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.
LOL...that's all you do is review. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Well, yeah... sometimes that's necessary when people have a hard time understanding the facts. I'll repeat the facts again if you STILL don't get it.
Quote:
How can you possibly tell they are correct? What test did you make? What data did you cross-check to? Pinto in his own words tells you his data aren't published anywhere else. Nowhere. They're just his.
Another lie from you, saggy? Have you no shame?
Here's a sample of Pinto's data... disprove it.
Quote:
- Third Federal Savings & Loan reported that its "Home Today" community development program constituted just 3.2% of its owned mortgage loan portfolio ($299.3 million), yet these loans represented 32% of its 90+ delinquencies. Its Home Today delinquency rate is 33% vs. 2% on its non-Home Today portfolio.
- Bank of America, one of the nation's largest CRA lenders, noted on its Q3:08 earnings call with equity analysts that while its CRA loans constituted 7% or $18 billion of its owned residential mortgage portfolio, they represented 29% of net losses, with an annualized loss rate of 1.26%.
- The Shorebank (Chicago) has a 19% combined delinquency and non-accrual rate for its single-family first mortgage loan portfolio The Shorebank is the nation's first community development bank. In addition to its 19% rate on single-family first mortgages, it has a 12% rate on its multi-family lending, a 9% rate on its commercial real estate, a 13% rate on its commercial and industrial lending, and a 31% rate on its construction and development lending. All rates are as of 6.30.09. These loan categories account for 98% of its total lending portfolio;
- On a more general note, a recent Fed study of CRA loans, as reported by then Fed Governor Kroszner (FRB: Speech--Kroszner, The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis--December 3, 2008), identified CRA loans as a type of subprime loan and noted that "CRA-related subprime loans performed in a comparable manner to other subprime loans."
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
I don't like them because they are nothing but meaningless numbers scrawled on a chalkboard. A REAL witness would have enabled replication of his work by providing a statistical appendix naming his sources and describing his methods. But not Pinto...
See above. Specific info with sources is given. Not sure why you couldn't read and understand that yourself...
So is Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone: "The president has packed his economic team with Wall Street insiders intent on turning the bailout into an all-out giveaway"
Obama's Big Sellout : Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout - broken link)
Yeah... you got me. I'm definitely against what Obama, Geithner, and crew allowed the banksters and their buddies at Goldman Sachs to get away with.
So would you mind clarifying whose side your on. When I 1st met you in a tax debate, you sided against me on taxation on the wealthy but now your calling people banksters.
Are with the Johnson, Volcker, Edwards & the others that Too Big To Fail is too big to resist along with the growth in income inequality is an predicament that needs to be reversed such as higher (progressive ala Taylor) taxation on the wealthy.
Or are you with Sumners, Geithner, Junior and the like that only look out for the top 1%, corporate America and even wealthy foreigners, while everyone else be damned.
Or are you like Barry who seems schizo when it comes to Wall Street. Could that be why you seem to dislike him so, like a homophobe hates gays because they possess feelings themselves but can't reconcile it within themselves?
So would you mind clarifying whose side your on. When I 1st met you in a tax debate, you sided against me on taxation on the wealthy but now your calling people banksters.
The top 1% of earners is also composed of those other than the banksters. That group includes a lot of job-providing small business owners, among others, who had absolutelynothing to do with the kleptocracy that Obama, Geithner, and crew have allowed. That really isn't a very difficult concept. Here's an example of some of the people we're talking about when we say the top 1%: Who Are the "Working Affluent"?
Quote:
Are with the Johnson, Volcker, Edwards & the others that Too Big To Fail is too big to resist along with the growth in income inequality is an predicament that needs to be reversed such as higher (progressive ala Taylor) taxation on the wealthy.
Or are you with Sumners, Geithner, Junior and the like that only look out for the top 1%, corporate America and even wealthy foreigners, while everyone else be damned.
See above.
The fact remains that the top 1% pays a grossly disproportionate amount of the federal income tax revenue, compared to their share of the income. You've already seen the facts on how lopsided the effective tax rates are. Here are the facts on the top 1%'s share of the earnings compared to the share of the taxes they pay (Table 1): The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
The top 1% earns 22.83% of the income, but pays 40.42% of the taxes. The top 1% pays nearly TWICE as much of a percentage in income tax compared to their share of the income.
Quote:
Or are you like Barry who seems schizo whne it comes to Wall Street.
