Traitors.

[Into the Night]

There is no compromising with Conservatism. It is an anti-democratic cult. Its members have no loyalty to the country, just to their race.

⚖️JUST IN: New amicus brief from 106 Republican House members in support of Texas' bid to overturn President-elect Joe Biden's win in the Supreme Court. Here they are👇 pic.twitter.com/QLN4jDfoto

— John Kruzel (@johnkruzel) December 10, 2020

The United States is not a democracy and never was.

 

[Into the Night]

The problematic credit default swaps were a symptom of what Bush had already done to the lending standards. And there wouldn't have even been those problematic CDS' had Bush and his regulators not lowered lending standards for subprime loans.

He didn't. Clinton did.

Now, WHY did Bush lower those standards for subprime loans? Well, I'll tell ya. The reason Bush lowered those standards was to juice the housing market to grow the economy because his stupid tax cut didn't.

He didn't. Clinton did.

That's why Bush took an axe to state protections against predatory lending in 2003.

He didn't. States did.

That's why he reversed Clinton's HUD rule that prohibited GSEs from buying risky loans in 2003.

He didn't. Clinton's rule allowed risky loans.

That's why he lowered the Net Capital rule for Wall Street in 2004; so they could over-leverage themselves buying up those shitty subprimes.

There is no Net Capital Rule on Wall St.

There was no trap that was set. Bush took very obscure and explicit steps to create a housing bubble where one didn't previously exist and he did it for the sole reason of making his shitty tax cuts look good.

There is no need to make tax cuts look good. It is always beneficial to collect less in taxes.

And yeah, I read and watched The Big Short...I don't think you took the right lessons away from that film.

Obviously you didn't. You must've missed the film.

 

[Into the Night]

Right, at the expense of everyone else. So, how does cutting Apple's taxes change anything here?

Increases their profit, allowing them to pay more for workers or hire more workers.

Which ain't that great and qualifies you for several income-based assistance programs. Also, they're not working full time. They are part-time workers.

Price controls don't work. That includes minimum wage laws.

Which qualifies you for the following assistance programs:

ACA subsidies or Medicaid
SNAP
Heating assistance
Child Care Subsidies
EITC
Federal Child Care Deduction
Housing Subsidies
TEFAP
WIC
Pell Grants

So I mean, $15/hr ain't the answer. Neither is $20/hr.

Price controls don't work. All they do is cause shortages. In this case, shortages of jobs.

Most companies aren't going to raise wages just because, so since they're not doing that (and haven't the last 40 years), they should pay more in taxes so we all pay less for education and health care.

You still have no understanding of price discovery and free markets.

Seems like a fair bargain to me, given the alternatives are pitchforks, torches, and guillotines....

Nope. The alternative is to go out and gain sufficient skills to make yourself worth something to somebody.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

correlation without causation..........

Only if you ignore all the evidence that exists -
Slavery
Jim Crow
Red lining
Racism
KKK
Chinese Exclusion Act
Racial Restrictive Covenants
Segregation
Plessy v Ferguson ruling

The preponderance of evidence points to a history of whites denying minorities the same ownership and wealth opportunities that whites had.
Wealth is usually built up over generations so white privilege has clearly given whites wealth privilege.

 

[Jarod]

There is no compromising with Conservatism. It is an anti-democratic cult. Its members have no loyalty to the country, just to their race.

⚖️JUST IN: New amicus brief from 106 Republican House members in support of Texas' bid to overturn President-elect Joe Biden's win in the Supreme Court. Here they are👇 pic.twitter.com/QLN4jDfoto

— John Kruzel (@johnkruzel) December 10, 2020

Its not Conservatism that is the anti-Democratic cult, it is what the formerly Conservative Party has become. While I disagree with much of it, Conservatism is composed of legitimate and democratic ideals.

