• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Checking Gingrich that Dodd-Frank is destroying community banks

How silly of me. Of course we should always take what lobbyists say at face value and implement whatever they suggest. I mean, what harm could come of that?! *COUGH*finacial meltdown*COUGH*Great Recession. :2rofll:

So, now you're going to blame the lobbyists for the government's **** ups? Ya'll will never run out of folks to blame, so as to avoid admitting the government meddling in the private sector caused the depression.
 
So, now you're going to blame the lobbyists for the government's **** ups? Ya'll will never run out of folks to blame, so as to avoid admitting the government meddling in the private sector caused the depression.

I'm certainly going to point out that the financial meltdown was caused, in large part, but the watering down of glass-steagall and other depression-era banking regulations which was the handiwork of banking industry lobbyists who spent decades and millions of dollars to remove those important safeguards. I'm certainly going to point out that it would be insanity to bend over for the same people who contributed to this mess when it comes to fixing the mess. Yep.
 
So, now you're going to blame the lobbyists for the government's **** ups? Ya'll will never run out of folks to blame, so as to avoid admitting the government meddling in the private sector caused the depression.


that's right
the American Bankers Association was so instrumental, insisting that bank regulations NOT be relaxed
[/s]
 
But despite the GOP field’s comments, small and community banks aren’t uniformly, unequivocally opposed to Obama’s Wall Street reform. In fact, even the country’s biggest lobbying group for community banks praises Dodd-Frank for helping to level the playing field by reining in big banks, while also criticizing specific provisions of the legislation.

Shortly after Dodd-Frank passed Congress last year, the Independent Community Bankers of America applauded the law for helping to “level the regulatory and competitive playing field for community banks.” Specifically, the group praises new rules that force bigger banks to pay more in deposit insurance, which the ICBA estimates will “save community banks $4.5 billion over the next three years. The group also praises higher capital and liquidity requirements for the biggest banks, the Volcker rule, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which the group says “will reduce the unfair competitive advantage” from non-bank competitors.

Though the ICBA neither supported nor opposed the legislation while it was being deliberated, the group boasts of its efforts to help secure such provisions in Dodd-Frank. Legislators intended Wall Street reform to better regulate the biggest, riskiest banks behind the 2008 financial collapse, the biggest changes under Dodd-Frank often don’t apply to smaller institutions. The ICBA doesn’t like how the law empowers the Federal Reserve to set rates for debit-card fees for banks with more than $10 billion in assets. But 98 percent of the nation’s 7,000 community banks have assets of less than $10 billion, as the New York Times points out.

GOP candidates say Dodd-Frank kills small banks. The banks beg to differ. - The Washington Post
 
I'm certainly going to point out that the financial meltdown was caused, in large part, but the watering down of glass-steagall and other depression-era banking regulations which was the handiwork of banking industry lobbyists who spent decades and millions of dollars to remove those important safeguards. I'm certainly going to point out that it would be insanity to bend over for the same people who contributed to this mess when it comes to fixing the mess. Yep.

Nevermind how the politicians couldn't wait to look kewl by seeing that everyone was able to own a house, whether they could afford it, or not.

Instead, it was the banks who knowingly made bad loans that were going to lose money.

Right!!!
 
Nevermind how the politicians couldn't wait to look kewl by seeing that everyone was able to own a house, whether they could afford it, or not.

Instead, it was the banks who knowingly made bad loans that were going to lose money.

Right!!!
[emphasis added by bubba]

actually, the lenders knew it was a game of musical chairs
whoever held the paper written for those who were credit risks when the meltdown occurred were going to get hammered
it was a matter of writing the liar loans and then quickly selling them on the secondary market ... and doing that without getting stuck
true to form, the pigs got fed while the hogs got slaughtered
 
Checking Gingrich that Dodd-Frank is destroying community banks




What is it with the far-right GOP, do they EVER say something that's true?

Why does the far-right engage in this type of deceitful partisanship?

Sure, the Dems get called out on their lies, misstatements, and slanted stats, but they don't even come close to the number of GOP lies and damn lies identified by fact-checking sites.

Of course, that must be because all the fact-checking sites are liberal...:roll::roll: it couldn't be that the far-right mindset believes that the end (victory and power) justifies the means (lies, lies, and death panels)... oh no...

Pretty dumb to assume that a bill that was meant to regulate large financial institutions and keep them in check would hurt the small community banks. That's just absurd even for the GOP.
 
