• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Volcker: Taxes likely to rise eventually to tame deficit

no, that's not waht happened. washington did not force anyone to make bad loans.

Wrong. Liberals like Barney Frank threatened to punish banks for not loaning to "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods."

We can thank the Community Reinvestment Act for this mess more than anything.

Real Estate Blog - Barney Frank Cried Racism And Look What Happened
The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.
 
I cannot repeat a myth, since JFK, Reagan and Bush proved it true...

Err lets see.

Reagan never had a surplus, and grew the US debt from under 1 trillion to over 3 trillion by the time he left office..

Bush.. did exactly the same, just in a lesser scale... slightly

As for JFK... the debt vs GDP fell during Kennedy, but did rise slightly in over all value.

So you were saying?
 
I believe the path US is heading is very dangerous. US will be a crappy welfare state. US will in no way be able to provide the services that other welfare states are able to. US advantage is beeing a free promising country where there are low taxes and there are few uneccecary regulations like you see in other countries. Still with all the problems, I would still say US is doing better than Europe and at least they can admit they have problems.

Some of the changes that should be done instead of increasing taxes.
- Reduce spending in health care. Either hand the whole system over to the government or make it a proper free market system with some regulations with the main purpose to cut cost. That will also give more money to private consumption.
- Cut in education. It's not the money that is the problem. Let the students pick any school they want and let them compete with grades. Also, change the grading system so that tests counts more. For instance all subjects could have an externally assesed exam that counts 50%. That will be way more effective than any amount of money.
- Also other spending is too high, that's most of the ineffective stuff.

This should be able to cut spending by 10% of GDP, which will be enough to balance the budget and reduce the deficit.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. Liberals like Barney Frank threatened to punish banks for not loaning to "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods."

We can thank the Community Reinvestment Act for this mess more than anything.

Real Estate Blog - Barney Frank Cried Racism And Look What Happened

And wrong again, because there was rules and regulation of this so that far far far from everyone who wanted a loan got a loan. There was also no predatory lending as far as I know.

All the predatory lending and the huge majority of the bad subprime loans came from out side the Fannie and Freddie system, because it was unregulated and had zero transparency. That is why pizza delivery boys were suddenly mortgage lenders over night.

Blaming Fannie and Freddie for everything is nothing but more right wing rewriting of the facts to fit their world view. Face it, the right has had it in for Fannie and Freddie since the day they were made, and now they have found a way to distort the facts to put all the blame on these two institutions and non on the real culprits.. the people who are bankrolling the Republican party.
 
Err lets see.

Reagan never had a surplus, and grew the US debt from under 1 trillion to over 3 trillion by the time he left office..

Bush.. did exactly the same, just in a lesser scale... slightly

As for JFK... the debt vs GDP fell during Kennedy, but did rise slightly in over all value.

So you were saying?

The interest on these deficits is staggering, plus you chose a president that spent Russia into bankruptcy during the Cold War and another that inherited 9-11.

But I agree that Washington as a whole is irresponsible as hell. And now we want to give them our healthcare system, too? They can't even run the post office without losing $68 billion per year.
 
no, that's not waht happened. washington did not force anyone to make bad loans.

That's what your political masters tell you to think. Good to see you follow without question.

Here you go, some reading to open your eyes.

The thousands of mortgage defaults and foreclosures in the "subprime" housing market (i.e., mortgage holders with poor credit ratings) is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.

The original lobbyists for the CRA were the hardcore leftists who supported the Carter administration and were often rewarded for their support with government grants and programs like the CRA that they benefited from. These included various "neighborhood organizations," as they like to call themselves, such as "ACORN" (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). These organizations claim that over $1 trillion in CRA loans have been made, although no one seems to know the magnitude with much certainty. A U.S. Senate Banking Committee staffer told me about ten years ago that at least $100 billion in such loans had been made in the first twenty years of the Act.
The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown by Thomas DiLorenzo

It's merely a starting point to get you to see that YES, government decree made the housing crisis. YES lenders figured out how to game the system... but guess what dear? They wouldn't have had the "Game" had the Gov. not created the conditions IN THE FIRST PLACE!
 
Why not... cut those programs? Oh damn, what a concept. It's called WE CANNOT AFFORD THEM.

Not, "Can we raise tazes enough to maybe cover them". We flat out cannot afford these entitlement programs anymore. We couldn't to begin with, SS, Medicade, Medicare, now Obamacare... all PONZI SCHEMES.

There is a reason such are illegal, CAUSE THEY ALWAYS FAIL.

Yet you ignore my previous statement just to rant.

As beneficial as it would be to the long term budget, cutting SS, Medicare and unemployment benefits is political suicide. A more realistic approach is a combination of the two (for the sake of feasibility).
 
Now, the mess we're in now was caused by WASHINGTON dictating to lenders who to give homeloans too. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are the culprits, not wall street.