Barry is a 'schizo' when it comes to Wall Street because he's trying to serve two conflicting masters: the banksters who own him, and the voters who disapprove of his support of the giveaways to the banksters (Obama just had to have Tax Cheat Timmy Geithner, a chief architect of the Wall Street giveaway, as his Treasury Secretary, remember? ).
Last edited by InformedConsent; 02-14-2010 at 09:02 PM..
The top 1% of earners is also composed of those other than the banksters. That group includes a lot of job-providing small business owners, among others, who had absolutelynothing to do with the kleptocracy that Obama, Geithner, and crew have allowed. That really isn't a very difficult concept. Here's an example of some of the people we're talking about when we say the top 1%: Who Are the "Working Affluent"?
"Working affluent" LMAO. Still that's why Taylor (whom our boy Edwards linked to) says there should be a discussion about progressive taxation rather than avoidance and ignoring the harmful effects of a growing income inequality and concentration of wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Barry is a 'schizo' when it comes to Wall Street because he's trying to serve two conflicting masters: the banksters who own him, and the voters who disapprove of his support of the giveaways to the banksters (Obama just had to have Tax Cheat Timmy Geithner, a chief architect of the Wall Street giveaway, as his Treasury Secretary, remember? ).
Huh? Why do you laugh at people who sacrificed and worked very hard to get where they are? People who provide jobs to others? People who pay nearly twice their fair share of the tax revenue to pay the way, in part, for those who refuse to support themselves because it's easier to sit back and collect their freebies and their government check?
Quote:
Still that's why Taylor (whom our boy Edwards linked to) says there should be a discussion about progressive taxation rather than avoidance and ignoring the harmful effects of a growing income inequality and concentration of wealth.
There already IS a grossly disproportionate progressive taxation. Taxing the job-providers any more will kill any recovery in jobs other than enlarging government, which is unsustainable as government is a wealth consumer, not a wealth producer.
Many of us are angry at Wall Street's capture of Congress and Obama. We were voicing our objections to Obama's insistence on Wall Street giveaway architect Geithner over a year ago. For example, my post on February 11, 2009: https://www.city-data.com/forum/elect...ml#post7425171
Pelosi and Reid have controlled Congress since 2007. Take a look at what happened to Federal spending since they took over:
I think that statement pretty well sums up most of the arguments you present. Pelosi and Reid are the authors of the housing crisis? That's right up there with Al Gore invented the internet and a coal mine is a gigantic diamond waiting to happen.
Yes that article was quite good if only he could remove his bias.
Quote:
Now you might argue central banks had no alternative in the face of under-consumption. Or you might conclude there was a deliberate, unspoken collusion among policymakers to ?rob? the middle classes of their rightful share of income growth by throwing them illusionary spending power based on asset price inflation. We will never know.
How could he say we'll never know? Isn't it obvious enough yet?
When Bush was first elected, he made good on his promise to help along the american dream of home ownership. He and a republican controlled congress aided and abetted, along WITH Alan Greenspan. Didn't the real estate agents swoon over the man!!! A real hero. Greenspan the maestro 1987-2006.
The right said it was wrong. Phil Gramm, the Oprah Winfrey of sub-prime mortgages
The left said it was wrong. Bush Profiteering from Housing Defaults by James Bovard
The press & states rights were saying it was wrong.
Homeownership Plan Criticized as 'Mandate' - The Washington Post | Encyclopedia.com (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-434380.html - broken link)
King George said he'll do as he pleases. President George W. Bush Radio Address: American Dream Down Payment Fund
There was a time in history when the Fed operated as a separate entity in service to public good, far apart from the flavor of the month politics. When there is no dissenting opinion permitted in a system predicated on checks and balances, we need to worry.
Arent you the very same individual who touted the benefits to the economy of increasing FOOD STAMPS?
Why yes, but that's only because I am capable of comprehending the important role that the velocity of money plays in stimulative economics. Those without such a capacity may be expected to struggle not just with the matter of food stamps, but with a wide range of issues related to appropriate federal fiscal policy in a time of economic downturn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Now you want to ridicule the simple fact that during a tax cut across the board, those who earn more, would indeed save more. Common sense unless you want to tell me how someone who earns $20K a year should get a bigger tax cut than those who earn $100K..
