75 replies to this topic

[Zenob]

No, what they are doing is including NON-FILERS to make the number look bigger. This is what they've always done. If you want the number of people not paying taxes to look really big, just include EVERYONE. Whether they have a job or not or whether they are 90 or 9. I can't believe you guys fall for this crap.

With all due respect, your wrong. 30 million tax payers don't make enough money to pay federal income taxes. They do however pay SS tax. You can't get get out of that no matter how little you make.

There are over 300 million people in the US so 30 million people would only be 10%. Where'd the other 30% of the claimed number go? Is math a liberal conspiracy now too? And that's assuming your 30 million number is even accurate.

I also notice none of the right wingers managed to respond to the fact that a high percentage of these poor over taxed corporations don't pay ANY income taxes at all(to the tune of a couple trillion dollars).

Reality, the natural enemy of the far right...

[biknut]

There are over 300 million people in the US so 30 million people would only be 10%. Where'd the other 30% of the claimed number go? Is math a liberal conspiracy now too? And that's assuming your 30 million number is even accurate.

I also notice none of the right wingers managed to respond to the fact that a high percentage of these poor over taxed corporations don't pay ANY income taxes at all(to the tune of a couple trillion dollars).

Reality, the natural enemy of the far right...

Here's the numbers. What part do you not understand?

Wikipedia is estimating about 33% don't pay income taxes.

As of 2007, there are about 138 million taxpayers in the United States,[8] including many who pay zero income tax,[9] estimated to about a third of all tax filers.
http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States


We're only talking about tax filers, not all 300 million. 138 million last year apparently. The estimate is that 33% don't pay income taxes. That's about 46 million BTW. So out 138 million only 92 million are actually paying any income taxes. The Obama is promising 95% of tax payers, or filers a tax break, right? 95% of 138 million is 131 million give or take a couple. Lets say Obama, the one, gives all of us poor slobs a modest $500 tax break. That's going to cost the government 65 trillion dollars. So Obama is going to have to raise 7 million peoples taxes by $9400 to to take in enough taxes to make up this 65 trillion dollars, right? How much higher will their tax rate have to go to accomplish this?

My next question is how much is a stinky little BO $500 tax break really going to help? Don't we need more like a $1000 to matter? How high will the top tax rate have to go up for that? And finally, what will Obama do if these rich people decide to put their money in tax free bonds?

Total US Gross tax collections (2007) $2,674,007,818,000

[maxwatt]

.....

My next question is how much is a stinky little BO $500 tax break really going to help? Don't we need more like a $1000 to matter? How high will the top tax rate have to go up for that? And finally, what will Obama do if these rich people decide to put their money in tax free bonds?

Total US Gross tax collections (2007) $2,674,007,818,000

Tax free municipal bonds fund things like construction projects which are economically stimulating. US Govt. bonds fund things like wars or bureaucracies, which can be economically stimulating, and employ many people. But the interest rates they pay are low. You can get rates of 8% funding a company's corporate bonds at higher risk, or returns of 30% funding things like construction projects. They can be structured as long-term capital gains, reducing costs. The extra return will outweigh the tax. The economy will continue. My French friends don't mind their higher taxes; in return they do not have to pay their employees' health insurance (a major drag on small businesses in the US) and the low cost of higher education means a higher quality labor pool to draw on. There are trade-offs in everything. I know people in Atlanta sitting in their million dollar homes with no water and no gas, worried that Obama will raise taxes. Taxes would have paid for another reservoir than Lake Laneer, now dried by drought, or for transit infrastructure. The past twenty years of ideological mis-governance have made planning impossible.

You are spot-on about insultingly paltry tax breaks. Bush's breaks were a joke for most people too. Obama's plan plays to an instinctive sense of fairness. People want some sort of revenge on those they see as benefiting from incumbent tax policies, and being responsible for the current frightening mess. I think the $250,000 break-point he chose was perfectly designed to maximize the potential voter draw.

A word of comfort: whatever the tax-laws, accountants will find a way to minimize the burden, and the laws will have the finest loopholes money can buy.

Edited by maxwatt, 11 October 2008 - 12:34 PM.

[Zenob]

Wikipedia is estimating about 33% don't pay income taxes.

And yet that still doesn't reach this mythical 40% number that keeps getting tossed around. It also doesn't break out who these people are that aren't paying. The assumption on the right is that it's all those "lucky" poor people. I can't help but notice that nobody touched the point I made about the high percentage of corporations and internationals who pay zero income tax(to the tune of over 2 trillion dollars or enough to DOUBLE the amount of US taxes collected). Should half to 2/3s of rich corporations be allowed to not pay any income taxes? Or are only those lucky poor people supposed to do that?

