|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 19, 2016 7:12:22 GMT -6
Socialism as the main stay of a govt does not work, and yes supply side has worked look no further back than the 90's and the boom of the Internet and all of the extra influx of cash made. The only reason we had a budget surplus was because of this boom, 10,000's of thousands of people in a job market that exploded in a short period of years and lots of money made. Business as a whole grew at very high rates and many new start up companies had major profits over night. That is supply side.
The technology was growing fast and demand for such was there in droves, now the technology has slowed and well over 80 percent market saturation.
To think getting more socialist is the thing to do in a global economy and in a time of high debt and a job market that is trying to make a comeback? Not going to work out well.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 19, 2016 8:00:13 GMT -6
yes, socialism caused the big recession and the housing market collapse
oh wait- that was unbridled capitalism
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 19, 2016 18:50:31 GMT -6
No the big housing crash and recession was caused by socilsiism and the NEED to have everyone fit the American Dream, even though many had less than ideal credit and all the home loans where backed by the federal govt and that govt allowed people to get into these back ward loans in the first place. Along with many over paying on inflated home prices and still getting loans ok'd.
Today over 80 percent of all home loans are still backed by our federal govt or where would the housing market be? Banks are not willing to take on the risk for many so the govt backs many home loans today, we all just hope they are being dealt with much better or the same could very well happen again soon.
Perpetual prosperity is what caused a lot of the housing market to crash, many thought housing could only go one way in pricing and many where over extended upon receiving loans, middle income people as well as upper income people . It hit all of them and there will little safe guards put in place because of those 2 words, perpetual prosperity, some thought we have achieved such, that will NEVER HAPPEN in a free economy or one ran by socialism either, but one adds to the debt and the other can be controlled by spending habits and looking to the future.
Like everything of real value prices will, go up and down in cycles to think otherwise is burying ones head in the sand.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 19, 2016 21:30:48 GMT -6
Now that is strange, banks won't take a risk without the government backing the loan, just shows how important the government is in fueling a capitalist economy. Banks setting on money at 2% would not create many jobs or homes. Also it is neat to see those weak minded lowly socialistic politicians reducing risk so that these almighty smart capitalistic money masters will even take a risk. Sure there are aspects of government that should be eliminated or reduced but without government today not many capitalist large companies would be investing at all. Sure they grumble about the high tax so we allow them to hide money offshore while they take more government contracts for food, fuel, weapons and transportation.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 20, 2016 6:44:27 GMT -6
the govt didn't tell the banks to make the loans, often times when the BANK KNEW the loans would be defaulted on, then bundling the loans up in a sort of Ponzi scheme to other banks and worse yet, unsuspecting investors.
I'll have to say TC- and I mean this seriously- I've never seen anyone able to ignore history, to make up history and facts- and to do it all seriously, since I debated a John Bircher in college.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 20, 2016 18:15:40 GMT -6
Bryce and Tman the govt is not reducing the risk as many might think, they are assuming the risk. To think doing any homes loans above 90 percent financed has minimal to no risk? Please. If default happens it is the American people that get to assume the debt and how do we pay for it, of another bubble happens?
Banks would not take on that kind of risk anymore and for good reasons, they want at least 20 percent down to do in house loans unless they are backed by tax payers money.
Tman does the federal govt not have oversight on home loans? The answer would be yes, so trying to blame this all on banks alone? No way and Freddie and Fannie being solvent was a misnomer as well.
Truth in lending laws to start with.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 20, 2016 18:19:09 GMT -6
YES Banks where at fault in many regards this I agree with you 1000 percent but we also have other issues that led to what we had :
For those that will take a minute and read facts.
All this overlooks a crucial fact: There has been no free market in housing or finance. Government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets–including its creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which have now amassed $5 trillion in liabilities)–leading to many of the problems being blamed on the free market today.
Consider the low lending standards that were a significant component of the mortgage crisis. Lenders made millions of loans to borrowers who, under normal market conditions, weren’t able to pay them off. These decisions have cost lenders, especially leading financial institutions, tens of billions of dollars.
It is popular to take low lending standards as proof that the free market has failed, that the system that is supposed to reward productive behavior and punish unproductive behavior has failed to do so. Yet this claim ignores that for years irrational lending standards have been forced on lenders by the federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and rewarded (at taxpayers’ expense) by multiple government bodies.
The CRA forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination?
According to one enforcement agency, “discrimination exists when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants.” Note that these “arbitrary or outdated criteria” include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history–the very factors lenders are now being criticized for ignoring.
The government has promoted bad loans not just through the stick of the CRA but through the carrot of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which purchase, securitize and guarantee loans made by lenders and whose debt is itself implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. This setup created an easy, artificial profit opportunity for lenders to wrap up bundles of subprime loans and sell them to a government-backed buyer whose primary mandate was to “promote homeownership,” not to apply sound lending standards.
Of course, lenders not only sold billions of dollars in suspect loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, contributing to their present debacle, they also retained some subprime loans themselves and sold others to Wall Street–leading to the huge banking losses we have been witnessing for months. Is this, then, a free market failure? Again, no.
In a free market, lending large amounts of money to low-income, low-credit borrowers with no down payment would quickly prove disastrous. But the Federal Reserve Board’s inflationary policy of artificially low interest rates made investing in subprime loans extraordinarily profitable. Subprime borrowers who would normally not be able to pay off their expensive houses could do so, thanks to payments that plummeted along with Fed rates. And the inflationary housing boom meant homeowners rarely defaulted; so long as housing prices went up, even the worst-credit borrowers could always sell or refinance.
