Page 133 of 215 FirstFirst ... 3383123131132133134135143183 ... LastLast
Results 1,321 to 1,330 of 2145

Thread: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

  1. #1321
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Yes, how to lie with statistics 101...wait until the economy gets big enough that the resulting tax revenue is a record and declare victory. While it is true that IRS income tax collections set a record in 2006 and 2007, that record came 7 years after the previous record set inn 2000, and represented only a 14% increase over the tax receipts of 2000, yet GDP rose over the same period by 40%.

    The fact is (you like facts...oh sorry, you hate facts that don't fit with your argument) the Bush tax cuts significantly cut income tax revenue. They fell by 21% from 2000 to 2003 and then took three more years, to 2006, to reach 2000 levels....meanwhile GDP climbed by near 40%. In 2007, income tax receipts were 8.4% (the highest level post Bush tax cuts) and lower than the 10 year average income tax / GDP collection pre-tax cut (see table).

    Had income tax levels remained at the 8.5% of GDP level, current tax collections would be $250B higher (almost 1/2 of the current deficit) and our debt would likely have been $2 to 2.5T lower...

    Attachment 67150407

    Sorry, no credible economist believes the Bush tax cuts were anything but deficit builders. Remember, the whole tax cut program was designed to eliminate the surplus.... of course, if there wasn't much of a surplus, a surplus destroyer is going to create deficits. All in, there was a $12T delta between forecast and actual results.

    Ruth Marcus: The shifting line on tax cuts - Washington Post


    The $12 Trillion Misunderstanding | RealClearPolitics

    ---nice footing error, George. After delivering the biggest forecast bust in world history we are suppose to trust the Republicans with our finances? Right. Why do you think they call them Cons?
    Wow, how typical, you believe human nature is going to be the same regardless of the taxes. Very few economists consider human behavior in their analysis and it is human behavior that drives the number one component of GDP which affects govt. revenue. It isn't tax cuts that cause deficits it is spending. Learn that and you will have more credibility.

  2. #1322
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,270

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    Fannie Mae is not the democrats!




    You are making tons of qualitative statements that lack support. MBS's are not toxic in nature, and simply reflection innovation in the financial industry. It's when companies use fraudulent practices to both roll mortgages out the door and securitize them that creates a problem. The industry requires regulation!



    Please don't make it out like corruption is solely a Democrat phenomenon. Corruption is not party specific.



    Sweet-heart loans were a byproduct of crony-capitalism. Again, it is not political party specific. It is a stretch to link GSE's to Countrywide activities.



    That is cowboy capitalism at work.



    Nobody was forced to create anything. They created them because it was profitable. Revisionist nonsense might cut it with the anti-Obama crowd; not with me.



    What does this even mean?



    Acquisitions funded by FDIC institutions occurred in the fallout. Moral hazard was a byproduct of private securitization market.



    Your definition of toxic must be rather.... liberal!



    CRA is not about lowering lending standards. You know this already.



    It is simply a matter of fact.
    Fannie Mae is where Democrats for the last 20 years have run off to get rich, not too mention it was stacked with Politicians by Clinton from 1993 to 1998.
    I find it a bit hypocritical to hear those on the left demand justice for the people who ran the Investment Banks but Franklin Raines ? Nah, he's cool.

    Hell he even helped out Obama in 2003.

    And I HAVE, multiple times provided data, resources, quotes, video's, links etc to back up my argument.

    And it's usually followed with a response somewhere along the lines of..." Nuh- Uuuu, Bush did it. ". I get sick of posting page after page of evidence if it's in the end going to be ignored .

    And yes, MBS aren't inherently toxic and prior to Fannie Mae buying and bundling crap with Good they were a safe bet for any portfolio due to THE HIGH STANDARDS THE LOANS WERE PURCHASED UNDER. I think Fannie created the first one in the 80s.

    My definition of toxic I thought by now was clear. MBSs backed by sub-prime mprtgages or mixed with Sub-Prime Mortgages.

    And you can sit their and say the private securities market did this till you turn blue, the point is with out the mandates and REGULATIONS put in place by Clinton there would have been no market for mixed bags of AAA rated toxic securities.

    And stop pretending Franklin Raines and his Ilk and the entire " affordable lending " industry wasn't absolutely dependent on the value of their crap AAA rated securities.

    I mean their value was so critical by 2004 Fannie bought up hundreds of billions of private toxic MBSs.

    And yes CRA WAS a substandard loan. Banks complied to CRA standards by making loans available to people who were at or below 80% of the mean income level for the community that bank serviced. And again, I can't get an answer for a very simple question.

    Why did standards have to be lowered to combat " discrimination " ?

    But since CRA loans only comprised of about 2 Trillion of Fannies junk , in order for the massive unprecedented scam to continue, standards for purchasing and lending needed to be continually lowered.

    In 2004 when Fannie's regulator was warning the Democrats , Politicians like Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer and Artur Davis ( Democrats ) were sitting in front of Republican chaired Comittee's lying about the fiscal health of the GSE's.

    So yes Kush, there has always been a political component to this story, Obama being number 3 on the list of Politicians who recieved the highest campaign Contributions from Fannie e not too mention the whole friken sub-prime agenda was a mismanaged attempt by the Democrats to vend out socia and economic " justice" under false pretenses.
    .