Dishonesty, lack of ethics, etc. abound on Wall St. Finaciers seeking to make it on the Forbes list of filthy rich are a major part of the problem. Once we have new rules that minimize the chance of the latest fiasco happening again, the assholes on Wall St. will just look for another way to fleece the public.
 
Yet you ignore my previous statement just to rant.

As beneficial as it would be to the long term budget, cutting SS, Medicare and unemployment benefits is political suicide. A more realistic approach is a combination of the two (for the sake of feasibility).

Political suicide? So what's good for the long term feasibility and continuation of the USA is secondary to political careers. Got it.
 
Dishonesty, lack of ethics, etc. abound on Wall St. Finaciers seeking to make it on the Forbes list of filthy rich are a major part of the problem. Once we have new rules that minimize the chance of the latest fiasco happening again, the assholes on Wall St. will just look for another way to fleece the public.



Ah, you're one of those "Rich people are evil types". Hard to have an honest discussion with someone that is bigoted.
 
Ah, you're one of those "Rich people are evil types". Hard to have an honest discussion with someone that is bigoted.

It's like blaming every loss on the referees. Sometimes, the other team is just works harder and smarter than you.
 
Ah, you're one of those "Rich people are evil types". Hard to have an honest discussion with someone that is bigoted.

Calling me names? here is one for you, STUPID....

Between me and the wife, our net worth in cash and property is almost a million bucks. Our retirement income is just over the 6 figure mark. We didn't get that way by accident, since both of us were raised poor.
I never said the rich are evil. Clearly, if you learn to read, you will find that I said those who got rich in an unethical way are criminals.
Betrayal of the public trust happens in government and in publicly traded companies. Congress doesn't make nice laws for the public unless it somehows benefits Wall Street....
 
Calling me names? here is one for you, STUPID....

Between me and the wife, our net worth in cash and property is almost a million bucks. Our retirement income is just over the 6 figure mark. We didn't get that way by accident, since both of us were raised poor.
I never said the rich are evil. Clearly, if you learn to read, you will find that I said those who got rich in an unethical way are criminals.
Betrayal of the public trust happens in government and in publicly traded companies. Congress doesn't make nice laws for the public unless it somehows benefits Wall Street....

Clearly, if you learn to read, you will find that I said those who got rich in an unethical way are criminals.

Dishonesty, lack of ethics, etc. abound on Wall St. Finaciers seeking to make it on the Forbes list of filthy rich are a major part of the problem.

I.E. anyone on wall street is just a greedy unethical **** and are a major part of the problem... in your view.

Sad, wealth envy is the source of so much ignorance in
America
 
I.E. anyone on wall street is just a greedy unethical **** and are a major part of the problem... in your view.

Sad, wealth envy is the source of so much ignorance in
America

Do you often make things up when you attack people?

When did he say anyone in the context of everyone?
 
Do you often make things up when you attack people?

When did he say anyone in the context of everyone?
Mr. V knows a little bit about something related to weather and climate and then supposes he also knows a lot about everything else. He shames himself often in threads. Not likely he will ever get rich, he is too busy being a legend in his own mind.....:2razz:
 
I think Income taxes need to be Raised to More Historical NORMS.
The Class Warfare (Surprise! Someone tell Hannity it didn't start in 2009) of the last 25 years has really increased the Deficit and shifted the burden Down
(and this doesn't even include Bush's near Halving of the Capital Gains and Dividend taxes, 28/15%, and the gutting of the estate tax.)
Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)

Year/ Top Rate%/ Over

1913 --- 7% 500,000
1914 --- 7% 500,000
1915 --- 7% 500,000
1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
1921 --- 73% 1,000,000
1922 --- 58% 200,000
1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
1924 --- 46% 500,000
1925 --- 25% 100,000
1926 --- 25% 100,000
1927 --- 25% 100,000
1928 --- 25% 100,000
1929 --- 24% 100,000
1930 --- 25% 100,000
1931 --- 25% 100,000
1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
1942 --- 88% 200,000
1943 --- 88% 200,000
1944--- 94 200,000
1945 --- 94% 200,000
1946 --- 86% 200,000
1947 --- 86% 200,000
1948 --- 82.% 400,000
1949 --- 82% 400,000
1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
1951 --- 91% 400,000
1952 --- 92% 400,000
1953 --- 92% 400,000
1954 --- 91% 400,000
1955 --- 91% 400,000
1956 --- 91% 400,000
1957 --- 91% 400,000
1958 --- 91% 400,000
1959 --- 91% 400,000
1960 --- 91% 400,000
1961 --- 91% 400,000
1962 --- 91% 400,000
1963 --- 91% 400,000
1964 --- 77% 400,000
1965 --- 70% 200,000
1966 --- 70% 200,000
1967 --- 70% 200,000
1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
1969 --- 77% 200,000
1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
1975 ----70% 50 200,000
1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
1981 --- 69% 50 215,400
1982 --- 50% 85,600
1983 --- 50% 109,400
1984 --- 50% 162,400
1985 --- 50 % 169,020
1986 --- 50 % 175,250

1987 --- 38.5% 90,000
1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 --- 31% 82,150
1992 --- 31% 86,500
1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
2003 --- 35% 311,950
 
Last edited:
Meh. I don't mind paying higher taxes. I enjoy the services my country offers me, and we quite obviously can't pay for them with our current tax rate.
 
