Chris S argued for taxing the rich and said in part, “Yes, this puts things into perspective, considering that in today’s time of crisis, you’re complaining about raising the top tax rates by a few percentage points!
Your parents’ generation seemed to understand that when the country is suffering, sacrifice is necessary, especially from those who have much to give. Yet today, whenever the most well-off are asked to sacrifice a fraction of what the wealthy during WWII did, you throw a conniption fit and start ranting about communism.
We don’t need a war to justify government spending, Tina. And I reject your assessment of the argument as being “for government control of business.” I am for sensible regulations that hold corporations accountable and promote job creation here in the U.S., not overseas. I am also for a tax code that requires corporations to actually pay what they owe in taxes, without giving them a million loopholes and tax breaks. “this puts things into perspective, considering that in today’s time of crisis, you’re complaining about raising the top tax rates by a few percentage points!”
Tina responded with this and it’s worth the time to read! Her rebuttal:
To you it is a few percentage points. To those out of work it’s another blow to the possibility of a lasting job.
And you are attempting to compare recovery from recession to recovery from a devastating depression and world war. THAT’S NUTS!
It is particularly nutty when the solution to the financial crisis today is to get government out of the way and let those people who have it put their money to work, in the private sector! It’s part of what must be done to remove the uncertainty that has business handcuffed.
President Obama August 2009: “You don’t raise taxes in a recession…the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in a the middle of a recession because that would just suck…take more demand out of the economy and put more businesses in the hole”
NEWS FLASH: WE ARE STILL IN A NON-RECOVERY SITUATION!!!!!
“Your parents’ generation seemed to understand that when the country is suffering, sacrifice is necessary…”
Excuse me Chris we have sacrificed. We have incurred big losses because of the moronic (Democrat) lending regulation that caused the housing meltdown and financial crisis. We have endured three years of high unemployment that was totally unnecessary. We have been saddled with unprecedented regulatory burdens while we watched our debt burden rise like a rocket. We have endured rising food prices and tanking property values.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/business-economy-financial-crisis/money-power-wall-street/how-much-did-the-financial-crisis-cost/
There’s little in the way of comprehensive bean-counting when it comes to the financial crisis. That’s in part because it’s still unfolding.
But, also because much of the human fallout can’t really be monetized. For example, the Treasury Department, in an April assessment [PDF], put the total lost household wealth at $19.2 trillion. ……The stock market decline has brought another $11 trillion in losses, and retirement accounts have lost $3.4 trillion. …
…The Census Bureau’s 2010 estimate of 46.2 million people in poverty is the “largest number in the 52 years for which poverty estimates have been published.”
http://www.droolingfordollars.com/loser-billionaires-in-global-crisis/
Without any doubt, the Global Economic Crisis tumbled the markets and currencies all over the world making 2008 a dreadful year for world’s wealthiest entrepreneurs and investors. The Business Sheet and Forbes have tailed a list of 20 global moguls who have gotten creamed in the recent economic collapse.
According to a survey, the wealth of America’s millionaires has decreased by one third in this financial crisis, only 36% of them think that their financial advisors have performed well during the crisis.
“…especially from those who have much to give. Yet today, whenever the most well-off are asked to sacrifice a fraction of what the wealthy during WWII did, you throw a conniption fit and start ranting about communism.”
“From each according to their means…”
You bet I throw a conniption fit.
you (government) aren’t asking. Secondly, the rich are already paying a lions share of all taxes, and last and best of all…THEIR MONEY IS BEING SPENT STUPIDLY AND WASTEFULLY.
Your own perspective is way off. We have the means to reverse this crisis within the private sector and this President and his minions are blunting it while you cheer and ask for more.
“I am for sensible regulations that hold corporations accountable and promote job creation here in the U.S., not overseas.”
Then Obama is not your man!
“I am also for a tax code that requires corporations to actually pay what they owe in taxes, without giving them a million loopholes and tax breaks.”
Corporations write the checks for the taxes they owe according to the laws on the books. It is an expense to the business. CONSUMERS carry that tax burden in the form of higher prices for goods. This is important, Chris.
I’m all for a simplified tax code and would gladly give up loop holes in exchange for low rates…most business people would welcome less paperwork and compliance costs!
Your attitude and hostility toward business is exceeded only by your ignorance. Can you name the loop holes and tax breaks that bother you or are you just mouthing liberal talking points? Do you have any idea what it costs business to play the silly tax law loophole tax break game?