 

[anatta]

Only if you ignore all the evidence that exists -
Slavery
Jim Crow
Red lining
Racism
KKK
Chinese Exclusion Act
Racial Restrictive Covenants
Segregation
Plessy v Ferguson ruling

The preponderance of evidence points to a history of whites denying minorities the same ownership and wealth opportunities that whites had.
Wealth is usually built up over generations so white privilege has clearly given whites wealth privilege.

why is this list ALL pre-Civil Right legislation of 1964? (except illegal red lining)

You want to ignore all history afer that in favor of digging up ghosts of the past, because you have an agenda that white priv. keeps da black man down..such racialism...such typical Democratic scab picking

 

[Diesel]

have you ever voted republican?

Yes.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Its not Conservatism that is the anti-Democratic cult, it is what the formerly Conservative Party has become. While I disagree with much of it, Conservatism is composed of legitimate and democratic ideals.

Agreed here. OTOH, just because they signed the amicus brief doesn't mean they are seeking to keep Trump as President. Pushing this to SCOTUS as soon as possible was the fastest way to end the nonsense. All of this bullshit was leaving a very bad shitstain on the Republican party....as if it wasn't shitstained enough over the past 2-3 years. The sooner it ended, the sooner the staining stopped.

It should have been clear to any intelligent, educated adult that Paxton's efforts were doomed to failure. Did he do it to look good prior to his conviction and sentencing on felony securities fraud charges. If Abbot was smart, he'd ask for Paxton's resignation and pack Kenny off to trial.


Now it appears Paxton's efforts may have blown up in his face like a Wile E Coyote cartoon:

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/pol...axton-colleagues-who-sued-to-undo-bidens-win/

A national lawyers group on Monday called for professional licensing bodies to investigate what it called a “breach of ethical rules” by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and 17 of his counterparts in red states who sued in the Supreme Court last week in a vain attempt to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s win in four states in the Nov. 3 presidential election.

Lawyers Defending American Democracy, a nonpartisan group that says it has the support of 5,000 lawyers across the country, said in a statement that Paxton and his fellow Republican state attorneys general filed an “abusive lawsuit” that pushed groundless theories that erode confidence in vital institutions.

“The historically unprecedented attack on our democracy needs to be met by historically unprecedented state bar investigations,” said the group.

 

[LV426]

Hmmm.. Why would someone running for office try to take credit for something that had nothing to do with his actions? Next you'll be trying to tell me Trump oversaw the best economy ever because he claimed that while campaigning

Bush would not have inflated a housing bubble had his 2001 tax cut delivered on the promises made of it.

He started making those changes to housing beginning in late 2002, after about a year of the 2001 Tax Cut that didn't magically increase growth or employment or revenues like we were promised.

Why would he choose then (late 2002) to start deregulating housing?

 

[LV426]

Lack of oversight which allowed mortgage companies to make bad loans and bundle them as good loans to sell to other companies which then sold default swaps at rates that didn't reflect the actual nature of the loans really has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts.

YES THEY FUCKING DID because Bush's regulators eased the enforcement of lending standards for those very loans beginning in 2004.

So the CDS' are a byproduct of policy. The garbage subprimes came FIRST.

Had Bush NOT eased lending standards on subprime loans, the downstream CDS' wouldn't have been problematic.

You don't get toxic CDS' without first lowering lending standards to make risky loans.

Bush lowered those standards in 2004. The reason was because he wanted to juice a housing market to make the economy look better in time for his 2004 re-election.

Time is linear.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

YES THEY FUCKING DID because Bush's regulators eased the enforcement of lending standards for those very loans beginning in 2004.

So the CDS' are a byproduct of policy. The garbage subprimes came FIRST.

Had Bush NOT eased lending standards on subprime loans, the downstream CDS' wouldn't have been problematic.

You don't get toxic CDS' without first lowering lending standards to make risky loans.

Bush lowered those standards in 2004. The reason was because he wanted to juice a housing market to make the economy look better in time for his 2004 re-election.

Time is linear.

All of which has nothing to do with the tax cut.

