Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No... grab the property and hold it until the next upswing... it's flipping basically...
The only way a person makes a statement like that is if they know NOTHING about the housing market, real estate investment or how banks handled foreclosed or distressed property.
Banks absolutely HATE foreclosures, it's extra legal cost, extra administrative cost and most foreclosures are NON-PERFORMING ASSETS. Anybody familiar with the banking industry KNOWS banks attempt to move NON-PERFORMING ASSETS off their books as soon as possible even if it means taking a LOSS.
The mortgage balance gets absorbed... that money was never going to get retrieved... or how long would that have taken anyway?... Grab the property and sell it again... they made money either way...
Do you have any idea how much you are insulting your own intelligence with these posts?
This was MANDATED to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It was a liberal policy.
Of course they should not have been given these loans. However, leave it to the liberal to create a disaster out of heart felt sympathy.
Like most other issues, perhaps you should read and learn a little bit about them before forming an opinion. In that case, at least you would have an informed opinion. To any rational being, the liberal origins of the housing crash are damning. However, liberals simply deny these facts, as they are uncomfortable details and contradict thier personal emotional position on this issue.
So you are telling me a Republican President was in office for 8 YEARS and he couldn't change liberal policy? In the meantime he was starting two wars handing out government contracts left and right to his and Dick Cheney's buddies at Halliburton, KBR and others.
Yeah... like the bloated Republican Governor of New Jersey turned down $3 BILLION funding for a desperately needed tunnel project into NYC... Way to go Christie...
While cutting taxes in New Jersey for people making over $400,000 a year.
One thing to note about your numbers is that it includes income from social security taxes. Neither the Clinton tax hikes or Bush tax cuts affected social security, so you cannot include those figures if you wish to make comparisons. As I recall the SS tax rate was capped at 6.2% under Reagan anyway, so there would be no difference there. Instead numbers look like this:
So in fact tax revenue increased 31% to the peak of the economic cycle after the Bush tax cuts, even though economic growth between 2001-2008 was about half of what it was 1992-2000. A near equal gain on weaker economic growth.
That is the point. The increased economic activity resulting from the tax cuts leads to a wider tax base and more revenue, which is the exact pattern we saw 2002-2008.
Of course, the same effect could probably be achieved through tax breaks and deductions, because changing the marginal rates themselves is a b-tch.
Nice spin but no cigar. Social Security is part of the federal budget obligation. Thanks for sharing.
Nice spin but no cigar. Social Security is part of the federal budget obligation. Thanks for sharing.
Your post was about tax cuts. No tax cuts have affected social security. Social security rates have been the same for more than 20 years, so why would you include a rate that has remained exactly the same to make an argument against tax cuts when the two are unrelated? Or rather, are you interested in the political banter as opposed to legitimate statistical comparisons? My guess is the former.
Ideology before facts, rule #1 in left wing playbook.
Do you have any idea how much you are insulting your own intelligence with these posts?
How so?... foreclosure is a loss either way... that's lost money... may as well grab the propoerty... which is what they are doing now on a mass scale...
Your post was about tax cuts. No tax cuts have affected social security. Social security rates have been the same for more than 20 years, so why would you include a rate that has remained exactly the same to make an argument against tax cuts when the two are unrelated? Or rather, are you interested in the political banter as opposed to legitimate statistical comparisons? My guess is the former.
Ideology before facts, rule #1 in left wing playbook.
My original post about tax revenue strictly about tax revenue ALL tax revenue. If the Republican theory of "Trickle Down" economics REALLY worked with the substantial tax cuts of the Administration of Bush 43 we would have seen a significant overall increase in tax revenue. When compared to the tax revenue ALL the tax revenue received from the Clinton Administration the increase wasn't near as significant.
If the Bush Tax cuts were truly effective job growth, and tax revenue would have increased significantly. If wages are increasing then even the amount of money from Social Security taxation would increase. Clearly by the accounts and information of most economist middle class wage growth did not occur at same rate during the Bush 43 Administration as it did during the Clinton Administration. Keep in mind that Social Security taxes are paid only on the first $106,800 in 2010. In prior years this income level was lower. Since Social Security taxation affects mostly middle class tax payers the rise of fall of Social Security tax receipts is legitimate indicator of the health of the middle class.
So you are telling me a Republican President was in office for 8 YEARS and he couldn't change liberal policy? In the meantime he was starting two wars handing out government contracts left and right to his and Dick Cheney's buddies at Halliburton, KBR and others.
He did try to stop it. He was derailed (again by the dems)
"The tax cuts they want to give, as usual under Republican policies, will give 62 percent of the tax cuts to the top 1 percent of Americans," Hoyer said.
"Or said another way, an average $467 tax cut to working Americans in the middle of the income levels, and to the top 1 percent earners, an average of $157,000 tax cut...
and to Goldman Sachs, $2.6 billion in tax cuts. When you analyze that, you know what is happening is...
the same old Bush policies of advantaging the wealthy at the expense of the middle income working people and tax cuts which did not, as they were advertised to, grow the economy and grow jobs. In fact, they did just the opposite."
Michael Linden, associate director for tax and budget policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, said the Republican proposal is "unaffordable on a level we've never seen before."
"This is almost five times bigger than Bush tax cuts were," Linden said. "It really represents a doubling down on Bush's economic agenda. Where he skewed his tax policy heavily to the rich, this would skew it even further even to the exclusion of the middle class.
"$7 trillion in additional debt and deficit over next ten years would be calamitous," Linden added. "I think it's hard to understate the radicalism of this plan."
a bunch of liberal hogwash. the republicans have all said they want to maintain the bush era tax cuts for EVERYONE. the democrats are the ones that want to raise taxes on the rich, and the democrats are the ones that NEVER put up a bill regarding taxes to be voted on. the republicans kept asking for an up or down vote on that very subject many times. stop drinking the liberal kool aide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamofmonterey
NO, there was no housing bubble in 1997. In 1999 banks were given free reign due to de-regulation. I sold real estate in late 90's, there was not a bubble then.
read what i said again, i said the housing bubble STARTED, in the late 90s. that was when sub prime mortgages really started taking off. bubbles dont start off big and get bigger, they start off small.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamofmonterey
I agree with you. This mess has been going on for awhile. Bush and Paulson knew it would get this bad. "Every American a homeowner" That was Bush's quote in 2003, it made him look good during the war. Interesting how all his statments and proclamations are now swept under the rug.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
So you are telling me a Republican President was in office for 8 YEARS and he couldn't change liberal policy? In the meantime he was starting two wars handing out government contracts left and right to his and Dick Cheney's buddies at Halliburton, KBR and others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
He did try to stop it. He was derailed (again by the dems)
bush tried several times to rein in the sub prime lending markets, but the democrats blocked him every step of the way. and it was people like barney frank, chris dodd, and barack obama among others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
