Someone try to justify this.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by ErikBEggs, Mar 6, 2014.

  1. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1% apologist bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

    The richest have always had the most invested.

    That is no excuse why the 1% doubled its take of the nation's income (from10% to 20%) and wealth (from 20% to 40%) over the past 30 years.
     
  2. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are the one pushing a partisan agenda here, and it's obvious why. If you can frame the mortgage and credit collapse as a mere "housing bubble" consisting of prices alone, that occured only from 2000, then you can falsely blame the GWB administration for the entire thing, Fact is, and I have demonstrated as much re the Clinton Administration factors (and could go into factors from prior administrations way back including both sides of the aisle), the collapse of 2007-2008 had relatively little to do with housing prices themselves, and much to do with a host of complex factors consisting of illicit meddling of the federal government, not just republicans and not just democrats, in the mortgage markets for a long time to create false stimulus in the economy. If I had to pick one administration most at fault, it would be the Clinton Administration due the factors posted prior, but attempting to lay it all on Clinton would be false as well. Bush could have reversed many of the bad Clinton mortgage credit policies and did not.

    How do I expect you to respond to this? I expect you to post your "housing price" chart again and to simply repeat the mantra "there was no housing bubble until 2000" that you have posted over and over again with no substantiation or reasonsing whatsoever. Care to prove me wrong?
     
  3. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, the private sector generally can.

    But when you have 30 years of "trickle down" policies that redistributed so much of the nation's income and wealth to the 1%, to the tune of about $1.4 trillion per year, a big chunk of that money is not being being spent by the private sector. Govt spending is better than none at all.

    Gee, I wonder why?

    Obama
    Spending increase, 2009-2013: -1.89%
    Total Government employment, 2009-2013: -667,000

    Reagan
    Spending increase, 1981-1985: +39.5%.
    Total Government employment, 1981-1985: +607,0000

    Bush
    Spending increase, 2001-2005: +32.7%
    Total Government employment, 2001-2005: +603,000

    source data
    Expenditures: http://cbo.gov/publication/45067
    Employment: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

    The Republican Tea Party austerity has sucked.
     
  4. johnmayo

    johnmayo New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Messages:
    13,847
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They still made more in Clinton years. More money to invest means more wealth. Stop taxing everyone to death.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Why did you skip the Clinton years? Can you post them.
     
  5. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Doesn't need justification.

    It's no business of government.
     
  6. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LMAO! Says the guy who writes that "Clinton repealed Glass Segall" as if it wasn't a Repubican controlled Congress.

    Funny how whenever Clinton's surplus is brought up conservatives are quick to try to give Republicans the credit because they took over congress in 1995, but when it comes to Glass Seagall, it's all Clinton's doing.

    Nope. No partisanship there.

    There were many, many factors that lead to the housing bubble. The development of securizations and (unregulated) credit default swaps that were rated AAA by (unregulated) rating agencies that gave investors a sense of risk minimization that turned out to be bogus, and also divorced the risk from the underwriters to the lenders. Lax regulation on things like ARMs and teaser rates and no down payments and shoddy mortgage brokerage practices that got loans to scores of millions who couldn't afford them. Predatory lending regulations were eliminated. Tax cuts that gave huge tax benefits to speculative investing in stocks and housing over earned income.

    And over course, the "gold rush" greed that always fuels speculative bubbles.

    So, yes, there were many factors that lead to this housing bubble.

    But the fact is, there was no bubble until the early 2000s. Proved here:

    [​IMG]

    Which evidence I appreciate you admitted you ignore because it doesn't fit your ideology. But you're no partisan.

    Saying that the mortgage credit collapse has "little to do" with housing prices is such a bizarre statement I cannot even fathom how someone could even write such a thing.

    Complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*). I've giving substantial reasoning for my positions in this and my prior posts. You just ignore evidence that is contrary to your partisan ideology, as you admitted.

    You are correct, I post the facts. The fact that you admit you admit you ignore evidence because it goes against your partisan ideology is not my problem.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I didn't skip anything. Do your own research.
     