As of 2007, there are about 138 million taxpayers in the United States,[8] including many who pay zero income tax,[9] estimated to about a third of all tax filers.
http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States


We're only talking about tax filers, not all 300 million. 138 million last year apparently. The estimate is that 33% don't pay income taxes. That's about 46 million BTW. So out 138 million only 92 million are actually paying any income taxes. The Obama is promising 95% of tax payers, or filers a tax break, right? 95% of 138 million is 131 million give or take a couple. Lets say Obama, the one, gives all of us poor slobs a modest $500 tax break. That's going to cost the government 65 trillion dollars. So Obama is going to have to raise 7 million peoples taxes by $9400 to to take in enough taxes to make up this 65 trillion dollars, right? How much higher will their tax rate have to go to accomplish this?

One hundred thirty eight million tax payers getting a $500 dollar tax break is only 69 billion not trillion. I imagine what will happen is Obama will roll back the Bush tax cuts. That would mostly effect the top tax bracket which is $328k and up. A one percent increase here would net a minimum of $3,280(I believe the Bush tax cut was 3% so triple that). Keep in mind that's the MINIMUM for this tax bracket. If someone earns 100 million they are still in this tax bracket(1% here is a full million). Rolling back the Bush tax cuts would cover that tax break with a massive amount left over.

My next question is how much is a stinky little BO $500 tax break really going to help? Don't we need more like a $1000 to matter? How high will the top tax rate have to go up for that? And finally, what will Obama do if these rich people decide to put their money in tax free bonds?

For how much the tax bracket will have to go up, see above. As for the effect of the tax break, probably not much. It's just an election year stunt. It'll have about the same effect as Bush's stimulus checks. Fixing the economy(regulating the damn banks for starters) then educating people to SAVE their money instead of blowing it is what needs to happen. The government itself needs some remedial economics training too. This massive deficit spending BS is killing us.

[niner]

the bankrupting of this nation (and the global marketplace) began with the Iraq war

False.

Things go way, way back before that. There is/was clearly a fundamental flaw in our credit system. Money was loaned to people who could not pay it back. This was largely championed, pushed, bullied, fought for, and created by, democrats from Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton and especially Barack Obama. The republicans, particularly George W. Bush and John McCain, have predicted this exact crisis and have attempted to actually correct it in the past, only to be defeated along party-line votes by the democrats.

Savage, you are correct that money was loaned to people who could not pay it back, but you are wrong if you think that it was "championed, pushed, bullied, fought for, and created by, democrats from Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton and especially Barack Obama". It sounds like you are referring to programs that encourage minority home ownership, like the Community Reinvestment Act or some programs of the GSEs. These programs had NOTHING to do with the credit crisis. Read this for details. This is the best explanation that I've seen regarding this particular Right Wing Myth. This myth is being promoted by certain people on the Right who certainly know that it's a lie, but they are just trying to cover their asses now that their entire economic philosophy has been exposed as dangerously wrong.

George Bush did not predict this crisis nor did he try to correct anything close to the true causes of it. When State Attorneys General attempted to regulate Predatory Lending, the Bush Administration actively prevented them from doing anything about it! Bush didn't just do nothing, he ACTIVELY prevented State action, working through the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. McCain's claim to fame in this regard is also highly suspect. He has long championed deregulation, the root cause of the crisis. He signed on to some bill or other that would tighten controls on GSEs, but the bill had been dead for a year before he became a cosponsor. It was just a political stunt.

[niner]

To kick off our show tonight, Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he "cut" zero? Abracadabra! It's called a "refundable tax credit." It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as "welfare," but please try not to ruin the show.

Umm, guys, Obama never said 95% of taxpayers, he said "working families". The number of families is smaller than the number of taxpayers by a fair amount. I believe that the 95% number is accurate. They are working families though, and not idle welfare cheats. They pay a substantial amount of tax, primarily in the form of payroll tax, but also including state and local taxes and sales taxes. Some of them do indeed not pay Federal Income Tax. The tax credit that they would receive will help to offset some of the other taxes they pay, so I don't see a problem with calling it a tax cut. This is exactly what the country needs to get stronger, not more money for the top 0.1% at the expense of the middle class and the working poor. If you want to call it "welfare", that's fine, but just be sure that you call out all the other Welfare Queens, like farmers, ranchers, big business, the oil and other extractive industries, elderly Social Security and Medicare recipients, military contractors on cost plus contracts, and home owners getting subsidized mortgages (in other words, all mortgage holders), to name but a few.

[biknut]

Umm, guys, Obama never said 95% of taxpayers, he said "working families". The number of families is smaller than the number of taxpayers by a fair amount. I believe that the 95% number is accurate. They are working families though, and not idle welfare cheats. They pay a substantial amount of tax, primarily in the form of payroll tax, but also including state and local taxes and sales taxes. Some of them do indeed not pay Federal Income Tax. The tax credit that they would receive will help to offset some of the other taxes they pay, so I don't see a problem with calling it a tax cut. This is exactly what the country needs to get stronger, not more money for the top 0.1% at the expense of the middle class and the working poor. If you want to call it "welfare", that's fine, but just be sure that you call out all the other Welfare Queens, like farmers, ranchers, big business, the oil and other extractive industries, elderly Social Security and Medicare recipients, military contractors on cost plus contracts, and home owners getting subsidized mortgages (in other words, all mortgage holders), to name but a few.

Are you saying only low income taxpayers that don't pay income taxes are the only ones expected to get a Obama tax cut. That's about the same thing I've been saying.

You say fine, but I have to pay for their tax cut. Why can't I have a tax cut? I pay a lot of SS too.

Edited by biknut, 12 October 2008 - 06:51 AM.

[maxwatt]

Umm, guys, Obama never said 95% of taxpayers, he said "working families". The number of families is smaller than the number of taxpayers by a fair amount. I believe that the 95% number is accurate. They are working families though, and not idle welfare cheats. They pay a substantial amount of tax, primarily in the form of payroll tax, but also including state and local taxes and sales taxes. Some of them do indeed not pay Federal Income Tax. The tax credit that they would receive will help to offset some of the other taxes they pay, so I don't see a problem with calling it a tax cut. This is exactly what the country needs to get stronger, not more money for the top 0.1% at the expense of the middle class and the working poor. If you want to call it "welfare", that's fine, but just be sure that you call out all the other Welfare Queens, like farmers, ranchers, big business, the oil and other extractive industries, elderly Social Security and Medicare recipients, military contractors on cost plus contracts, and home owners getting subsidized mortgages (in other words, all mortgage holders), to name but a few.

Are you saying only low income taxpayers that don't pay income taxes are the only ones expected to get a Obama tax cut. That's about the same thing I've been saying.

You say fine, but I have to pay for their tax cut. Why can't I have a tax cut? I pay a lot of SS too.

Just get a better accountant.

[RighteousReason]

the bankrupting of this nation (and the global marketplace) began with the Iraq war

False.

Things go way, way back before that. There is/was clearly a fundamental flaw in our credit system. Money was loaned to people who could not pay it back. This was largely championed, pushed, bullied, fought for, and created by, democrats from Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton and especially Barack Obama. The republicans, particularly George W. Bush and John McCain, have predicted this exact crisis and have attempted to actually correct it in the past, only to be defeated along party-line votes by the democrats.

Savage, you are correct that money was loaned to people who could not pay it back, but you are wrong if you think that it was "championed, pushed, bullied, fought for, and created by, democrats from Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton and especially Barack Obama". It sounds like you are referring to programs that encourage minority home ownership, like the Community Reinvestment Act or some programs of the GSEs. These programs had NOTHING to do with the credit crisis.

That's nonsense. Loaning money to people who cannot pay back is exactly what caused this crisis. How can you call it a credit crisis in the same breath as denying loaning money to people without credit caused the problem?

As Stanley Kurtz has reported, ACORN proudly touted "affirmative action" lending and pressured banks to make subprime loans. Madeline Talbott, a Chicago ACORN leader, boasted of "dragging banks kicking and screaming" into dubious loans.

ACORN attracted Barack Obama in his youthful community organizing days. Madeline Talbott hired him to train her staff -- the very people who would later descend on Chicago's banks as CRA shakedown artists. The Democratic nominee later funneled money to the group through the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat, and through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, ditto. Obama was not just sympathetic -- he was an ACORN fellow traveler.

http://www.realclear...mortgage_m.html

McCain's claim to fame in this regard is also highly suspect. He has long championed deregulation, the root cause of the crisis. He signed on to some bill or other that would tighten controls on GSEs, but the bill had been dead for a year before he became a cosponsor. It was just a political stunt.

When John McCain co-sponsered a bill to regulate the GSEs it wasn't a political stunt. George Bush and John McCain both knew exactly what was going to happen and tried to stop it.

Remember it was the democrats who made sure the bill was "dead for a year", not the concerned legislators continuing to support it. There is absolutely nothing suspect about that.

I don't know how you can possibly make the sweeping generalization that "deregulation" is somehow the cause of this crisis, as if the banks were finally free of government influence so they could go out and self-destruct. In the face of economically burdensome red-tape, deregulation is an entirely sane philosophy. The democrats largely rejected the bail out plan literally because there was not enough money being funneled into organizations such as Barack Obama's ACORN that were the root cause of this crisis.