  3. #1323
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Wow, how typical, you believe human nature is going to be the same regardless of the taxes.
    WTF is this bull**** argument you keep putting forth; human nature? The reason it is bull**** comes from the actual results the Bush tax cuts had on human nature. Where did it go?

    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  4. #1324
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    WTF is this bull**** argument you keep putting forth; human nature? The reason it is bull**** comes from the actual results the Bush tax cuts had on human nature. Where did it go?

    Where does your money go when you get more in your paycheck? More spendable income is the result of tax cuts and that drives economic activity. Economic activity is what creates jobs and economic growth. Human behavior drives economic activity.

  5. #1325
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    And yes, MBS aren't inherently toxic and prior to Fannie Mae buying and bundling crap with Good they were a safe bet for any portfolio due to THE HIGH STANDARDS THE LOANS WERE PURCHASED UNDER. I think Fannie created the first one in the 80s.
    Bundling of multi-risk "tranches" is actually a means of diversifying to hedge interest rate risk. Remember, F&F MBS's were not the trigger points of the crisis; it was private lending securitization that had the greatest propensity for mis-rating.

    Ginnie Mac created the first mortgage backed security in 1970 FWIW.

    My definition of toxic I thought by now was clear. MBSs backed by sub-prime mprtgages or mixed with Sub-Prime Mortgages.
    Not all sub-prime mortgages were bad. It was those that originated from private lenders who lacked both regulation and adequate risk management standards. Your definition is uninformed.

    And you can sit their and say the private securities market did this till you turn blue, the point is with out the mandates and REGULATIONS put in place by Clinton there would have been no market for mixed bags of AAA rated toxic securities.
    Bad argument.

    Why on earth would ratings agencies mis-rate mortgages; the babe in the woods routine? These securities were just too sophisticated for the poor folks at S&P (or Moody's or Fitch). It certainly wasn't the fault of Wall Street firms that massaged lenders into abandoning risk management so to boost the supply.

    Nah.... It was da gubermint.

    And stop pretending Franklin Raines and his Ilk and the entire " affordable lending " industry wasn't absolutely dependent on the value of their crap AAA rated securities.
    It wasn't Fannie originated securities that were the problem. Come on.... get with it! It was the massive decline in real estate value, to which F&F were forced to write down. As markets deemed mortgage paper was worth $0.50 - $0.70 on the dollar in a matter of days, the balance sheets of the F&F went into disarray; you know that whole assets/liabilities thing....

    I mean their value was so critical by 2004 Fannie bought up hundreds of billions of private toxic MBSs.
    No they didn't! WTF man, you really need to get some objective sources of information. The toxicity of mortgages did not really occur until a period of time between the end of 2005 through the third quarter of 2006. And where were they coming from? Why it was private investment banks! Think Bear Stearns and their special purpose vehicles.

    And yes CRA WAS a substandard loan. Banks complied to CRA standards by making loans available to people who were at or below 80% of the mean income level for the community that bank serviced. And again, I can't get an answer for a very simple question.
    No, that is not true at all. Some loans were higher risk and some were not. The CRA actually helped ensure lending integrity was still held in high fashion. In comparison to non-CRA loans of the same risk, CRA loans were/are less likely to default! Imagine that.

    Why did standards have to be lowered to combat " discrimination " ?
    What standards?

    But since CRA loans only comprised of about 2 Trillion of Fannies junk , in order for the massive unprecedented scam to continue, standards for purchasing and lending needed to be continually lowered.
    You still peddle the same nonsense. CRA loans were of high-quality. Secondly, F&F were not in trouble due to defaults that interrupt cash-flows. Sure there was an overall elevated rate of foreclosure, but F&F's problem revolved around valuation.

    In the future, i would appreciate it if you would address my comments individually, as i have done. Otherwise it makes it difficult to follow the trajectory of the discussion.

    Thanks in advance!
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  6. #1326
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    WTF is this bull**** argument you keep putting forth; human nature? The reason it is bull**** comes from the actual results the Bush tax cuts had on human nature. Where did it go?


    Hmmm....Seems like looking at your graph, you want readers to believe that the Bush Presidency was from 2007, to 2009....Pretty dishonest dude....
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  7. #1327
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Where does your money go when you get more in your paycheck? More spendable income is the result of tax cuts and that drives economic activity. Economic activity is what creates jobs and economic growth. Human behavior drives economic activity.
    It went into real estate. How did that work out in regards to creating jobs and economic growth?
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  8. #1328
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Hmmm....Seems like looking at your graph, you want readers to believe that the Bush Presidency was from 2007, to 2009....Pretty dishonest dude....
    No. You don't understand my argument.

    Following the Bush tax cuts, real estate prices shot up nearly 60% (in as little as 3 (1/2) years).
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  9. #1329
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    It went into real estate. How did that work out in regards to creating jobs and economic growth?
    If you didn't sell, it didn't affect you at all, further doubt that the real estate bubble bursting had much effect on the half the country that doesn't own any.

  10. #1330
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    No. You don't understand my argument.

    Following the Bush tax cuts, real estate prices shot up nearly 60% (in as little as 3 (1/2) years).
    Seems that you don't understand that more cash in people's paychecks doesn't always go into real estate and that those who don't own real estate affect economic activity with more spendable income.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •