beigebook report

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Real_Wages_1964-2004.gif
It wasnt good for wages.

gee do you know were most US consumer spending comes from?

LOL... you want to know what isn't good for wages desh? That massive increase in inflation. Also, I stated from 1982-2000. That was the bull market Desh. Yet you went back to the bear market of 1966-1982 and tossed that in. You know, that time of failed policies of Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter.

Do you know how to stick to the topic Desh?
 
How many times did reagan raise taxes during this time you claim was an example of tax cuts and deregulation anyway?

Marginal tax rates, which is what you were referring to, were lowered under Reagan. He also closed loopholes and deductions so that it would simplify the tax code.

The economy boomed from 1982-2000. Do you deny this Desh?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Federal_income_tax_and_payroll_tax_levels


income tax and payroll tax levels

During the Reagan administration, federal receipts grew from $618 billion to $991 billion (an increase of 60%); while outlays grew from $ 746 billion to $1144 billion (an increase of 53%).[39][40] According to a 1996 report of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress, during Reagan's two terms, and through 1993, the top 10% of taxpayers paid an increased share of income taxes (not including payroll taxes) to the Federal government, while the lowest 50% of taxpayers paid a reduced share of income tax revenue.[41] Personal income tax revenues declined from 9.4% GDP in 1981 to 8.3% GDP in 1989, while payroll tax revenues increased from 6.0% GDP to 6.7% GDP during the same period.[4] This represented a more regressive tax regime, with more revenue derived from the flat payroll tax versus the progressive income tax
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Federal_income_tax_and_payroll_tax_levels


income tax and payroll tax levels

During the Reagan administration, federal receipts grew from $618 billion to $991 billion (an increase of 60%); while outlays grew from $ 746 billion to $1144 billion (an increase of 53%).[39][40] According to a 1996 report of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress, during Reagan's two terms, and through 1993, the top 10% of taxpayers paid an increased share of income taxes (not including payroll taxes) to the Federal government, while the lowest 50% of taxpayers paid a reduced share of income tax revenue.[41] Personal income tax revenues declined from 9.4% GDP in 1981 to 8.3% GDP in 1989, while payroll tax revenues increased from 6.0% GDP to 6.7% GDP during the same period.[4] This represented a more regressive tax regime, with more revenue derived from the flat payroll tax versus the progressive income tax

ROFLMAO... thanks for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt you don't know what you are talking about. You are now just posting random links without a clue as to what they mean.

You actually have to discuss them Desh... tell us what you think they mean.
 
http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/01/reagan-raised-taxes-debt-ceiling.html



He advocated reduced business regulations, controlling inflation, reducing growth in government spending, and spurring economic growth through tax cuts. He believed that such tax policies would create a "trickle-down" effect to the poor, but the policies failed to work. Investments declined and savings plummeted.

Unlike the GOP idiots today, Reagan had the good sense to course correct. His tax-cutting policies were so devastating to the economy that Reagan signed a massive tax increase the following year and several increases in the years that followed. In fact, he raised taxes 11 times!
 
reagans time in office is NOT what the idiots who claim tax cuts and deregulation are magic mothers milk to an economy is.


Your ideas have NEVER worked in practice and even your god of gods couldnt produce
 
http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/01/reagan-raised-taxes-debt-ceiling.html

He advocated reduced business regulations, controlling inflation, reducing growth in government spending, and spurring economic growth through tax cuts. He believed that such tax policies would create a "trickle-down" effect to the poor, but the policies failed to work. Investments declined and savings plummeted.

Income levels all rose even after adjusted for inflation. Show us how investments declined from 1982-2000 desh. Where is the data that suggests that?

Again, you are simply cutting and pasting, you are not discussing the issue. You also have no clue as to what you are cutting and pasting. You are just randomly grabbing things that you think may make Reagan look bad. You also have no regard for whether or not the links you are pasting to are accurate or not. You just want things that appear to back up your stupidity.

