after nearly a century of mortgage interest deduction in the United States, did it suddenly cause a crisis?


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom. Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.

•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

https://archive.is/H62Rh

 

you're deliberately pretending we should have a wealth tax versus an income tax. in reality, we should have users fees;;; stupidity, sloth and lack of talent is a real tax and the rich are not responsible for any of that

 

where do you come up with the idea that tax cuts need to be funded.

 

Why do lazy little losers always whine and complain? Why don't the get to school and learn the skills they need to EARN. How did we get a society filled with so many lazy, whiney little bums?

 

the New Deal and Great society was designed to create a massive amount of public teat sucklers who would be permanently indebted and dependent on those who put milk in those teats

 

HINT REGARDLESS OF YOUR 'BELIEFS' BARNEY FRANK HAD ZERO POWER IN THE REPUG HOUSE UNTIL KAN 2007, LONG AFTER DUBYA CHEERED ON HIS SUBPRIME PONZI SCHEME

WALLISON IS A LOON WHO CREATED HIS OWN NARRATIVE OF THE FIN CRISIS INQUARY COMMITTEE THAT NOT EVEN THE OTHER GOPers were dumb enough to agree on, lol

LMAOROG, GAWD YOU RIGHTIES AND TOUR 'FACTS'

DICTATED BY FANNIE AND FREDDIE? You knosw thew GSE's Dubya already was regulator of? HOW DID THEY REQUIRE BANKS TO JUMP INTO SUBPRIME? Please let me know?

Why did the banks pay over $100+ billion in fines over their subprime mess?

..''These are among the findings of a Center for Public Integrity analysis of government data on nearly 7.2 million “high-interest” or subprime loans made from 2005 through 2007, a period that marks the peak and collapse of the subprime boom. The computer-assisted analysis also reveals the top 25 originators of high-interest loans, accounting for nearly $1 trillion, or about 72 percent of such loans made during that period.

The Center found that U.S. and European investment banks invested enormous sums in subprime lending due to unceasing demand for high-yield, high-risk bonds backed by home mortgages. The banks made huge profits while their executives collected handsome bonuses until the bottom fell out of the real estate market.''

https://publicintegrity.org/inequal...oots-of-the-financial-crisis-who-is-to-blame/

 

how is that stealing? Inflation actually is a tax on creditors and lenders and benefit those in debt because they pay back their loans in cheaper dollars.

 

But a White House transcript of Biden’s remarks corrected the president, indicating that he should have said 98% of Americans who wanted to leave were evacuated from Afghanistan during Operation Allies Refuge, which started in July with the relocation of Afghan nationals and their families eligible for special immigrant visas.

The effort to get more Americans out of the country picked up in mid-August, just before the Taliban took complete control of the country.

You mean as their SHARE of the pie went from 8%-10% of the pie historically, to over 22% AS THEIR EFFECTIVE TAX RATES HAVE DROPPED BY OVER 50%

Hint it's not the 1% probably not even the 1/10th of 1% (who do get over 50% of EVER DOLLAR OF DIVIDENDS AND CAPITAL GAINS EACH YEAR) but probably the top 1/100th of 1% who are screwing the US treasury from monies that used to go to the treasury, you know as Ronnie took it too 16% of GDP, Dubya to 14% and Diaper Donnie to 16%

Carter had it at 19%, Clinton at 20% (4 surpluses)

Got it, people knew tax rates went down and wanted to 'cash out'

NO CREDIBLE ECONOMIST thinks tax cuts in 60 years has funded itself, none

50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-50-years-no-trickle-down/

Tax Foundation's Prante: “A Stretch” To Claim “Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues.”


Time: “Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues.” In a December 2007 article titled, “Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues,” Time magazine asserted that “economists agree” that the idea that tax cuts raise revenues is “false.”



...If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues. [Time, 12/6/07]

The Economist: “No Serious Economist Believes Mr Bush's Tax Cuts Will Pay For Themselves.”

The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been -- even if they spur some economic growth


FactCheck.org: “Revenues Would Have Been Even Higher Without [The Bush Tax Cuts].”

 

Oh right sorry I forgot it's ok to have deficits, as long as they benefit 'the wealthiest''

THAT'S WHY DUBYA AND DIAPER DONNIE GOT RID OF PAY GO, BTW, THAT REQUIRED 'PAYING' FOR TAX CUTS!

 

why do you not understand that smart people who have skills will get richer and richer. I don't spend more than a quarter of what I make each year. after the big cut the parasite government takes, I invest the rest So each year I am making a bunch more. I think I double my wealth every 7 years or so

tax cuts means the parasites take less from those who earn the money. that alone is a good thing.

 

One tax cut they removed a some poor people from the tax rolls and rescinded the pointless 3.5% tax surcharge that probably cost more than it raised.

 

I followed them. Not impressed - you're still just echoing LW mantras. Yadda, yadda, evil rich people, yadda, yadda.

 

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right wing ever have?

 

NOTHING on your false premise that Democrats stopped Dubya from "reform", I'm assuming of the GSE's he already regulated (F/F)? Or that Barney Frank had some type of super powers to stop ANYTHING in the GOP controlled House?