The only thing more shocking than this is that once the democrats realized they were being specifically named as the cause of this economic crisis, they spun this wild fantasy you have presented about "deregulation" as the cause in order to say it was specifically caused by republicans. The fact that a large number of americans actually believe them isn't so much shocking as incredibly sad.

Edited by Savage, 12 October 2008 - 01:58 PM.

[Zenob]

That's nonsense. Loaning money to people who cannot pay back is exactly what caused this crisis. How can you call it a credit crisis in the same breath as denying loaning money to people without credit caused the problem?

Um, no. This is just more republican slap stick comedy. Basically they are trying to blaim the whole mess on those darn poor people. Riiight.

What caused this crisis has two main parts. First, the banks started ignoring regulations/"best practices" and basically stopped checking applications for credit worthiness(find me something in the CRA that made them do this, find an entry telling them to write interest only loans, don't check credit, etc). There was no law that made them do this. They were making easy money hand over fist by rubber stamping loans and then bundling them into mortgage backed bonds. This is the FIRST failure of oversight/regulation(the regulations were there but nobody stopped them from ignoring them). The second and larger problem was they all got together and INVENTED a new financial animal, the Credit Default Swap. Basically, all CDS is is insurance, but if they CALL it insurance all kinds of regulations kick in that limit how much they can sell, size of asset pool etc. They bypassed this by just inventing a new name, AND NOBODY AT THE FED BLINKED AN EYE. So now you got banks writing garbage assets as FAST as they can and on top of this they are piling 30+ levels(no regulations on these newly made up instruments) deep of CDSs on top of them cuz they were making money off the CDSs just as fast as the mortgage bonds. Now here's the kicker. All these junk loans they willingly wrote(no one twisted their arms here) have started blowing up like anybody with a brain could have guessed. Now this is triggering their faux insurance policies(the CDSs) which is AUGMENTING their losses due to CDS pay outs to counter parties by at least 5-10 fold. What would have been a simple 3% loss on the mortgage bonds has been transformed into a 15%-20% beheading which throws the bank into insolvency cuz they simply don't have the assests/cash on hand to meet it. This is the process that happens every time a big bank goes under like Leh. It sets off a cascade of these damn CDS defaults and they rip through the whole financial sector. Bank A goes under, couterparty B gets screwed, which screws couterparty C that had a CDS with them to hedge which then screws bank D, etc, etc.

So basically the banks made TONS of money when they were first running up this scam, and now instead of facing the consequences of their actions, they are getting government handouts(which they KNEW would happen) for the simple reason that they have Washington by the nuts. Either do nothing and risk a depression, or give the bastards what they want and try to avert some of the fallout. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

[RighteousReason]

[b]That's nonsense. Loaning money to people who cannot pay back is exactly what caused this crisis. How can you call it a credit crisis in the same breath as denying loaning money to people without credit caused the problem?

the banks started ignoring regulations/"best practices" and basically stopped checking applications for credit worthiness(find me something in the CRA that made them do this, find an entry telling them to write interest only loans, don't check credit, etc). There was no law that made them do this.

Of course not. I just told you what made them do this. Gangsters from Barack Obama's ACORN and other left wing organizations, e.g. Democrat party.

[Zenob]

[b]That's nonsense. Loaning money to people who cannot pay back is exactly what caused this crisis. How can you call it a credit crisis in the same breath as denying loaning money to people without credit caused the problem?

the banks started ignoring regulations/"best practices" and basically stopped checking applications for credit worthiness(find me something in the CRA that made them do this, find an entry telling them to write interest only loans, don't check credit, etc). There was no law that made them do this.

Of course not. I just told you what made them do this. Gangsters from Barack Obama's ACORN and other left wing organizations, e.g. Democrat party.

Um, what the hell are you talking about? So now not only is Obama somehow connected to ACORN but now they are magically connected to the financial crisis? LOL
So, they somehow FORCED banks to ignore regulations while simultaneously keeping the fed from doing anything about it? Explain to me how they did this. This should be rich.

[niner]

[b]That's nonsense. Loaning money to people who cannot pay back is exactly what caused this crisis. How can you call it a credit crisis in the same breath as denying loaning money to people without credit caused the problem?

the banks started ignoring regulations/"best practices" and basically stopped checking applications for credit worthiness(find me something in the CRA that made them do this, find an entry telling them to write interest only loans, don't check credit, etc). There was no law that made them do this.

Of course not. I just told you what made them do this. Gangsters from Barack Obama's ACORN and other left wing organizations, e.g. Democrat party.