Pretty dumb to assume that a bill that was meant to regulate large financial institutions and keep them in check would hurt the small community banks. That's just absurd even for the GOP.

then let me attempt to astound you
the too-big-to-fail banks have only gotten bigger since the meltdown
meanwhile, treasury is monday morning quarterbacking the loans of the community banks
denying them the authority to make certain loans which do not meet treasury's scrutiny
seems reasonable on the face of it
but here's the rub
treasury is imposing these austere credit criteria on the community banks that are sound; lenders that had clean portfolios during the crisis, because they had chosen to apply prudent lending standards, despite the attractive returns that were possible writing risky credits
so, the smart banks, that did not get caught up in the bad mortgage market are now being denied the ability to make the loans they ordinarily would approve
does not matter that they were and are smart banks, imposing no real risk to the financial system
small business is hurting. it needs access to capital
capital they are denied NOT because their banks - community banks which historically have served the small business sector - refuse them loans
but because the treasury has decreed these stable, prudent lenders can no longer make the sound credit decisions they made prior to the commencement of the great recession
 
The difference being, there are actual numbers that prove that tax revenue hit record highs after the tax cuts; here, the supporters of Franky-Doody don't have a pot to piss in.

Not really. As you know, income tax revenues actually FELL after the tax cuts (which makes sense given the government simply told taxpayers to write smaller checks). The increase in tax revenues were from payroll tax receipts, not income tax receipts

Tax revenue_Page_1.jpg











Sorry to side bar, sorry to bore you with actual facts and sorry to piss on your fantasy.
 
Last edited:
Not really. As you know, income tax revenues actually FELL after the tax cuts (which makes sense given the government simply told taxpayers to write smaller checks). The increase in tax revenues were from payroll tax receipts, not income tax receipts

View attachment 67118831

Sorry to side bar, sorry to bore you with actual facts and sorry to piss on your fantasy.

You may want to check your facts before you get silly. Is there a reason why to chose to ignore all the facts (see link below) and the obvious increase in individual income taxes from 2003 until 2008?

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source
 
That link argues against you just like all of the other facts cited.
Really? The data shows individual income taxes in 2003 of $793 billion, in 2008 the individual income taxes were $1,145 billion. While I don't have a special liberal calculator, the 2008 number appears to larger than the 2003 number.
 
Really? The data shows individual income taxes in 2003 of $793 billion, in 2008 the individual income taxes were $1,145 billion. While I don't have a special liberal calculator, the 2008 number appears to larger than the 2003 number.

The link shows that individual income taxes took SIX YEARS to recover to the level of 2000.
 
The link shows that individual income taxes took SIX YEARS to recover to the level of 2000.
So your previous post was dishonest, glad you cleared it up with this post.

Of course you are using the 2000 fy since it had a $70 billion cap gains tax windfall that died when BJ Clenis' dot.com ponzi scheme died. I would use fy 2003 as the base year for the Bush tax cuts since that is when most of the tax cuts actually took place, you do know when the income brackets dropped, don't you? Every year the income taxes have been higher than the base year, even in 2009 and 2010. Keep trying.
 
You may want to check your facts before you get silly. Is there a reason why to chose to ignore all the facts (see link below) and the obvious increase in individual income taxes from 2003 until 2008?

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

The Conservativegoy Firing Squad has struck again: Ready, Fire, Aim.

You might want to actually read what you post and other people post before you cry foul; lest you look foolish in your challenge. If you actually compare your schedule to mine, you will note we are using the exact same numbers.

BTW, income tax revenues did increase after 2003 (after they fell for three years), but at a slower rate than the increase in GNP. It actually took 6 years for tax revenues to return to their pre-recession revenue levels. Given our progressive tax structure, income tax revenue should have increased at a greater rate than GNP increase, except that tax rate reductions actually decreased income tax revenues. In fact, from 2000 to 2006, individual income tax revenues were flat, yet GDP grew at more than 30%. we cut tax rates AND as a result, cut tax revenue.
 
Last edited:
So your previous post was dishonest, glad you cleared it up with this post.

Of course you are using the 2000 fy since it had a $70 billion cap gains tax windfall that died when BJ Clenis' dot.com ponzi scheme died. I would use fy 2003 as the base year for the Bush tax cuts since that is when most of the tax cuts actually took place, you do know when the income brackets dropped, don't you? Every year the income taxes have been higher than the base year, even in 2009 and 2010. Keep trying.

Did you think I was saying that taxes would NEVER reach pre-cut levels? :lol:

I used 2000 as the baseline year because the first Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2001. It would be crazy dishonest to suggest a start date two years later.
 
Did you think I was saying that taxes would NEVER reach pre-cut levels? :lol:

I used 2000 as the baseline year because the first Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2001. It would be crazy dishonest to suggest a start date two years later.

His tax cuts went into effect in 2001........which tax cuts, cupcake? :lamo :lamo
 
The Conservativegoy Firing Squad has struck again: Ready, Fire, Aim.

You might want to actually read what you post and other people post before you cry foul; lest you look foolish in your challenge. If you actually compare your schedule to mine, you will note we are using the exact same numbers.