 

[LV426]

I am curious how you think Bush juiced the housing market. Be specific and provide actual evidence. Just a reminder - the President doesn't set Federal Funds rates which is the basis for how banks set mortgage rates. The President also doesn't push people to take out adjustable mortgages while not warning them of the dangers if the rates go up.

If I provide you with this evidence, what do I get in return?

Do I get an admission from you that you've been full of shit this whole time?

Do I get an admission from you that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

Do I get an admission from you that trying to make this a bOtHsIdEs thing was a lazy act at best, or a malicious and sophist act act worst?

Because I can cite at least half a dozen instances of Bush juicing the housing market by taking specific actions like:

1. Wiping out state protections against predatory lending in 2003
2. Reversing Clinton's 2000 HUD rule that prevented GSE's from buying risky loans
3. Lowering the net capital rule on Wall Street banks so they could overleverage
4. Handing out 40,000 free downpayments to low income home buyers
5. Sabotaging GSE reform in 2003
6. Forcing GSE's to spend $440B in secondary markets

I can cite all those instances, but I won't until I get something from you so that I know I'm not just wasting my time on someone who acts in bad faith as a matter of principle.

So when I do cite this stuff (much of which I've already cited in this thread, you're just too lazy or too scared to read any of it), what do I get from you?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Conservatives aren't really a factor in the equation any more.

Conservatives were our political opponents.
They've been replaced by trumpanzees who are our ideological enemies.
There's a significant difference.

 

[LV426]

The President also doesn't push people to take out adjustable mortgages while not warning them of the dangers if the rates go up.

He sure does when he makes "Ownership Society" one of his administrative priorities, which he did: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.arch...ership/homeownership-policy-book-execsum.html

I mean, he made it very simple for you to understand...he even helped me out by listing the ways in which he would juice the housing market:

The President’s agenda will help tear down the barriers to homeownership that stand in the way of our nation’s African-American, Hispanic and other minority families by:

1. Providing Downpayment Assistance. The single biggest barrier to homeownership is accumulating funds for a downpayment. The President has proposed $200 million annually for the American Dream Downpayment Fund to help roughly 40,000 families a year with their downpayment and closing costs.

2. Increasing the Supply of Affordable Homes. The President wants to dramatically increase the supply of homes available to low and moderate income families. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which will provide approximately $2.4 billion to encourage the production of 200,000 affordable homes for sale to low and moderate income families.

3. Increasing Support for Self-Help Homeownership Programs. The President’s budget triples funding for organizations, such as Habitat for Humanity, that help families help themselves become homeowners through sweat equity and volunteerism in their communities.

4. Simplifying the Home Buying Process & Increasing Education. When buying a home today a buyer faces a confusing and complicated process. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.

So it's looking more and more like Bush deliberately inflated a housing bubble. Why would he do that? Because his 2001 tax cut never delivered on the promises made of it.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

If I provide you with this evidence, what do I get in return?

Do I get an admission from you that you've been full of shit this whole time?

Do I get an admission from you that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

Do I get an admission from you that trying to make this a bOtHsIdEs thing was a lazy act at best, or a malicious and sophist act act worst?

Because I can cite at least half a dozen instances of Bush juicing the housing market by taking specific actions like:

1. Wiping out state protections against predatory lending in 2003
2. Reversing Clinton's 2000 HUD rule that prevented GSE's from buying risky loans
3. Lowering the net capital rule on Wall Street banks so they could overleverage
4. Handing out 40,000 free downpayments to low income home buyers
5. Sabotaging GSE reform in 2003
6. Forcing GSE's to spend $440B in secondary markets

I can cite all those instances, but I won't until I get something from you so that I know I'm not just wasting my time on someone who acts in bad faith as a matter of principle.

So when I do cite this stuff (much of which I've already cited in this thread, you're just too lazy or too scared to read any of it), what do I get from you?

OK.. I am willing to read any official government document you can provide supporting your 6 points.
Then we can discuss if they actually support your claim of Bush juicing the housing market.

Undermining the regulations is still not the same thing as a tax cut which is where this all started before you switched horses after being thrown off one in the middle of the stream.