Savage, I have to agree with Zenob here. The Right, including John McCain, is simply LYING about this. McCain either knows he's lying, which is deceitful, or his understanding of the crisis is so poor that he's been misled. In either case, it makes him unsuitable to serve as president. Did you read the link that I provided that explains why the CRA and GSEs are not responsible for the crisis? If you don't believe Barry Ritholtz' explanation, I'd like to know why. The Right is counting on the fact that most people have NO IDEA what was going on in the mortgage industry over the past five years or so. They also have no idea how things like the CRA worked, and what a small fraction of total loan origination it covered. Unless you really know what ridiculous, fraudulent loans were being written by underwriters who were not even subject to the CRA, and what small reductions in credit quality were employed in the small number of loans that were CRA loans, then you should read up on it, because you are being scammed by the Right.

People are mad as hell about this mess, McCain is losing the election and he is desperate, so he's lying his ass off. He and the Right Wing Noise Machine don't care that they're lying; they only need it to stick for a month. It's getting repeated so often now, I'm afraid it's going to become one of those false things that "everyone knows". It absolutely disgusts me.

[niner]

Are you saying only low income taxpayers that don't pay income taxes are the only ones expected to get a Obama tax cut. That's about the same thing I've been saying.

You say fine, but I have to pay for their tax cut. Why can't I have a tax cut? I pay a lot of SS too.

No. You will get a much bigger tax cut under Obama than under McCain. Somebody posted a table of the tax cuts under both plans for various income levels not too long ago.

[maxwatt]

[b]That's nonsense. Loaning money to people who cannot pay back is exactly what caused this crisis. How can you call it a credit crisis in the same breath as denying loaning money to people without credit caused the problem?

the banks started ignoring regulations/"best practices" and basically stopped checking applications for credit worthiness(find me something in the CRA that made them do this, find an entry telling them to write interest only loans, don't check credit, etc). There was no law that made them do this.

Of course not. I just told you what made them do this. Gangsters from Barack Obama's ACORN and other left wing organizations, e.g. Democrat party.

What we have is a classic speculative bubble. They seem to occur every two or three generations as people forget the last one, and people forget. The South Sea Bubble in Engand in 1720, the Dutch Tulip craze --imagine trading a farm for a tulip bulb-- are some early examples. New financial practices and instruments tend to bring bubbles about, until they are better understood and regulatory practices are put in place. Partly contributing to the current situation is the repeal of regulations from the thirties, enacted under Clinton, but new financial practices are a bigger factor. To simplify, the current speculative bubble is due to the collateralization of mortgages, turning them into instruments that can be bought and sold. When the mathematical models of default fail, these instruments can become worthless. Maybe not literally, they are still backed by real estate, but sorting out the real hard asset value is difficult-- a single CMO can represent thousands of homes. Failure to pay a mortgage in aggregate, beyond what the models predict is not the whole story. Fannie and Freddy made few if any loans to low income people that defaulted. It was independent mortgage companies that made thousands of bad loans to people who couldn't possibly pay them back - interest only for 5 or ten years, 1 year adjustable based on Libor -- but they qualified based on the lowest payment. Interest rates go up, Joe Six Pack goes bust and defaults. Still not a problem, but then these companies bundled these mortgages into financial instruments and sold the to banks and investment houses, and they were actively traded till no one knows where the assets are really. It was just a matter of time until everyone knew the emperor has no clothes. The total "value" of all the mortgage instruments is many, many times the world's annual GDP. The government of Iceland is bankrupt, there are no more investment banks in the US, Russia is suddenly poor again. No country is unaffected.

The immediate precursor to the Panic is the collapse of Lehman. Had the government acted to shore them up it would have prevented the ensuing Liquidity Crisis -- no bank willing to lend to another --but free markets require the freedom to fail. Paulson's bailout plan to ease the crisis by having the government buy bad assets is turning out to be too slow -- to date no purchase has been made for logistic reasons, it takes time to set it up, banks still won't lend. Now they are acting on the suggestion of the British going to directly take a stake in banks and infuse cash. Paulson rejected this suggestion from his advisors weeks ago at the beginning of the crisis for ideological reasons. Now desperation trumps ideology. Had this been done when congress passed the bailout bill, we'd be in better shape.

Whatever is done, it can only soften the blow. More is coming. I hope our new leaders will have at least some economic understanding and not be blinded by any ideology to facts as they develop.

Edited by maxwatt, 13 October 2008 - 01:45 PM.

[RighteousReason]

i think i've made my point and i'm getting tired of this. so whatever. see you next bail out.

[Zenob]

i think i've made my point and i'm getting tired of this. so whatever. see you next bail out.

I think this loosely translates into "my butt is getting sore from the constant kicking so I'm going to leave now.".