Thus, Fed policy turned dubious investments into fabulous successes. Bankers who made the deals lured investors and were showered with bonuses. Concerns about the possibility of mass defaults and foreclosures were assuaged by an administration whose president declared: “We want everybody in America to own a home"
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 21, 2016 7:26:48 GMT -6
I've told you- I don't read your copy and paste stuff- so last 2 posts, I didn't read
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 21, 2016 7:45:13 GMT -6
Yes they are assuming some risk and that is a calculated risk to create private sector growth and move an economy forward so that more can participate, share and contribute. That may be socialism but in the USA the private sector benefits greatly by having a government that provides safety nets for industry. It is normal to hear grumbling etc. regarding government, taxes etc. but I am sure that many complaining are glad they have those opportunities. Who would not want to have their cake and eat it too but most know that without a strong government willing to share risk they probably would not exist either. At least in the form or size they are at today.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 21, 2016 7:56:13 GMT -6
that's exactly right- we take advantage of and use what the govt provides for us, every day in multiple ways.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 22, 2016 19:10:18 GMT -6
Bryce our govt is strong? In what way? So you feel putting taxpayers money at risk is ok? We will guarantee home loans , where private banks thinks it is to risky? How about the govt backing auto loans? ATV and snow Mobil loans,Or personnel loans? Or credit cards? Or other lines of credit? Is that really the roll of our federal govt and our tax dollars, seeing how we have now 20 trillion in debt on the books?
Tman using what people pay into is one thing as a need, but the problem is we have far too many programs and they are not as needs but as benefits for,those that fit the benefit guidelines. Recruiting of any social program is wrong. It happens and takes place to deny such is just not factual.
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Sept 22, 2016 22:35:03 GMT -6
I have to wonder about christian conservatives who tout social programs as evil things. Anyone who has ever read the bible can plainly see that Jesus, in verse after verse, preached about about loving thy neighbor as thyself, taking care of the neediest in society, showing compassion and giving away excess wealth. So why do conservatives keep going after the poor instead of the rich? Beating people when they are down doesn't seem very christian to me.
Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 23, 2016 4:42:49 GMT -6
Pam, not all programs are what you call evil many though are setup for a reason and it is not to help or we would not maintain status quo or grow them at alarming rates these are the ones that Ned changing and have for many years.
Evil comes from within.
Lots of things in this world that are not very Christian , I could name a lot of them.
yet we get further and further away from God as a country is that really a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 23, 2016 6:18:00 GMT -6
because Pam- its easier to take away food stamps from poor people they don't give a crap about, than to offend their donors
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 23, 2016 19:15:33 GMT -6
Tman take away or cut ? Big difference in 2 options to many programs. The democrats have always liked to use those words heard them a lot when Daschle gave speeches on the cheyanne Indian reservation, take away this, that or the other. Yet nothing was ever takin away. That is the issue, you can have program cuts without taking it all away.
We do not need to expand all social programs and we do not need to add a much of new ones which has happened over the last 20 years and now sitting 20 trillion in debt.
I would take away earned income credit it is a scam. it cost taxpayers billions each year.
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Sept 24, 2016 0:25:03 GMT -6
"I would take away earned income credit it is a scam."
EITC, Earned Income Tax Credit, is a benefit for working people who have low to moderate income. A tax credit means more money in your pocket. It reduces the amount of tax you owe and may also give you a refund.
And 99% of that refund will get spent and go back into the economy. Much easier to raise taxes on the rich and it would bring in way more money.
Personally I would do away with exemptions for children, it's really not fair that the more people who freely choose to have a bunch of kids have to pay less in taxes. Then I would would do away with any income limit on the amount of income on which people have to pay into Social Security and medicare/medicaid. I would also make it a policy that anyone who has a net worth of over $5 million at the time they reach retirement age would not be eligible to collect social security. It's the price some pay to live in a civilized society.
So there lol
Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 24, 2016 7:02:45 GMT -6
I'd take away all school funding- and let the free market pay school employees
I'm tired of providing welfare for teachers, educators and their familys
It costs billions every year
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 24, 2016 8:08:57 GMT -6
No Pam your definition is a scam, it does not reduce your taxes owed, as that is called a refund. Earned income credit pays 1,000's to those that never got close to paying in 1,000's in the first place it is above and beyond a few deductions. Example, Joe paid in 3,900 in federal income tax last year after deductions he gets back 1,150.00 that mean the federal govt kept 2,750 dollars and sues it on various programs. Bob has earned income credit Bob works and bobs wife goes to school and they have 2 kids age 3 and 6 Bob paid in 1150 in federal taxes due to earned income credit Bob gets a check back for 4,600 dollars that means the other taxpayer cut him a check for 3450.00 dollars the govt never got any of bobs money and in fact paid him back 3450 dollars more than he paid in.
Do we think Bob wants a flat tax?
Yes a bad idea when Regan put it into place. I have no problems admitting such what so ever. you can now make 47,000 for a family of 4 and receive earned income tax credit.
It was put into place to save lower middle income of having all wages paid in for SS, the problem is out SS is broke so how are we paying the needed funds for SS when we give back up to 5,600 ? These program needs to be looked at very carefully.
Not mention 25 states also have their own EITC as well.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 24, 2016 8:09:26 GMT -6
Tman if you want all kids to go to private schools great.
No matter how you slice it the world needs teachers and educators. Private or public.
Education is the basis of our foundation, as we slip further in education in many areas that weakens out country as a whole.
My cousin has taught at a catholic school for 21 years.
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Sept 24, 2016 15:06:23 GMT -6
"Joe paid in 3,900 in federal income tax last year after deductions he gets back 1,150.00 that mean the federal govt kept 2,750 dollars and sues it on various programs."
All that means is that Joe had too much money withheld, and that is the only reason people get a refund. EITC is a tax credit. Where do you get your example about Bob? I find it hard to believe that he would get that much money more than he paid in back.
Cheers, Pam
|
|