  7. johnmayo

    johnmayo New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Messages:
    13,847
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh big skip, does it refute your message? You know it does. >>>MOD EDIT Don't make it personal<<< . Throw in the other bush too.

    We all know about how you use the TARP year as your baseline and we all know you know what that effect it has to make big spending Obama look like a small spender.
     
  8. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All that's missing from your whining above is some sad and pathetic violin music.

    You can tax another $1 trillion from the wealthy and this won't change a single aspect of your 99%. Achieving higher incomes and accumulating wealth have very little to do with taxation...almost nothing! Fact is at least 100 million Americans pay little to no federal income taxes and no matter how much you tax the wealthy this won't change a thing for your 99%. You seem to be mesmerized by Reaganomics which was back in the 80's...don't you think it's time to move into the 21st century?

    You could possibly have an argument if your 99% were paying more than 25% of federal income taxes...but they are not and 100 million of them pay little to no federal income taxes. And FICA IS NOT a federal income tax...it is a payroll contribution to fund the individual's Social Security and Medicare at retirement age.

    Please explain how taxing the 1% another $1 trillion per year will benefit your 99%...
     
  9. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All that's missing from your whiny posts is violins playing "we're in the money"

    It sure would get the deficits down. All working Americans pay federal taxes. Sell your RW propaganda 1% apologist BS to the ignorant who don't know any better.

    Eliminate the deficit. Fund education, SS and medicaid benefits.
     
  10. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FICA taxes have barely increased over the decades? FICA is a payroll contribution which funds Social Security and Medicare at retirement age...so now you believe the 1% should fund the SS and Medicare for the 99%? Why not just have the 1% buy everyone a new home and car?

    Union problems have nothing to do with the 1%.

    Minimum wage has nothing to do with the 1%.

    Overtime laws have nothing to do with the 1%.

    There are no laws to encourage a company to shift jobs overseas.

    Your comments above did not answer my simple questions which again prove all this nonsense is political BS...
     
  11. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. Lowering taxes is never "redistribution."
    2. The "nation" itself has no income, only persons, real and statutory do. The government has "revenue."
    3. Same for wealth other than assets titled in the name of the government.
    4. There is no static pool of wealth that the govt divvies up between individuals. Individuals own property, and socially contract to fund the government with part of it,

    Your arguments might gain more traction if you didn't express them in such incorrect partisan ways.

    Turning to spending under Reagan, Bush and Obama, the raw numbers themselves offer no meaningful conclusions other than the partisan left where causality and context are evidently suspended. For example, Reagan inherited a Cold War, which he ended by spending (it could be argued that the spending was actually a prudent investment that saved more future defense spending than it cost during the Bush 1 and Clinton Admins, had the Cold War extended), and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during his entire terms. Though the President is instrumental in the budgeting process, Congress, not the President, sets the overall spending pace during any administration.

    Partisan arguments that ignore such contextual factors, whether directed against Obama, Reagan or Bush are puerile and inaccurate. For example, in my prior post on Clinton Administration factors in the mortgage collapse, Clinton was mostly to blame for the antitrust factors and the CRA enforcement factors, as those are executive functions. Clinton and a partially Republican Congress shared the blame for the militant restructuring of the CRA law, Clinton, Congress and the Fed shared the responsibility for not regulating off exchange derivatives. Posting raw numbers without more careful analysis of how those numbers came to be in context demonstrates less than nothing about "who's to blame for what outcome." Finally, raw numbers outside of historical context such as 9/11 or the recent deep recession demonstrate nothing either.
     
  12. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All meaningless and political drivel...the 99% are babies if this is the only way they can achieve more out of their miserable lives...
     
  13. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FICA taxes increase from 4.2% to 6.2% in the 1980s. Trickle down, baby.

    Of course it does. Unions leverage higher wages from workers.

    Of course it does. MW provides higher wages to workers.

    Of course they do. OT laws provide higher wages to workers.

    Tax benefits on profits generated from cheap labor.

    My comments were spot on and proves you simply ignore facts and evidence that contradicts your 1% apologist political ideology.