[RighteousReason]

i think i've made my point and i'm getting tired of this. so whatever. see you next bail out.

I think this loosely translates into "my butt is getting sore from the constant kicking so I'm going to leave now.".

not at all, buddy.

[maxwatt]

i think i've made my point and i'm getting tired of this. so whatever. see you next bail out.

But if fascist or Marxist armies invade our country, I want you to know I will fight at your side, shoulder to shoulder.

[niner]

so whatever.

So you agree that McCain is lying about this?

[Pulptor]

The Perfect Stranger
By Charles Krauthammer

Barack Obama is an immensely talented man whose talents have been largely devoted to crafting, and chronicling, his own life. Not things. Not ideas. Not institutions. But himself.

read more...

(from Neal Boortz)

So how else do you get into politics? My well-planned obscurity doesn't seem to be working.

Edited by Pulptor, 15 October 2008 - 08:10 PM.

[Pulptor]

That's nonsense. Loaning money to people who cannot pay back is exactly what caused this crisis. How can you call it a credit crisis in the same breath as denying loaning money to people without credit caused the problem?

Um, no. This is just more republican slap stick comedy. Basically they are trying to blaim the whole mess on those darn poor people. Riiight.

What caused this crisis has two main parts. First, the banks started ignoring regulations/"best practices" and basically stopped checking applications for credit worthiness(find me something in the CRA that made them do this, find an entry telling them to write interest only loans, don't check credit, etc). There was no law that made them do this. They were making easy money hand over fist by rubber stamping loans and then bundling them into mortgage backed bonds. This is the FIRST failure of oversight/regulation(the regulations were there but nobody stopped them from ignoring them). The second and larger problem was they all got together and INVENTED a new financial animal, the Credit Default Swap. Basically, all CDS is is insurance, but if they CALL it insurance all kinds of regulations kick in that limit how much they can sell, size of asset pool etc. They bypassed this by just inventing a new name, AND NOBODY AT THE FED BLINKED AN EYE. So now you got banks writing garbage assets as FAST as they can and on top of this they are piling 30+ levels(no regulations on these newly made up instruments) deep of CDSs on top of them cuz they were making money off the CDSs just as fast as the mortgage bonds. Now here's the kicker. All these junk loans they willingly wrote(no one twisted their arms here) have started blowing up like anybody with a brain could have guessed. Now this is triggering their faux insurance policies(the CDSs) which is AUGMENTING their losses due to CDS pay outs to counter parties by at least 5-10 fold. What would have been a simple 3% loss on the mortgage bonds has been transformed into a 15%-20% beheading which throws the bank into insolvency cuz they simply don't have the assests/cash on hand to meet it. This is the process that happens every time a big bank goes under like Leh. It sets off a cascade of these damn CDS defaults and they rip through the whole financial sector. Bank A goes under, couterparty B gets screwed, which screws couterparty C that had a CDS with them to hedge which then screws bank D, etc, etc.

So basically the banks made TONS of money when they were first running up this scam, and now instead of facing the consequences of their actions, they are getting government handouts(which they KNEW would happen) for the simple reason that they have Washington by the nuts. Either do nothing and risk a depression, or give the bastards what they want and try to avert some of the fallout. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

The reason the banks started ignoring the regulations was because there was a huge influx of new capital from China with no where to put it. China had increased its income something like three-fold, but the places to invest didn't keep pace. America has often been a favorite place in which the world invests. With all that money but no where to put it, greed dictated the financial institutions take greater and greater risks. Greed blinded the bankers and everyone down the chain to the mortgage brokers to the home owners. It might have started with bankers, but the people with the ridiculous mortgages also share some of the blame. Lest you think I'm biased, I'm one of those greedy idiots who had a ridiculous mortgage (but I came to my senses and sold it just before we hit bottom). To be fair, the damage I did to the economy is almost non-existent compared to the damage done by the large financial institutions.

Edited by Pulptor, 15 October 2008 - 08:12 PM.

[Pulptor]

i think i've made my point and i'm getting tired of this. so whatever. see you next bail out.

But if fascist or Marxist armies invade our country, I want you to know I will fight at your side, shoulder to shoulder.

I'm more worried about America's flirtation with fascism, especially nationalism, militarism, and totalitarianism. Nationalism and militarism have always had a sizable presence in American society. With the melding of the news media and the government, totalitarianism is sneaking in through the front door. The government might now have more influence over the psyche of the society than the society has over its government. That's the real fight.

Edited by Pulptor, 15 October 2008 - 08:34 PM.

[RighteousReason]

i think i've made my point and i'm getting tired of this. so whatever. see you next bail out.

But if fascist or Marxist armies invade our country, I want you to know I will fight at your side, shoulder to shoulder.

