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.
The single greatest contributer to the housing bubble was sub prime loans. FNMA/ FHLMC lost considerable market share as the bubble inflated because most loans did not meet their criteria.
Incorrect. They WERE the market for subprime loans.
Cuomo's 1999 press release:
Quote:
"Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo today announced a policy to require the nation's two largest housing finance companies to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages over the next 10 years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families."
Why you dont want a European system and instead want a Brazilian, Mexican and Alabama system? Perhaps because indirect regressive sales taxes constitute a much higher share of total tax take than in Europe in those places and in those places, inequality is sky high, trade unions are crushed and the rich pay low taxes? You have already made it clear that this is your goal. So obviously, Brazil, Mexico and Alabama are your dream systems.
inequality is sky high in regressively taxed Scandinavian/European countries? Then WHY do you want to emulate their tax and spend programs? /SMH
No it is not illogical. The commons exist for everyone's benefit, despite means. That way even poor people get police protection, fire protection, road access, access to primary education, etc. It helps society function
The poor are going to get police protection, road access, and education regardless--and you know they will. It's a tired argument that is irrelevant to the situation.
In fact, fine, if that's all you are going to bring up let's run with it. Tabulate only police, fire, road, education, and military expenses, divide it by three hundred fifty million and see what you come up with. There is your tax for the year. Everything else... that you conveniently "forgot" to mention is eliminated. Works for me as well.
The main problem is that your idea and my idea of what should be "commons" is totally different. And your idea of the definition of "tax" is totally different than mine. That is why you champion de facto socialist redistribution "tax" and I champion consumption tax (FairTax).
Thing is, in the end, your "poor" would probably benefit more under the FairTax proposal than they do now, which indicates that there is more to your motives than meets the eye. My guess is that you are just as worried about the productive (i.e. "rich") being punished as you are the poor being supported.
Then why did they cave in to Little Marco’s demand that they give a child tax credit payable to those who don’t even have a federal income tax liability?
inequality is sky high in regressively taxed Scandinavian/European countries? Then WHY do you want to emulate their tax and spend programs? /SMH
You are the one who have made it clear that you want a system similar to Mexico, Brazil and Alabama where taxation is more regressive than in Europe. They are extremely dependent on sales tax/VAT for their tax revenue. Why do you pretend you want higher taxes on the rich, high tax-to-GDP and much stronger unions, which they all have in Europe? You dont. You want the Mexican and Alabama style system. You're open about that. Thats why you support this terrible tax bill.
The poor are going to get police protection, road access, and education regardless--and you know they will. It's a tired argument that is irrelevant to the situation.
In fact, fine, if that's all you are going to bring up let's run with it. Tabulate only police, fire, road, education, and military expenses, divide it by three hundred fifty million and see what you come up with. There is your tax for the year. Everything else... that you conveniently "forgot" to mention is eliminated. Works for me as well.
The main problem is that your idea and my idea of what should be "commons" is totally different. And your idea of the definition of "tax" is totally different than mine. That is why you champion de facto socialist redistribution "tax" and I champion consumption tax (FairTax).
Thing is, in the end, your "poor" would probably benefit more under the FairTax proposal than they do now, which indicates that there is more to your motives than meets the eye. My guess is that you are just as worried about the productive (i.e. "rich") being punished as you are the poor being supported.
Where in the world has the "FairTax" been implemented and how are the poor faring there?
Increasing the deficit with nothing to show for it and exacerbating income inequality hurts everyone.
I suppose you're a strict immigration restrictionist, then. Immigration is the main reason for the increase in income inequality in this country and a less-important contributor to the increased deficit.
No it is not illogical. The commons exist for everyone's benefit, despite means. That way even poor people get police protection, fire protection, road access, access to primary education, etc. It helps society function
This is so far removed from reality!
The poor pays no taxes but gets nearly ALL the benefits.
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.