    - - - Updated - - -

    "Miserable lives"? Of course. Those "miserable" middle class folks don't deserve to share in the nation's wealth and riches that rightly belong to you in the 1%, right?

    You're true self is showing again.

    But then the 1% are babies as that is the way the redistributed more and more of the nation's income and wealth from the middle classes to themselves.
     
  14. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    SO you and the 99% want a free ride...welcome to America...the land of the lazy and entitled...
     
  15. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The reason you will never get what you want is because it goes against the grain of all the efforts achieved by Americans in our history...people want more then THEY achieve more...begging and/or stealing from others is what children do...
     
  16. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My posts have been quite clear in -not- blaming any one administration, President or Congress for the mortgage collapse regardless of your transparent attempts to cherry-pick them. This couldn't be more clear and repeated in my posts. You posted the original, incorrect partisan apology for the Clinton Admin's role as merely some conservative maneuver. It's very plain that you are about limiting the mortgage collapse falsely to the Bush Administration.

    A complete nonissue in the collapse. The development of securitizations themselves was simply a private market response to certain inflexibilities in government mortgage pools. The above is equivalent to blaming the design of a stock certificate for a companies poor stock market performance.

    Agreed, previously dealt with. Most fault here is squarely on Clinton, Congress and the Fed. Regulating via the CFTC could have been accomplished by legitimate executive action in the Clinton and Bush administrations, but Clinton moreso.

    Yes, except you curiously don't mention CRA, the primary factor in these shoddy loan practices. CRA enforcement created a lax credit approval environment that extended to standard loans and also out from the commercial banking industry to the mortgage industry at large. LOL @ shoddy mortgage broker practices, someone still had to orginate the loan and those were banks/entities under the freewheeling antitrust environment. Of course the leftosphere wants to shift as much to those bad "mortgage brokers" because those don't reflect as much on the Clinton Admin boondoggles with respect to the regulated banking industry as the plain truth... banks. "Gosh darn it, why weren't those -mortgage brokers- better regulated?"

    Cite.

    The above, and wherever you cut pasted it from, highlights perfectly the left's misunderstanding of how capital gains taxation works, and their overestimation of a modest reduction of cap gains tax as "huge tax benefits" that encourage wanton speculation. Bush should have corrected factors previously posted, but the Bush cap gains tax had less than nothing to do with the mortgage collapse.

    Most of the greed was politicians' greed for graft from large banks and reelection due to improper stimulus, but note how the left's stock position on this issue cites to some faceless greed somewhere. A blurb about "Wall Steet," "the Kochs," or "corporatism" will usually follow whatever blog this stuff comes from.

    The only thing that chart proves is a blowoff top from 2000, not that the origins of a bubble began in 2000. Moreover, in light of the anomalous inflation rates of the 70s- early 80s, the inflation adjusted line on the chart is mostly useless during those years, the nominal line tells the more useful story. Here is a more useful, accurate graph, not as convenient of course to partisan leftists seeking to blame GWB for all the world's ills, and clearly demonstrating that the "bubble" began long before the Bush admin:

    http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.com/2011/06/us-housing-prices-since-1900.html

    I typed it actually, but since you stick on this, will revise my prior statement to "the mortgage credit collapse had little to do with the change in housing prices between 2000 and 2008."
     
  17. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It absolutely is.
    .

    The nation's gross income is about $14 trillion.
    http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N Table 2.1
    The nation's wealth is the collective wealth owned by the people of the nation.

    There is, and the top1% have about 40% of it, double from 30 years ago, thanks in large part to "trickle down" economic policies that were designed to make the richest richer.

    LOL, you're one to talk. Tell us again about how "Clinton" repealed Glass-Seagall.

    Of course partisan conservatives always excuse spending when it is their guy in office. And contrary to his implication, it wasn't the Democratic military buildup or the Democrat's star wars that (along with tax cuts) busted the budgets in the 1980s and quadrupled the debt in 12 years. While the Democrats had nominal control of Congress, in fact, thanks to a gaggle of conservative "boll weevil" Democrats, the Republicans had de facto control and were able to pass the big spending increases and tax cuts Reagan wanted, and which blew up the deficits.