You may have wanted to direct these comments to our friend, Mr. Consent. It is he after all who suffers from the persistent delusion that a 40% tax rate reduction for the middle quintile (worth $38) is larger than a 20% tax rate reduction for the top 1% (worth $12,230). Like yourself, I have always recognized that the Bushie tax cuts were nothing more than a gigantic giveaway to the rich -- a means for accomplishing wealth redistribution on a massive scale -- by punishing those who worked just as hard but didn't end up getting as much money for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Ooh hell, if I'm correct, you also touted the benefits of the $400 tax cut over 12 months by Obama, which equals $33.33 a month, and how you feel this $33.33 would allow the economy to recover.. Now you are criticizing a tax cut to the poor by Bush which is 10% larger than Obamas at $38.00..
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear. You are now claiming that $33.33 PER MONTH is somehow not as much as $38 PER YEAR. This would be what -- a staggering mistake, an inexcusable error, an incomprehensible confabulation -- on your part. Not that so many are surprised by it, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
You want it both ways...
No, I only want it one way, and that is in at least some general conformance with fact and reason, two things that right-wingers spend so much of their time haplessly struggling against. You all have been saddled with eight years of abject failure, and now a ninth of the utter futility of undiluted obstructionism. You have done nothing other than harm to this nation for all of the current millenium. I very clearly do not want it THAT way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
...and anyone who follows you long enough understands that you find any reason to sound like Obama is an economic genius while at the very same time, criticizing Bush for giving the poor an even larger tax cut than Obama gave. I mean seriously, stop, I dont know how many more of your postings I can read without dying in laugher over hypocracy..
Well, at least you've spared us a lecture on democrisy, but your complaint rings so miserably hollow, not only for its repetition of the ignorances cited above, but also against a long-standing record of purely partisan denial and egregious error-making on your part and on that of the derelict right-wing in general. Bush was an unmitigated national disaster for which you and your gang were consistent and enthusiastic cheerleaders. Obama has for the most part merely heeded the plain fact and reason that you all still so diligently strive to ignore. Don't presume to lecture anyone at all over hypocrisy when your own record -- like that of Bush himself before you -- is one of having messed up everything you ever got your auto-fumbling little political hands on. You and your clone brothers and sisters have and deserve no standing or credibility at all at this point. Assuming that you ever had them, you will have to earn those back. As the error-filled post to which I reply so clearly evidences, you are presently doing only your usual and completely incompetent job of it...
Well, yeah... sometimes that's necessary when people have a hard time understanding the facts. I'll repeat the facts again if you STILL don't get it.
There is nothing to GET in your posts, save for the fact that you are stuck in an intellectual loop, capable only of repeating yourself over and over and over again. Others have moved well past and beyond you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Another lie from you, saggy? Have you no shame?
Here's a sample of Pinto's data... disprove it.
Here is the press release upon which the Bank of America Q3:08 earnings call was based. Please indicate any data point within it that matches up to any of Pinto, or any from which any of Pinto's data points can in fact by any means be derived. Thank you very much.
The fact remains that the top 1% pays a grossly disproportionate amount of the federal income tax revenue, compared to their share of the income.
But they do pay a share of income taxes that is quite realistically proportional to the share of wealth that they hold, and as we all know, no adequate reason to conclude that taxation should be assessed relative to annual income rather than to wealth has ever been documented on these boards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The top 1% earns 22.83% of the income, but pays 40.42% of the taxes. The top 1% pays nearly TWICE as much of a percentage in income tax compared to their share of the income.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Barry is a 'schizo' when it comes to Wall Street because he's trying to serve two conflicting masters: the banksters who own him, and the voters who disapprove of his support of the giveaways to the banksters (Obama just had to have Tax Cheat Timmy Geithner, a chief architect of the Wall Street giveaway, as his Treasury Secretary, remember? ).
As has frequently been explained for your benefit (but as all serious observers recognized from the outset), both Bush's and Obama's efforts to shore up the teetering financial sector were undertaken not out of any love or admiration for the financial sector and its principals, but out of an urgent desire to protect the economy as a whole -- and all the John and Jane Doe's who comprise it -- from the tidal wave of disastrous economic effects that an actual meltdown would have unleashed. That much for the time being at least having been accomplished, the hour approaches and now is to be about the business of reorganizing and reregulating that sector so as to better assure that the simple greed of a relative handful of cowboy capitalists cannot again so easily bring the economy of the entire world to its knees. With your use, by the way, of tabloid-level terms such as "bankster", "Tax Cheat", and "giveaway", you only offer further testimony to the breadth of that vast gulf which separates you and your understandings from those of every serious analyst of the situation.
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.
).