I'm more worried about America's flirtation with fascism, especially nationalism, militarism, and totalitarianism. Nationalism and militarism have always had a sizable presence in American society. With the melding of the news media and the government, totalitarianism is sneaking in through the front door. The government might now have more influence over the psyche of the society than the society has over its government. That's the real fight.

Conservative nationalism and militarism in America are usually in complete opposition to the totalitarian, fascist government-media complex.

I don't know why I'm even telling you this because you obviously aren't basing your statement on anything in reality so there is no reason for me to expect you to start now.

Edited by Savage, 15 October 2008 - 09:24 PM.

[Pulptor]

i think i've made my point and i'm getting tired of this. so whatever. see you next bail out.

But if fascist or Marxist armies invade our country, I want you to know I will fight at your side, shoulder to shoulder.

I'm more worried about America's flirtation with fascism, especially nationalism, militarism, and totalitarianism. Nationalism and militarism have always had a sizable presence in American society. With the melding of the news media and the government, totalitarianism is sneaking in through the front door. The government might now have more influence over the psyche of the society than the society has over its government. That's the real fight.

Conservative nationalism and militarism in America are usually in complete opposition to the totalitarian, fascist government-media complex.

I don't know why I'm even telling you this because you obviously aren't basing your statement on anything in reality so there is no reason for me to expect you to start now.

Fascism is characterized by, among other things, nationalism, militarism, and totalitarianism. Any one of these things by themselves doesn't a fascist make. But combined they are a nasty poison. I think Hitler might disagree with your statement. The military was vital to his power, as was fanatical and enforced nationalism.

Edited by Pulptor, 16 October 2008 - 01:21 AM.

[Zenob]

This:

Conservative nationalism and militarism in America are usually in complete opposition to the totalitarian, fascist government-media complex.

Followed by this:

I don't know why I'm even telling you this because you obviously aren't basing your statement on anything in reality

Is what we in the real world call irony.

[Pulptor]

This:

Conservative nationalism and militarism in America are usually in complete opposition to the totalitarian, fascist government-media complex.

Followed by this:

I don't know why I'm even telling you this because you obviously aren't basing your statement on anything in reality

Is what we in the real world call irony.

It is a bit surreal. The "I don't know why I'm even tell you this" line made me laugh a few times. Even now when reading it, it makes me smile.

[RighteousReason]

You can create this definition using whatever historical basis you want but that doesn't change the present day reality.

[RighteousReason]

Frankly the word "fascist" is best defined as follows:

In contemporary political discourse, the term 'fascist' is often used by people as a pejorative description of their opponents.

Any other definition is generally a bunch of bullshyte.

So let me just get rid of the bullshyte and say it more plainly:

Conservative nationalism and militarism in America are usually in complete opposition to the totalitarian government-media complex.

Edited by Savage, 16 October 2008 - 02:38 PM.

[biknut]

No. You will get a much bigger tax cut under Obama than under McCain. Somebody posted a table of the tax cuts under both plans for various income levels not too long ago.

Niner, this is appearently not true. Obama wants everyone to think so though. The truth is starting to come out, just in time.

When compared with current law, people earning $20,000-$50,000 a year will see their effective tax rates -- the amount of money the taxpayer actually ends up paying the government -- increase on average under Obama’s plan, according to Tax Policy Center figures.

Most households making $30,000-$75,000 will not see a reduction in their taxes under Obama’s plan relative to current law, according to the Center. In fact, the only strata that will see a majority of its effective tax burden reduced under Obama are those making less than $30,000 per year and those making $75,000-$200,000 per year

Obama’s Tax Cut is Actually a Spending Increase, Says Non-Partisan Group

Wednesday, October 15, 2008
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan to cut taxes on 95 percent of taxpayers would effectively increase government spending by an average of $64.8 billion a year and effectively raise income tax rates for many Americans, even on some earning $20-$50,000 per year, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.

The heart of Obama’s tax cut proposal is in his use of refundable tax credits, which the Center describes as “credits available to eligible households even if they have no income tax liability” -- in short, refunds available even to those who don’t pay taxes. These refunds are claimed on tax returns and are paid to all taxpayers who qualify for them, regardless of whether they owe taxes or not. These refunds have the ability of reducing a taxpayer’s liability below zero, meaning they can get a refund without actually paying taxes.

In real numbers, 60.7 million people who have no tax burden at all will receive refunds from Obama, while only 33.8 million people, who pay approximately 40 percent of income taxes, will get any kind of refund. Twenty percent of taxpayers, who pay 87.5 percent of total income taxes, will actually see after-tax income decline under Obama by nearly two percent, according to the Center.