Speaking of tax breaks…the biggest tax break of all is the one where a non-taxpaying worker gets a check from the government after filing. That’s a fairly sizable tax break. Or how about the tax break that the millions who don’t work, don’t pay, and get food stamps, education grants, welfare, healthcare. Those are some really big tax breaks. Oh you don’t think of them as breaks? Why the hell not? They contribute almost nothing and yet benefit from the work of others in a way that allows them NOT TO WORK.
WHAT’S SICK IS THEY HAVE ADOPTED AN ATTITUDE OF RESENTMENT AND COVETOUSNESS TO THOSE WHO PAY THE LIONS SHARE OF TAXES.
“Then why did you just suggest that very thing? You wrote: ‘The war put Americans back to work and after the war reconstruction and supplying Europe with food and clothing until they could rebuild kick started our economy.'”
I didn’t suggest it. We are not recovering from a world war that followed a deep depression. We are recovering (NOT) from a recession. It is a recession not unlike the one in the eighties that Reagan pulled us out of by unleashing the power of the American people.
“We are talking about how to kick start our economy right now. Therefore, it is only sensible to look at how the economy was kick started in the past.”
I repeat. There is no necessity to rebuild following the destruction and devastation of war. After the war we had to completely reverse course…stop building planes, tanks, guns, and ships and start building whatever the entrepreneurial American thought he could make money building…things Americans wanted and needed.
We already have infrastructure. We already have businesses waiting to be set free. We already have a formula that we know works to get the economy growing again (Kennedy, Reagan, GWB). Obama has ignored what has historically worked in favor of his (expensive) agenda. His agenda has not only racked up a lot of debt but it has placed constraints on an economy left reeling.
“You have no explanation for how our economy could have been kick started into recovery during a time of record government spending and taxation.”
Chris you are the one without an explanation. Government spending is what you favor but you don’t seem to consider that government spending requires that we either go deeply into debt or take money from the very people that generate wealth. We can print money (quantitative easing) but that causes your dollars to be worth less.
Why are you married to these ideas? Why, when there is another way to make the economy work and generate plenty of revenue for government?
I think you should consider what is contained in the following article very carefully, Chris. We are talking about your future:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/
During this seven-year (Reagan) recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The concretionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.
Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.
In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. They wrote: “We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom-the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth-assets minus liabilities-of all U.S. households and business … was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, … net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years.”
And what about revenues to government under Reagan’s business friendly policies?
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~mchugh/taxes/The%20Reagan%20Tax%20Cuts%20Lessons%20for%20Tax%20Reform.htm
Tax Rates and Tax Revenues
High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion. A reduction in high marginal tax rates would boost long term economic growth, and reduce the attractiveness of tax shelters and other forms of tax avoidance. The economic benefits of ERTA were summarized by President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: “It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth.” Unfortunately, the Council could not bring itself to acknowledge the counterproductive effects high marginal tax rates can have upon taxpayer behavior and tax avoidance activities.
Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. The graph below illustrates changes in the tax burden during this period.
The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.
A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent.
Several conclusions follow from these data. First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/tax-cuts-revenue-what-we-learned-1980s
…The Reagan tax cuts reduced rates for all income classes, even though it was well understood that cutting the lower rates would result in substantial revenue losses. Low tax rates (below 20%) do not cause much of a disincentive for working, saving or investing, and hence there is little supply-side effect. We did argue, however, that reducing the high marginal rates (up to 70% on high-income earners) would cause little, if any, revenue loss, because of the large, positive supply-side effects. Were we right?
Since most of the Reagan tax cuts applied to lower- and middle-income earners, there was close to a dollar lost in tax revenue for each “dollar” of tax cut for these groups. Still, CBO figures show that total tax revenue only fell from 19.2% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1982, before most of Reagan’s tax-rate reductions were put in place, to 18.4% of GDP in 1989, the year he left office. This happened because the U.S. economy grew by more than one-third in real terms (34.3%), much faster than the 24.3% rate expected even by economists within the Reagan administration. Thus, by the time President Reagan left office, the economy was generating more tax revenue at a maximum 28% rate than many on the left forecast it to generate at a maximum 70% rate.
See the rising revenue figures that followed the Bush tax cuts here:
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm
Democrats are dumb. They cut off their noses to spite their faces. Appropriate quote:
“But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.” – Britt Hume
“Clearly, we can have higher taxes on the rich, as well as generous government investments and sensible regulations, and still have a recovery. We know this because that’s exactly what happened in the thirties, forties, and fifties.”
THE HUMAN FACTOR. After enduring a deep depression (made deep by policies used by Obama in this recession) and a world war America was ready to start living normally again. The people were anxious to work and acquire wealth and belongings for themselves. This self-interest generated investment and invention in the private sector, activity that made America the envy of the world. Your ignorant desire to somehow make all of this investment and hard work a result of divine government edict and expenditure is laughable and sad.
Chris you don’t even know the heritage and history of your own country. You have been schooled in the principles and lies of Marxism and you don’t even know it. I can’t tell you how sad it is that you have been denied the experience of the American entrepreneurial spirit. This spirit builds and generates wealth that makes some of us very rich it’s true. BUT it also lifts people out of poverty, creates an abundance of opportunity for everyone, allows for charity work at home and all around the world, funds educational opportunity, builds museums, libraries, colleges, hospitals, and concert halls. And the party you favor seeks to rob and blunt this spirit for the failed Marxist model of spreading/sharing wealth.
“Your theory can’t explain that, which means it is not a good theory.”
My “theory” has explained it you just refuse to entertain the truth regarding history and the human element that is always affected by government action. You refuse to discern the difference between a war and a recession in terms of crisis and sacrifice and the solutions required to address each problem.
You also refuse to consider the “theory” that has been proven to work under both Democrat and Republican administrations.
“… noted in a recent Bloomberg View column that 92 percent of leading economists agree that the stimulus helped reduce the unemployment rate.”
Oh for heavens sake! 92% of leading economists? Who decides who the leading economists are? What did they do conduct a poll at a luncheon attended only by progressive economists? This is a meaningless statement.
Try this:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/02/17/the-five-biggest-failures-from-president-obamas-stimulus-law
Three years and $825 billion later, the results are clear. Instead of producing an economic recovery, the stimulus produced only broken promises and massive debt. The stimulus failed–and by the president’s own standards at that. …
First, Obama’s economic advisers promised the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. In 2012, the unemployment rate was supposed to fall below 6 percent. The prediction was not meant to be taken lightly. In a January 2009 radio address, Obama announced he was releasing a report based on “rigorous analysis” that charted unemployment through 2013 so “the American people can see exactly what this plan will mean for their families.”
Today, 12.8 million Americans are unemployed, 8.2 million cannot find enough work, and 1.1 million have given up looking for work altogether. Unemployment still remains above 8 percent…
Second, Obama promised the stimulus would not only have a large impact but also an immediate impact. Said the president-elect, “I’m confident … our 21st century investments will create jobs immediately,” adding, “We’ve got shovel-ready projects all across the country.”
Those jobs never materialized, and it was not for lack of workers–or shovels. As President Obama remarked in June 2011, “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” …
Third, President Obama said in February 2009 that the stimulus would lift “2 million Americans from poverty.” But since Obama took office, 6.3 million Americans have fallen into poverty.
2010 U.S. Census data, the most recent available, showed that 46.2 million Americans were living in poverty. Worse still, child poverty has increased, rising to 21.6 percent.
Fourth, the “green economy,” Obama vowed, would create millions of jobs. The Energy Department has handed out $35.2 billion in stimulus money to jumpstart the clean energy industry, but it’s created more red ink than green jobs. Nationally, green technology accounts for just 2 percent of employment nationwide and there has been no marked boom in the industry.
Those loans, however, have created quite the scandal. Nearly half a billion in taxpayer dollars was lost to the now-bankrupt solar energy company Solyndra. The company, which has since lain off over 1,000 workers, was Obama’s self-described poster-child for “American ingenuity and dynamism” in 2010. Today, it’s the poster-child for the hazards of reckless spending.
Finally, the fifth promise: one million electric cars. Obama promised the stimulus would put one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. Last month, the Washington Post reported that “evidence is mounting that President Obama was overly optimistic” to make that pledge.
General Motors’ Volt, expected to be a hybrid hit, fell far short of its sales goals in 2011 by 38 percent. Fisker Automotive, which received half a billion dollars of stimulus money, also fell short of its manufacturing goals. On top of that, instead of creating jobs in the United States, the company is building its cars in Finland. So the Recovery Act did at least manage to stimulate Scandinavia.
Those so-called economist of yours are full of crap.
Democrats have been trying to convince people that Republican policies are harmful to the poor when clearly just the opposite is true. They have been trying to convince people that the wealthy are motivated by greed rather than the urge to produce and participate.