BTW, income tax revenues did increase after 2003 (after they fell for three years), but at a slower rate than the increase in GNP. It actually took 6 years for tax revenues to return to their pre-recession revenue levels. Given our progressive tax structure, income tax revenue should have increased at a greater rate than GNP increase, except that tax rate reductions actually decreased income tax revenues. In fact, from 2000 to 2006, individual income tax revenues were flat, yet GDP grew at more than 30%. we cut tax rates AND as a result, cut tax revenue.


Like your similarly confused brethren, adamt, when do you think Bush's tax cuts went into effect? Which year did the rates come down? This isn't a difficult subject to research.

Where did you get that silly crap about tax revenues "should have increased at a greater rate than GNP" (you actually should have said GDP)

At the end of the day you posted a data series that proved you were talking out of your arse. Try to understand what you are going to post before you post it.
 
Like your similarly confused brethren, adamt, when do you think Bush's tax cuts went into effect? Which year did the rates come down? This isn't a difficult subject to research.

Where did you get that silly crap about tax revenues "should have increased at a greater rate than GNP" (you actually should have said GDP)

At the end of the day you posted a data series that proved you were talking out of your arse. Try to understand what you are going to post before you post it.

all that whining, but in reading it (what a waste of time) it is found you were unable to rebut the argument which undermined your own
 
all that whining, but in reading it (what a waste of time) it is found you were unable to rebut the argument which undermined your own
Your contribution is, as always, worthless except it increased your post count............at least you did something today.
 
His tax cuts went into effect in 2001........which tax cuts, cupcake? :lamo :lamo

Dumb de dumb dumb....

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Pub.L. 107-16, 115 Stat. 38, June 7, 2001), was a sweeping piece of tax legislation in the United States by President George W. Bush. It is commonly known by its abbreviation EGTRRA, often pronounced "egg-tra" or "egg-terra", and sometimes also known simply as the 2001 act (especially where the context of a discussion is clearly about taxes), but is more commonly referred to as one of the two "Bush tax cuts".

The Act made significant changes in several areas of the US Internal Revenue Code, including income tax rates, estate and gift tax exclusions, and qualified and retirement plan rules. In general, the act lowered tax rates and simplified retirement and qualified plan rules such as for Individual retirement accounts, 401(k) plans, 403(b), and pension plans. The changes were so large and numerous that many books and analysis papers were published regarding the changes and how to best take advantage of them. All the 2001 tax cuts were set to expire at the end of 2010 when Congress extended them.[1]

Many of the tax reductions in EGTRRA were designed to be phased in over a period of up to 9 years. Many of these slow phase-ins were accelerated by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), which removed the waiting periods for many of EGTRRA's changes.
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Did you read the dates when the income tax rates changed in each bracket or are you simply proud you learned how to google?

I read that they were phased in over time, while other cuts occurred immediately. I also read this, which was good for a laugh: "The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010." :2rofll:
 
Did you read the dates when the income tax rates changed in each bracket or are you simply proud you learned how to google?

Total income tax fell 10.4 percent for 2001, a rate more than twice that of AGI. This decrease in total income tax was attributable to a decline in income being reported and to tax cuts implemented in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA).

[...]

Individual Income Tax Rate Reductions.--For tax years beginning after December 31, 2000, a new 10-percent regular income tax rate schedule will be used for the first portion of taxable income that had been taxed at a 15-percent rate. However, for Tax Year 2001, the 10 percent applies to the first $6,000 only for dependent individuals. Other taxpayers received benefits equivalent to the 10-percent rate bracket via an advanced payment based on their Tax Year 2000 returns or the rate reduction credit (see below). Also for 2001, there was a reduction of the marginal tax rates that are higher than the 15-percent bracket according to the following table:

2000 . . . 2001
. . . . . — 10%
15% . . . . 15%
28% . . . . 27.5%
31% . . . . 30.5%
36% . . . . 35.5%
39.6% . . . 39.1%


http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/01taxsh.pdf

2002 rates decreased another 0.5%, while 2003 rates decreased even further.


Code:
Table 2.
Effective Federal Tax Rates and Shares Under Current Tax Law, Based on 2001 Incomes, by Income Category, 2001 to 2014
        Year 	2001 	2002 	2003 	2004 	2005 	2006 	2007 	2008 	2009 	[...] 

Total Effective Federal Tax Rate
 
All Quintiles 	21.5 	20.7 	19.9 	19.6 	21.4 	21.6 	21.7 	21.7 	 	[...] 

[url]http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5746&type=0&sequence=1[/url]



_________________________
Signed, a proud Googler
 
Last edited:
Ouch! That had to leave a mark.
 
Back
Top Bottom