How are you reaching this conclusion?
As America Changes, Some Anxious Whites Feel Left Behind
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
How are you reaching this conclusion?
I didn't say that. I said Oxley's bill had "broad consensus" which means it would have passed with both Democrats and Republicans. But Bush killed that when he withdrew his support for the bill. Then less than a year later, he forced GSE's to purchase risky loans again.
So not Oxley's fault, Bush's fault.
Even Bush the Dumber admits that it was his deregulation that caused the mortgage crisis:
“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...s update.pdf
That's from Bush's Treasury Department in 2008, BTW.
1. Bush the Dumber tied his tax cuts to the housing bubble while campaigning in 2004:
From Fox News, March 26, 2004:
Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.
So even Fox News gave credit to Bush's campaign rhetoric that the tax cuts fueled a "strong housing market" in 2004, the same year the subprime bubble began.
2. We know tax cuts cause revenue drops because that's what happened from 2001-4; the Bush Tax Cuts lowered revenue below 2000 levels for four straight years after the tax cut:
Revenue (in billions)
2000: $2,025.2
2001: $1,991.1
2002: $1,853.1
2003: $1,782.3
2004: $1,880.1
I've posted nothing but facts. You keep insisting on things that are clearly not true. You do that because your ego is like a glass menagerie, and admitting you were conned would just be too damaging for your mind to recover.
Not only did Bush admit that his tax cut fueled the growth of housing in 2004, but the 1997 Capital Gains Tax Cut was responsible 100% for the dotcom bubble that would burst in 2000:
From Business Insider, December 15th, 2010:
Here's Why The Dot Com Bubble Began And Why It Popped
We infer from the findings in this study that the volatility left, after controlling for every known determinant, reflects the influence of the 1997 capital gains tax rate cut. Stock return volatility was substantially greater after 1997. Furthermore, firms most affected by the rate reduction showed the greatest change in volatility. Specifically, non-dividend paying firms had a greater increase in volatility than dividend-paying firms and firms with large unrealized capital losses experienced a greater increase in volatility than firms with small unrealized losses.
So that's not one, but two tax cuts over the last 20 years that both caused bubbles to appear.
Tax cuts = shit
You just love to lie don't you snowflake. The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 was signed into law by President George W. Bush on July 30, 2002.
Moron.
Here's what really happened:
IV. CONCLUSION
This dissenting statement argues that [size=3the U.S. government’s housing policies were the major contributor to the financial crisis of 2008[/size]. These policies fostered the development of a massive housing bubble between 1997 and 2007 and the creation of 27 million subprime and Alt-A loans, many of which were ready to default as soon as the housing bubble began to deflate. The losses associated with these weak and high risk loans caused either the real or apparent weakness of the major financial institutions around the world that held these mortgages—or PMBS backed by these mortgages—as investments or as sources of liquidity. Deregulation, lack of regulation, predatory lending or the other factors that were cited in the report of the FCIC’s majority were not determinative factors.
The policy implications of this conclusion are significant. If the crisis could have been prevented simply by eliminating or changing the government policies and programs that were primarily responsible for the financial crisis, then there was no need for the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, adopted by Congress in July 2010 and often cited as one of the important achievements of the Obama administration and the 111th Congress.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf
Twerp's response:
You can't find ONE credible economist that will support these inane conclusions.
Yep; in lying liberal dumbfuck world, letting people keep more of what they earn is bad.
STFU you moron.
OMFG!
You are so fucking stupid!
Sarbanes-Oxley wasn't what they were talking about in 2003, you goddamned fool. Sarbanes-Oxley is different from what was proposed in 2003, after Sarbanes-Oxley passed.
So that leaves us with quite a problem because it means either:
1. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about; and are confusing different bills.
or
2. You do know, and are actively trying to obfuscate what's being discussed.
Sarbanes-Oxley is a different bill from the one the GOP Congress was marking up in October 2003.
Which came first? 2002 or 2003?
Here's what really happened:
IV. CONCLUSION
This dissenting statement argues that [size=3the U.S. government’s housing policies were the major contributor to the financial crisis of 2008[/size]. These policies fostered the development of a massive housing bubble between 1997 and 2007 and the creation of 27 million subprime and Alt-A loans, many of which were ready to default as soon as the housing bubble began to deflate. The losses associated with these weak and high risk loans caused either the real or apparent weakness of the major financial institutions around the world that held these mortgages—or PMBS backed by these mortgages—as investments or as sources of liquidity. Deregulation, lack of regulation, predatory lending or the other factors that were cited in the report of the FCIC’s majority were not determinative factors.
The policy implications of this conclusion are significant. If the crisis could have been prevented simply by eliminating or changing the government policies and programs that were primarily responsible for the financial crisis, then there was no need for the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, adopted by Congress in July 2010 and often cited as one of the important achievements of the Obama administration and the 111th Congress.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf
Twerp's response:
Government policy: AKA YOU ALL DRAMATICALLY WEAKENING ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBPRIME LOANS.
You do this thing where you try to conflate different topics together in an attempt to avoid the debate.
Nothing selective about it. You said "revenue always increases" after a tax cut. That's demonstrably untrue because revenue was below 2000 levels for 2001-4 after the tax cuts were passed and enacted.
Because 2005 was the mortgage bubble. So if you want to talk about why revenue for 2005 was finally above revenue for 2000, you have to acknowledge that it was driven by the mortgage bubble. Which also means that if you want to credit the tax cuts for that growth, it means your tax cuts were responsible for the housing bubble. So either way you go here, you're fucked. You've backed yourself into a rhetorical corner:
1. You say tax cuts increase revenue
2. You point to 2005, 4 years after the tax cut passed, as an example of revenue growth
3. 2005 was the midst of the housing bubble, which Bush credited to his tax cuts, but which you're crediting to Democrats.
4. So then that means all revenue growth is attributed to Democrats, which means your shitty tax cuts didn't cause revenue to surpass 2000 levels by 2005.
5. Which means you've backed yourself into a corner here with your own rhetoric; if you blame Democrats for the housing bubble, then you must credit them with the growth of revenue that came from that bubble. But you're not doing that. You're trying to credit the revenue growth by 2005 for the tax cuts, but all that means is that you're crediting the housing bubble to the tax cuts, which means the tax cuts are responsible for the bubble.
You can't have it both ways.
That's fucking golden, because the link I provided was directly to three economists, specifically Zhonglan Dai, Douglas A. Shackelford, and Harold H. Zhang. Two UT econ professors and one UNC econ professor.
Their paper is here, though I doubt you'll take the time to read it because you're sloppy and rushed.
Also, what's your counter-argument? That the Capital Gains Tax Cut didn't fuel the dotcom growth? Then why is it that's exactly what happened?
This is why I hate arguing with dishonest ignorant leftist dumbasses. You're the one who brought it up shit-for-brains.
It is pure laughable baloney to suggest that capital gains tax change fueled the frenzy of the dot com bubble. But apparently, you have an affinity for baloney.
The following is a great and simple explanation without all the laughable gobbledygook gook of those quasi economists thinking that tax laws fueled a tech bubble.
The dotcom bubble grew out of a combination of the presence of speculative or fad-based investing, the abundance of venture capital funding for startups and the failure of dotcoms to turn a profit. Investors poured money into Internet startups during the 1990s in the hope that those companies would one day become profitable, and many investors and venture capitalists abandoned a cautious approach for fear of not being able to cash in on the growing use of the Internet.
The bubble that formed over the next five years was fed by cheap money, easy capital, market overconfidence and pure speculation. Venture capitalists anxious to find the next big score freely invested in any company with a “.com” after its name. Valuations were based on earnings and profits that would not occur for several years if the business model actually worked, and investors were all too willing to overlook traditional fundamentals. Companies that had yet to generate revenue, profits and, in some cases, a finished product, went to market with initial public offerings that saw their stock prices triple and quadruple in one day, creating a feeding frenzy for investors.
The NASDAQ index peaked on March 10, 2000, at 5048, nearly double over the prior year. Right at the market’s peak, several of the leading high-tech companies, such as Dell and Cisco placed huge sell orders on their stocks, sparking panic selling among investors. Within a few weeks, the stock market lost 10% of its value. As investment capital began to dry up, so did the life blood of cash-strapped dotcom companies. Dotcom companies that had reached market capitalization in the hundreds of millions of dollars became worthless within a matter of months. By the end of 2001, a majority of publicly traded dotcom companies folded, and trillions of dollars of investment capital evaporated.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dotcom-bubble.asp
But I do have to laugh at the notion that investors looked at the Capital Gains laws and said, "HEY let's buy some tech startups now!" That's some funny, and stupid, shit.
More:
Factors That Led to the Dot-Com Bubble Burst
There were two primary factors that led to the burst of the Internet bubble:
The Use of Metrics That Ignored Cash Flow. Many analysts focused on aspects of individual businesses that had nothing to do with how they generated revenue or their cash flow. For example, one theory is that the Internet bubble burst due to a preoccupation with the “network theory,” which stated the value of a network increased exponentially as the series of nodes (computers hosting the network) increased. Although this concept made sense, it neglected one of the most important aspects of valuing the network: the ability of the company to use the network to generate cash and produce profits for investors.
Significantly Overvalued Stocks. In addition to focusing on unnecessary metrics, analysts used very high multipliers in their models and formulas for valuing Internet companies, which resulted in unrealistic and overly optimistic values. Although more conservative analysts disagreed, their recommendations were virtually drowned out by the overwhelming hype in the financial community around Internet stocks.
https://www.moneycrashers.com/dot-com-bubble-burst/
The same thing can be said about the mortgage securities boom and bust. It had NOTHING to do with tax policy, but rather, the idiotic notion that handing out loans should be based on quotas and not the ability to pay loans back, and the capitalist greed of thinking that one can package loans and stuff a bunch of crap in the middle and sell them to investors desperate to make a bunch of money fast and easy.
This video is outstanding in explaining the REAL cause....remember dumbass, it wasn't JUST America....but I doubt you will watch it and instead find some quack economists to give a reason it was Bush.
Last edited:
You fucking idiot.
Sarbanes-Oxley is a corporate accounting bill. Oxley had another bill, the GSE reform, which was a completely different bill, but which you're trying to conflate with a different bill.
It will shock you to know that Representatives sponsor multiple, different bills.
So what we now have is you frantically googling and then posting the first google result that confirms your shitty bias.
Of course the Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997 fueled the dotcom bubble.
Zhang & Co. pointed this out very clearly for you, but you obviously didn't read it.
Nothing you posted refutes that claim. That's because you don't understand what words mean. If you read what I posted, you'd see that the Capital Gains Tax Cut caused a rapid expansion of the Dotcom Bubble. You're pretending that the growth of the dotcom bubble was consistent throughout the 90's. but you have no stats to back that up. Instead, what we see is that immediately following the Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997, volatility skyrocketed which inflated the bubble:
We infer from the findings in this study that the volatility left, after controlling for every known determinant, reflects the influence of the 1997 capital gains tax rate cut. Stock return volatility was substantially greater after 1997. Furthermore, firms most affected by the rate reduction showed the greatest change in volatility. Specifically, non-dividend paying firms had a greater increase in volatility than dividend-paying firms and firms with large unrealized capital losses experienced a greater increase in volatility than firms with small unrealized losses.
Do you know what any of that means?
They further go on to say that:
The reason we find that conclusion to be significant is because the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 left dividend tax rates unchanged - they continued to be taxed at the same rates as regular income in the United States, which provided a powerful incentive for investors to treat the two kinds of stocks very differently, favoring the low-to-no dividend paying stocks over those that paid out more significant dividends.
That's what fueled the bubble, as they say:
To provide more compelling evidence that the 1997 tax cut affected volatility (and mitigate concerns about omitted correlated variables), we focus on cross-sectional tests which are designed to detect the differential responses in return volatility of stocks with different characteristics. We hypothesize that the effect of a capital gains tax change on stock return volatility should vary depending upon dividend policy and the size of the unrealized capital losses (or gains). Consistent with expectations, we find that non- and lower dividend-paying stocks experienced a larger increase in return volatility than high dividend-paying stocks. We also find that stocks with large unrealized capital losses had a larger increase in return volatility after a capital gains tax rate reduction than stocks with small unrealized capital losses. However, we do not find a similar relation with unrealized capital gains.
Last edited:
One other thing I notice you do is that you change my name in the reply box so it doesn't notify me when you respond to one of my posts. You do that because you want to get the last word in, even if that last word is completely wrong. So you change my name so I don't get a notification you responded to me, so your points can go unchallenged. You do that because you're insecure and deficient. And you know it.