Republican policies have lifted people out of poverty, reduced crime, and created greater opportunity for more Americans while also providing revenues to support the safety net, vital services, and infrastructure.
An effort to better educate our children about the American spirit and the means to acquire wealth for themselves would solve a lot of America’s problems.
What say you now, Chris?
“To you it is a few percentage points. To those out of work it’s another blow to the possibility of a lasting job.”
Maybe. If it is indeed true that Romney, of the $250 million, paid not one dime in personal income taxes throughout most of the Shrub’s tenure (and doesn’t it make perfect sense, … and during the conduct of war in the billions?) … we need somebody to sit down and figure out how many jobs Romney personally created during that time.
But leaving out his Olympic tenure, of course, because it was peasant monies that paid for that.
I guess since this article is in response to me, I should respond.
I said (regarding tax rates on the rich during WWII compared to today): “Yes, this puts things into perspective, considering that in today’s time of crisis, you’re complaining about raising the top tax rates by a few percentage points!”
Tina replied: “To you it is a few percentage points. To those out of work it’s another blow to the possibility of a lasting job.”
Do you see how this is a total non-sequiter? I was talking about raising the tax rates on the top earners, and you’re talking about people who are “out of work.” Obviously, there’s not a whole lot of overlap between these two groups of people.
It’s possible you’re saying that raising the top tax rates by a few percentage points will have an indirect effect on the unemployed, by making wealthy people less likely to hire them. I don’t find this argument convincing for two main reasons. The first is that the tax increase I am talking about would simply return top tax rates back to where they were in the Clinton years, during which unemployment was at lows not seen since the 1970s, and job creation was booming.
The second reason is that the wealthy today are, by every measure, doing better than they ever have before. Corporate profits are at record highs and climbing.
So the notion that wealthy business owners just won’t be able to hire as many people as they do now if the Bush tax cuts expire (as they were always meant to anyway), simply isn’t plausible to me.
“And you are attempting to compare recovery from recession to recovery from a devastating depression and world war. THAT’S NUTS!”
No it isn’t, Tina, because economists are nearly unanimous in declaring that there has never been a recession as bad as this one. There’s a reason this one has been called “The Great Recession,” and it’s because we nearly did fall into a depression. This was a global financial crisis on a scale the world has never seen.
“Excuse me Chris we have sacrificed. We have incurred big losses because of the moronic (Democrat) lending regulation that caused the housing meltdown and financial crisis.”
For the millionth time: Democratic lending regulation did not cause the housing meltdown or the financial crisis. You don’t have to take my word for it; this is really easy to determine for yourself. All you have to do is compare CRA loans to non-CRA loans, and see which ones were more likely to default. I know you’re behind the curve here–last time I made this argument, you didn’t even know that there was such a thing as a non-CRA loan–but you can do this right now, in very little time.
…The Census Bureau’s 2010 estimate of 46.2 million people in poverty is the “largest number in the 52 years for which poverty estimates have been published.”
http://www.droolingfordollars.com/loser-billionaires-in-global-crisis/
“Then Obama is not your man!”
Obama is the one who proposed penalties for businesses that outsource, while giving generous incentives to businesses who bring jobs back to America. Republicans voted against this plan. And yes, there must be penalties for outsourcing; otherwise it will always be cheaper to outsource, because American workers will always demand better compensation than their Chinese or Indian counterparts. Wal-Mart isn’t going to stop outsourcing out of the goodness of its executives’ hearts.
“Your attitude and hostility toward business is exceeded only by your ignorance. Can you name the loop holes and tax breaks that bother you or are you just mouthing liberal talking points?”
“Speaking of tax breaks…the biggest tax break of all is the one where a non-taxpaying worker gets a check from the government after filing. That’s a fairly sizable tax break.”
First of all, there is no such thing as a “non-tax paying worker.” Everyone pays sales tax.
Second, yes, this is a tax break, Tina; and it is one that stimulates the economy. I actually get income tax back from the government after filing; so does my mom. This is because we are under the poverty line. Both of us are very hard workers. This tax break means that we are able to afford things we otherwise wouldn’t, meaning we are able to contribute to the economy in ways we otherwise wouldn’t. Taking this tax break away from us would have a very meaningful effect on our lives. Taking tax breaks away from the wealthy would obviously have less of an effect on their quality of life, as they have a lot more to fall back on. This is the basic premise of the progressive tax system, which even Adam Smith supported.