Unlike the GOP idiots today, Reagan had the good sense to course correct. His tax-cutting policies were so devastating to the economy that Reagan signed a massive tax increase the following year and several increases in the years that followed. In fact, he raised taxes 11 times!

ROFLMAO .... tell us Desh, what did he raise taxes on? Do you know? Or are you yet again posting things without knowing what they mean?
 
It was NOT a time if deregulation and tax cuts as you first claimed super duper.


just keep fucking lying.

its all you have EVER done
 
The only thing worse than your spelling is your knowledge of economics. You continue to spout nonsense, yet think you are 'kicking ass'. It is truly comical.

The very fact that the loose standards in the mortgage industry are due to DEMOCRATIC policies escapes you. It was Democrats who wanted more of the sub prime debt issued in poorer neighborhoods. It was a Democrat who deregulated the financial sector. The tax cuts had nothing to do with the housing meltdown. Barney Frank, the champion of Fannie and Freddie, didn't listen when told there were escalating problems with F&F.

This is just wrong, SF, on a host of levels. First, the overwhelming majority of subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA and subprime lending was not done to a large degree by CRA-regulated entities. Second, financial sector deregulation was bipartisan, but it was championed by Republicans. You are aware that Phill Gramm, Jim Leach and Tom Bliley are Republicans, aren't you?

Third, the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were largely not associated with subprime mortgage lending and, to the extent they were engaged in arguably subprime lending, their delinquincy rates were dramatically lower than other subprime originators. The problems with the GSEs were brought about because of their low capital requirements not because of the nature of the loans they were making, which largely were not subprime, and their purchases of AAA-rated bullshit. The main role that the GSEs played in the financial collapse was in purchasing AAA-rated bullshit, not by engaging in subprime lending.

Finally, Barney Frank didn't get in the way of any regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. He voted against a particular bill that regulated them, but that bill passed the House anyway. It then proceeded to the Republican-controlled Senate and didn't make it out of committee. That's not the fault of Barney Frank or the Democrats.

In fact, upon the Democrats gaining the majority in 2007, Barney Frank sponsored a very similar bill with the Republican author of the bill that stalled in the Senate. That bill also passed the House only to die in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Barney Frank had nothing to do with it.

When in power in Congress in 2007, the Democrats did nothing to solve the problem. When they took over the White House in 2009 and had complete control of Congress, they did not resolve the issues that led to the meltdown.

By 2007 there wasn't much that could be done. The housing sector was already crashing. The seeds for the financial collapse had been planted long before the Democrats gained control of Congress. The recession began 11 months after they took office.


Your Democrats have failed you Desh, yet you continue to pretend it is 'the right' whose policies have failed.

Those things aren't mutually exclusive, SF.
 
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/reagans-tax-increases/

this has a list





Tax Increases


Billions of Dollars




Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982


+57.3




Highway Revenue Act of 1982


+4.9




Social Security Amendments of 1983


+24.6




Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983


+1.2




Deficit Reduction Act of 1984


+25.4




Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985


+2.9




Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985


+2.4




Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986


+0.6




Continuing Resolution for 1987


+2.8




Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987


+8.6




Continuing Resolution for 1988


+2.0




Total cumulative tax increases


+132.7
 
It was NOT a time if deregulation and tax cuts as you first claimed super duper.
just keep fucking lying.

its all you have EVER done

Yes it was Desh... Tell us... what were Reagans 11 tax increases on? Do you know? Surely you do, because you being an economic guru and all just posted that he raised them 11 times. Tell us Desh... WHAT did he raise them on?

Also... there were 14 tax brackets when Reagan took office. The top rate was at 70%. He knocked it down to two brackets with a top rate of 28%. Are you actually going to pretend that is not a massive tax cut? He also set up the brackets to adjust for inflation, something that had not been done prior.

you continue saying that I am lying, yet you can't refute anything I say. Nor can you back up any of your bogus claims with actual discussion. Why is that Desh? You said that you 'kick ass' when it comes to economics. Surely you have something to say?
 
so super duper go get me a real case of your tax cuts and deregulation working in an historical example.