By using these refunds, Obama is able to claim that he is giving a tax cut to 95 percent of households, although only 62 percent of households pay any income taxes at all. This means that Obama’s tax plan calls for giving money to some households that do not pay taxes, including a plan to make community college “essentially free” and pay 10 percent of the interest on all mortgages.

The problem with Obama’s characterization that his proposals are tax cuts is that refundable credits are calculated as outlays, or direct spending, not as reductions in tax rates, according to the Center. This means that, in budgetary terms, some of Obama’s tax cuts are actually spending increases.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that Obama’s spending proposals will be so large that they effectively eliminate income taxes for 15 million households, increasing the percentage of households that pay no taxes from 37.8 percent to 48.1 percent.

Obama’s biggest refund, and the one most likely to go to non-taxpayers, is his Making Work Pay credit, which would give $500-$1000 to everyone making under $200-250,000 a year. This proposal, which the Tax Policy Center says is “intended to offset the regressivity of payroll taxes,” would cost taxpayers $323.4 billion during Obama’s first term, if elected.

The credit would be applied to those making as little as $8,100 per year: the equivalent of working approximately 20 hours per week at $7.25 per hour, the level of the federal minimum wage during Obama’s presidency.

Obama’s second refund is his Universal 10% Mortgage Interest credit, which will automatically refund 10 percent of mortgage interest, up to $800, for taxpayers who do not itemize deductions. Currently, taxpayers who itemize deductions may deduct mortgage interest from their taxes. This new refund would amount to a $13 billion subsidy for taxpayers who do not itemize.

Obama’s third new refund is the American Opportunity credit, which will provide up to $4,000 in refunds to cover the costs of college tuition. The Obama campaign Web site says that this refund is aimed at “making community college essentially free and covering 2/3 of the cost of public 4-year college.” This refund would cost $58.2 billion during Obama’s first term, according to the Center.

Obama also plans to expand the child and dependent care credit, by making it refundable and extending it to cover up to 50 percent of the cost of child care, up to $3,000. This proposal would cost an estimated $10.6 billion during an Obama first term and would disproportionately benefit those who pay little or no taxes, according to the Center.

Obama would also make the Savers Credit refundable, expanding it to “match 50% of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000,” per year, according to the Obama campaign.

The Saver’s Credit is a non-refundable credit which offers low-income taxpayers up to a $1000 refund on contributions they make toward a 401(k) or IRA retirement account.

Combined with his proposals to mandate enrollment in 401(k)s and require employers who do not offer them to establish IRAs for workers would carry a Center-estimated cost of $92.3 billion during Obama’s first term.

Obama would further expand an already refundable credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, in three ways. The Earned Income Tax Credit is a refundable credit for low-income workers designed to give refunds to people who may have dependents but do not pay income taxes.

First, Obama’s plan would extend the credit’s phase-in range for childless workers, or lower the income level required to qualify for the credit, by increasing to $6,300 the amount of income that can be used to calculate the credit.

Second, he would extend the credit’s phase-out range for childless workers, raising the income ceiling on the credit. Phase-in and phase-out ranges are the maximum and minimum income levels needed to qualify for the credit. Obama would extend the phase-out level to $9,825.

Third, he would increase the size of the refund available by increasing rates from 7.65 percent to 15.3 percent for childless workers, and from 40 percent to 45 percent for couples with more than three children. According to the Center, these expansions would cost an estimated $19.3 billion over four years.

These programs would apply to most workers making less than $200,000 a year for singles and $250,000 a year for couples, but not evenly. Most of the benefits of Obama’s plan would go to the bottom 40 percent of wage earners, a group that, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Tax Policy Center, pays zero percent of the nation’s income taxes.

In fact, Obama’s refunds get smaller as tax burdens get larger, which means that while it is true that 95 percent of workers will receive some form of tax refund from Obama, they will not all receive a full refund, because Obama relies on phase-in and phase-out proposals to target his refunds toward the lowest-earning tax brackets.

It is these phase-out requirements that result in a general decrease of the refunds for people earning over $75,000 per year, according to the Center. This bracket includes nearly 40 percent of all Americans and nearly 20 percent of total income taxes.

When compared with current law, people earning $20,000-$50,000 a year will see their effective tax rates -- the amount of money the taxpayer actually ends up paying the government -- increase on average under Obama’s plan, according to Tax Policy Center figures.

Most households making $30,000-$75,000 will not see a reduction in their taxes under Obama’s plan relative to current law, according to the Center. In fact, the only strata that will see a majority of its effective tax burden reduced under Obama are those making less than $30,000 per year and those making $75,000-$200,000 per year.


http://www.cnsnews.c...px?RsrcID=37519