“Or how about the tax break that the millions who don’t work, don’t pay, and get food stamps, education grants, welfare, healthcare. Those are some really big tax breaks.”
Tina, I don’t like that there is a small minority of people who are unwilling to work and on welfare. But my theory is that the total amount this small group gets in tax breaks is nowhere near as close to the amount that the wealthy get in tax breaks. I don’t have numbers to back that up at the moment; I’ll see if I can find them.
“It is a recession not unlike the one in the eighties that Reagan pulled us out of by unleashing the power of the American people.”
Tina, the global financial crisis we’re experiencing now is NOTHING like the Carter recession.
I’ll have to respond more tomorrow.
Chris: “Do you see how this is a total non-sequiter? I was talking about raising the tax rates on the top earners, and you’re talking about people who are “out of work.” Obviously, there’s not a whole lot of overlap between these two groups of people.”
Not a whole lot of overlap? Who do you think is responsible for most of the money that banks use to lend to small business? Who is it that invests big money in corporations. Who puts big chunks of money at risk so that failing companies can make a come back (Bain Capital).
Of course there is a connection between wealth and jobs. And when the wealthy, and the semi-wealthy, and the little investors are all discouraged from putting their wealth at risk the economy bogs down. HELLO! AND THANK YOU OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!!!
“The first is that the tax increase I am talking about would simply return top tax rates back to where they were in the Clinton years, during which unemployment was at lows not seen since the 1970s, and job creation was booming.”
Blah blah blah…the Clinton tax rates. How old were you during the Clinton years? He gets credit for one thing and one thing only…he was looking out for himself and reversed course on his policies when the Republicans took the House after fifty years of Democrat dominance. He was so badly walloped that he declared, “The era of big government is over”. Had he not lost the House he would never have changed his policies…we’d probably have some reworked version of Hillary care…and the economy would have gone straight in the dumper. Clinton gets to take credit for that booming economy because he worked with the Republicans.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/bill-clinton-gingrich-legacy/2011/12/26/id/422149
“The second reason is that the wealthy today are, by every measure, doing better than they ever have before. Corporate profits are at record highs and climbing.”
The wealthy also lost a record amount of money. Most don’t want to risk losing more. Record highs profits only means the numbers are bigger and smart people are making money however they can. The people with money are holding things together with what they have investing in commodities and waiting on a change in policy. Record highs in the stock market don’t translate to jobs on main street when hands are tied…everything is in safe investments. If you watch the market you see that the volume of trading has been very low. It isn’t working for anyone, Chris. We need is a few million jobs and this government is stomping on those who make it possible to create jobs.
“…because economists are nearly unanimous in declaring that there has never been a recession as bad as this one.”
There are many economists that say Reagans recession was as bad…you’re listening to the same economists that poll themselves to decide who the leading economists are.
“There’s a reason this one has been called “The Great Recession,” and it’s because we nearly did fall into a depression.:
It was called the worst recession since the depression to get Obama elected and place heaps of blame on Bush…an effort to deflect attention away from Barney Frank and the corruption between Democrats and Fannie and Freddie!
“This was a global financial crisis on a scale the world has never seen.”
Europe would have been in trouble with or without the financial crisis. The toxic instruments that created the financial crisis were a product of Democrat policy and a pig headed refusal to do something about it when repeatedly warned. This non-recovery recovery plan with the massive spending and debt and the printing of money in great gobs and the hostility to business has made it much tougher for Europe and other countries. If America had recovered…and we would have had Obama lost…all of us would be better off today.
” Democratic lending regulation did not cause the housing meltdown or the financial crisis. You don’t have to take my word for it; this is really easy to determine for yourself. All you have to do is compare CRA loans to non-CRA loans, and see which ones were more likely to default. I know you’re behind the curve here–last time I made this argument, you didn’t even know that there was such a thing as a non-CRA loan–but you can do this right now, in very little time.”
Bulls#*t!! Your economic experts cherry picked the data to make it look like it didn’t cause the meltdown. When you leave out all but one year’s worth of data from 1992 to 2008 it’s pretty easy to make the case of few CRA loans. I’m not behind the curve…you proved nothing except your willingness to blindly accept what those who corrupted the system put out.
I can’t go on tonight…for many reasons. I will consider whether it is worth my time to continue but if I do it won’t be for awhile, I have a busy day tomorrow.
WE NEED A DIFFERENT SYSTEM FOR EDUCATE OUR KIDS AND THE NATION!