    Partisan arguments that ignore such contextual factors, whether directed against Obama, Reagan or Bush are puerile and inaccurate.

    For example, in my prior post on the housing bubble and collapse, I pointed out how there was no bubble under Clinton, and that George "Mr. Ownership Society" Bush and the "Business can regulate itself" Republicans were in complete control of the government during the entire time the housing bubble blew up to its absurd levels and started to implode, and also how lack of regulation of several key aspects of business (which can regulate itself, conservatives told us) was the primary cause of the bubble and aftermath. But the partisan will of course scape goat red herrings (the hated CRA which prevents discrimination) and Democrats (Clinton) rather than acknowledge the true factors -- to the point where Sanskrit even admitted he simply ignores evidence directly contradicting his position.

    They certainly show that during the Reagan and Bush recoveries, in addition to tax cuts, government spent hog wild and added hundreds of thousands of government jobs, while under Obama, the Republican Tea Party has forced austerity, and government has eliminated hundreds of thousands of government jobs.

    But conservative partisans like our friend will simply ignore such evidence.
     
  18. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No.

    .....
     
  19. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A strong middle class is absolutely in the grain of what Americans have achieved. Only the 1% apologists want to go to the days when more and more of the American pie goes to them.

    Because for heaven's sake, the 1% getting 20% of the nation's income and having 40% of the nation's wealth just isn't enough for you, is it?

    Richest 1% earn biggest share since Roaring '20s

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101025377
     
  20. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LMAO!



    Just a model of non-partisanship.

    Tell us again how "Clinton" passed the Glass-Segall repeal.

    And then you can turn around and tell us how Reagan wasn't responsible for spending on his military buildup and star wars because the Dems had nominal control of Congress.
     
  21. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obama just submitted a $3.9 trillion budget, which comes to about $12,381 per year for every man, woman and child in the USA. A family of four are responsible for $49,524 per year in federal income taxes.

    How many of your 99% are paying their fair share?
     
  22. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you and others wish to join the 1%...you know what to do...starting with education, no crime, no drugs, good health, mobility, focus, and hard work...
     
  23. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. It's Glass STEAGALL, why do you keep repeating this error, three times now I think? Is there some leftist meme I don't know about associated with misspelling that?
    2. I welcome anyone to read my posts to this thread, particularly the one you quoted above and the next ones, in context, and note my frequent attribution to many sources of blame. The reason I repeated Clinton in the quoted post was in direct response to your inaccurate claim that laying partial blame on the Clinton Admin was merely a conservative political tactic. It most certainly is not. I lived and worked as a bank executive in one of the bigbanks during the Clinton Admin, and saw it all firsthand.
    3. What this is really about is that you simply can't stand that the whole thing can't be reasonably blamed on GWB. Sowwy, GWB didn't ruin the economy singlehandedly, government generally, of all stripes did, including the Clinton Admin as a -major- contributor to the eventual outcome.
    4. Oh and sorry to "burst your bubble" with my more accurate longterm chart. Maybe you can find some other way to childishly attempt to blame a whole complex fiasco on one President now that your favorite graph is gone gone away. Go on a googling spree, surely there is a better lefty blog out there to cut paste here, you just have to dig it up! I can't wait.
     
  24. JesradTheAngel

    JesradTheAngel Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The nature of capitalism is simple. Those with the most capital have the means to produce the most capital. It is in this regard that the rise of the 1% makes sense economically. However, legally, many countries make up for this polarity in capital-accruing ability by instituting welfare systems, increasing minimum wage, or creating subsidies and programs which elevate the lower classes in their progress. However, in a country such as the US, a feigned democracy which we all know is, in reality, controlled by the wealthiest men and women in the world, this legal infrastructure is being shaped in the interests of not only the 1%, but even smaller portions of the population. There is no excuse for this and, as we all know, those in the 99% are the laborers, those enacting the productive labor necessary for the maintenance of the society, and they deserve a legal infrastructure which is in nature more benevolent and forgiving to them.
     
  25. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Readers can decide for themselves who the partisans are and who they are not in this thread.
     

Share This Page