You failed on this one being what you claimed it was
 
Give us just one example in history where your ideas of tax cuts and deregualtion have given ANYONE in history the economy you people just keep claiming it will?


The evidence does not exsist.

You people are either LIARS or the dupes of LIARS.


so which one are you?



which one are you super duper?
 
This is just wrong, SF, on a host of levels. First, the overwhelming majority of subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA and subprime lending was not done to a large degree by CRA-regulated entities. Second, financial sector deregulation was bipartisan, but it was championed by Republicans. You are aware that Phill Gramm, Jim Leach and Tom Bliley are Republicans, aren't you?

1) Fannie and Freddie massively expanded their holdings of subprime debt. Your continued proclamation that they were not the direct lenders hides the fact that they created the appetite for the products.

2) According to Desh, the only thing that matters is who was President. The make up of Congress does not matter. Also, the vote was 90-2 in the Senate and equally lopsided in the House. I know it was bipartisan... you should try explaining that to Desh. She continues to claim it was 'the right's policies that failed'.

Care to call her out on that bullshit? Didn't think so.

Third, the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were largely not associated with subprime mortgage lending and, to the extent they were engaged in arguably subprime lending, their delinquincy rates were dramatically lower than other subprime originators. The problems with the GSEs were brought about because of their low capital requirements not because of the nature of the loans they were making, which largely were not subprime, and their purchases of AAA-rated bullshit. The main role that the GSEs played in the financial collapse was in purchasing AAA-rated bullshit, not by engaging in subprime lending.

Again... saying they are not engaging in subprime lending is dishonest at best. When you continue buying up subprime debt from other lenders, you are creating a market for that debt. It means the other lenders can loan money and not have to keep it on their books.

Also, are you suggesting that the people at Fannie and Freddie didn't know what they were buying?

Finally, Barney Frank didn't get in the way of any regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. He voted against a particular bill that regulated them, but that bill passed the House anyway. It then proceeded to the Republican-controlled Senate and didn't make it out of committee. That's not the fault of Barney Frank or the Democrats.

The point was to Desh... she continues to claim that it is the 'right' that failed. Pointing out that Frank was lobbying hard AGAINST regulation was the point. Funny how you don't call out Desh for her bullshit claims. I wonder why?

In fact, upon the Democrats gaining the majority in 2007, Barney Frank sponsored a very similar bill with the Republican author of the bill that stalled in the Senate. That bill also passed the House only to die in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Barney Frank had nothing to do with it.

So there you go Desh... further proof that Democrats blocked legislation.

By 2007 there wasn't much that could be done. The housing sector was already crashing. The seeds for the financial collapse had been planted long before the Democrats gained control of Congress. The recession began 11 months after they took office.

LMAO... there was a lot they could have done Dung. But they, like the Reps, didn't recognize how big the problem was. Again Dung, my point was to refute Desh's stupid claims that it was the 'right' who failed.
 
so super duper go get me a real case of your tax cuts and deregulation working in an historical example.

You failed on this one being what you claimed it was

Roflmao... poor Desh... you have been completely trashed on this thread and you aren't even intelligent enough to know it.

You still have yet to tell us what the 11 tax increases were... why is that Desh?

Were you too afraid to let us know that one of them was a temporary tax increase on gasoline that helped pay for DoT projects?

Were you too afraid to let us know another of the 11 was a cigarette tax?

Were you too afraid to let us know the payroll tax was to make sure Social Security was there for Seniors?

Are you too afraid to acknowledge that tax rates were cut from 70% down to 28%?

Are you too ignorant to understand we had a booming bull market from 1982-2000 as I stated?
 
I'm reading an excellent new book called "The Fateful History of Fannie Mae: New Deal Birth to Mortgage Crisis Fall". Nothing partisan about the book. It just details how Fannie was formed and then it's growth over the years to the point where it had the strongest lobbying force on Capital Hill.

I'm at the point now where both Clinton and George W. really pushed home ownership, especially among minorities.

The book is only 200 pages so not a real long read but for those so inclined I would highly recommend it.
 
Back
Top