I think we need..

$250,000 ..... 40%
$500,000 ......50%
$1,000,000....60%

that would probably do it and affect few.
And no need for a "Pay Czar" any more.
Just take 60%.
Bonus away!
And that way they'll be more deservant of the next bailout.
 
Meh. I don't mind paying higher taxes. I enjoy the services my country offers me, and we quite obviously can't pay for them with our current tax rate.

everyone should pay the same rate

right now, the majority can be bought by those who pander to them by promising them goodies paid for by the ten percent that already pay 70% of the taxes

everyone should be able to keep the same percentage of the next dollar they earn

everyone should suffer the same percentage decrease with tax hikes

people who don't pay taxes shouldn't have a say in the rates others pay
 
everyone should pay the same rate

right now, the majority can be bought by those who pander to them by promising them goodies paid for by the ten percent that already pay 70% of the taxes

everyone should be able to keep the same percentage of the next dollar they earn

everyone should suffer the same percentage decrease with tax hikes

people who don't pay taxes shouldn't have a say in the rates others pay

Yeah....I don't really agree. I can certainly afford a lot larger percentage of my income than say someone who makes 20k a year.
 
Yeah....I don't really agree. I can certainly afford a lot larger percentage of my income than say someone who makes 20k a year.

so you support a system where the majority of voters can keep demanding more and more spending and since they don't face additional taxes those of us who are net tax payers have to see our rates go up and up and up since we cannot outvote them

you do know you can give more than your legal responsibility now.

I believe in starving the beast since right now the vast majority of voters are net tax consumers and feel no need to reign in spending they don't pay for in the first place

a progressive income tax will always result in pandering and giving the government far more power than intended as the government plays Net tax consumers against net tax payers

right now almost 2/3 of the public gets more than they pay in


I cannot understand the sanity of allowing the many to vote away the wealth of the industrious
 
so you support a system where the majority of voters can keep demanding more and more spending and since they don't face additional taxes those of us who are net tax payers have to see our rates go up and up and up since we cannot outvote them.

Well, not more and more forever. I mean, somewhere between here and Europe, I'd put my foot down (figuratively) about government spending. I don't think we're there yet though.

you do know you can give more than your legal responsibility now.

Well, I do if you count charities.

I believe in starving the beast since right now the vast majority of voters are net tax consumers and feel no need to reign in spending they don't pay for in the first place

a progressive income tax will always result in pandering and giving the government far more power than intended as the government plays Net tax consumers against net tax payers

right now almost 2/3 of the public gets more than they pay in


I cannot understand the sanity of allowing the many to vote away the wealth of the industrious

Wait, people get back more than they've paid in taxes? Truely?
 
Well, not more and more forever. I mean, somewhere between here and Europe, I'd put my foot down (figuratively) about government spending. I don't think we're there yet though.



Well, I do if you count charities.



Wait, people get back more than they've paid in taxes? Truely?

most people have more government money spent on them than what they paid in taxes

I support charities since that does not create the cancer that a spreading government does

interestingly, the people who are most in favor of tax hikes tend to be the people least likely to support private charities

and once you start the cancer its hard to say you are gonna stop it at a certain point

we need to get rid of the income tax and the divide and conquer mentality it causes

but its late here and I have to pick a jury in a federal employment discrimination trial tomorrow

Night
 
What factors do you believe will push the price level and output in opposite directions?

Much of what we consume is produced outside the U.S. The wage diferential is so big that even a devaluation of the dollar probably will not increase prosuction substantionally. Let's remember that China has revalued it's currency by about 20% over the last few years with very few jobs coming home.

Oil will rise in dollar terms as well if the dollar in devalued. The oil producing nations look at the buying power of a dollar. How else to value a piece of paper backed by nothing printed by a country that has no fiscal discipline.

So a devaluation against other currencies is likely to cause increases in prices with little increase in output.
 
I think Income taxes need to be Raised to More Historical NORMS.
The Class Warfare (Surprise! Someone tell Hannity it didn't start in 2009) of the last 25 years has really increased the Deficit and shifted the burden Down
(and this doesn't even include Bush's near Halving of the Capital Gains and Dividend taxes, 28/15%, and the gutting of the estate tax.)

You might agree that the list produced does not take into account inflation. So perhaps we may be missing a bracket or two at the top.

It seems like you only focused on Federal Income taxes. As you know payroll taxes are materially higher than they were 30 years ago. Also state, local, property and sales taxes are all higher.

So look at what Obama called wealthy, $250K. Then when you add up all the taxes and understand living costs in let's say New York or LA and tell those people how grossly undertaxed thye are.

Oh, BTW we are in the process of increasing these people's taxes with the HC program as well as the tax cuts that will expire in 2011.
 
Back
Top Bottom