 

[LV426]

Its not Conservatism that is the anti-Democratic cult, it is what the formerly Conservative Party has become. While I disagree with much of it, Conservatism is composed of legitimate and democratic ideals.

You know, I used to think that...then I recalled that in 1955, William Buckley (the Godfather of Conservatism) said that Conservatism is "standing athwart history, yelling stop!"

Think about that in the context of 1955, when it was written.

What had JUST HAPPENED the year before? Brown v. Board of Education and the start of the Civil Rights Movement.

Buckley says that Conservatism was to yell "STOP" to that. STOP to desegregation. STOP to bussing. STOP to Civil Rights.

Conservatism has always been a racist and reactionary ideology. It hasn't changed in 65 years. You can draw a straight line from Buckley and the Birchers all the way through to the teabags and Trump. They're the same people, have always been the same people, and will always be the same people. Because they want to STOP any progress.

 

[LV426]

The tax cut may have passed in August of 1981 but didn't go into effect until the 1982 tax year. You can't claim it has an effect before it goes into effect. That is simple nonsense on your part. The 1981 tax rates were the same as 1980.

Aren't we always told that business looks forward and forecasts based on future assumptions?

The revenues as a percent of GDP went from 17.0% in 1983 to 16.9% in 1984 reflecting the cut in income tax rates.

Right, so cutting taxes, cuts revenue...just like we said. Revenue that the government needs to spend in the economy to meet its obligations. If it can't do that, it has to borrow. If it can't borrow, it has to cut spending. And cutting spending contracts the economy because you're not replacing that spending with any new spending.

So the answer is a clear, "NO!" We didn't raise taxes in 1983 as the most basic research would have revealed to you.

Le sigh...https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...e-mostly-forgotten-tax-increases-of-1982-1993

Not only were taxes raised in 1982, but in 1983 payroll taxes were raised.

The biggest, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, increased revenue mainly by tightening up rules on depreciation, leasing, contract accounting and investment tax credits. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 sped up planned increases in payroll tax rates, among other things. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 changed rules on interest exclusions, income averaging and such.

You know, there's a few things I can tolerate...bad music, bad movies, bad TV, bad books...but what I can't tolerate is unbridled ignorant arrogance. And I especially can't tolerate that shit on anonymous forums.

 

[LV426]

When you take the revenues as a percent of GDP and then compare that to GDP growth there is no correlation to higher revenues and higher GDP growth. Even if you take a 3 year average of growth after the year's revenues there is still no statistical correlation. This is what shows the lie in the claim that cutting taxes caused higher GDP growth.

Rev-as-%-of-GDP is meaningless.

Also, even a 1% change in rev-GDP means $200B today...which was about 1/3 of the deficit Obama left behind.

There is no magic number any government has to abide by when it comes to rev-GDP, and that metric is problematic because it's not based in anything, nor is it important to the discussion of taxation. It is an arbitrary goalpost, and utterly meaningless.

 

[LV426]

I am lazy? You have no concept of the actual numbers.

You're the guy who is trying to make rev-GDP meaningful when it has nothing to do with anything and is an arbitrary measurement that has no economic or fiscal connection to anything.

You have attempted to claim that the 1981 tax cut went into effect prior to the 1981 recession

I never said that. What I said was that tax cuts prompt recessions, which this one did! What came first, the tax cut or the recession? The tax cut. August 1981.

I also asked you to do the work and compare recessions pre-1980 with recessions post-1980 to give yourself and your argument the context it needs.

But you consistently refuse to do that work.

Why?

 

[LV426]

All of which has nothing to do with the tax cut.

It's all because the tax cut failed to deliver on its promises.

That's why Bush didn't start making changes to housing policy until late 2002.

Time is linear. Nothing happens for no reason. Every single thing that happens in our economy happens for a specific reason. During Bush the Dumber, the housing bubble came about because of the failure of the 2001 tax cut. Otherwise, why would Bush wait those years to make those changes to housing? Think critically.