$250k, Why Worry About Those Tax Increases?

[Kathianne]

May be more than you think:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/20/should-people-who-make-250-000-a-year-worry-about-obama-s-tax-proposals.html


Should People Who Make $250,000 a Year Worry About Obama's Tax Proposals? by Megan McArdle (http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/megan-mcardle.html) <time class="timestamp" property="dc:created" datetime="2012-11-20T16:51:00.000Z" pubdate="pubdate">Nov 20, 2012 11:51 AM EST

</time>Kevin Drum (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/11/kevins-handy-tax-table-innumerate-rich-people) and Dave Weigel (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/11/19/the_rich_people_who_don_t_know_how_tax_rates_work. html) take off after rich people who don't understand that they only pay marginal tax rates on the extra dollars they earn above taxation thresholds. "This isn't true, of course. Obama is only proposing to raise tax rates on income over $250,000, so if your income goes up to $251,000, you only pay the higher rate on the extra $1,000. The tax bill on your first $250,000 stays exactly the same."

Their analysis is basically sound, except for the fact that it is not quite true. They have forgotten to look at deduction phaseouts, surtaxes, and the AMT, which are not taxes on marginal income.*

No matter what you have heard on the internet, there are in fact a lot of sizeable marginal inflection points for high earners. There are the Pease deduction phaseouts, temporarily abated by the Bush tax cuts but scheduled to go back into effect in 2013, which can eliminate up to 80% of deductions for couples who make more than about $175,000 (the number is indexed for inflation, so it changes every year): your deductions are reduced by 3% of the amount by which your income exceeds the threshhold. The student loan interest deduction phases out at $150,000 ($75,000 for singles). And a lot of tax-free savings opportunities disappear:

educational savings accounts and IRAs have income limits, so your ability to use them starts phasing out in the low-six-figure income range. So do various educational and child tax credits. These things obviously aren't a huge deal for people who make $1,000,000 a year but they can be a huge tax hit for couples in the $150,000 to $300,000 range. Come 2013, they will be an even bigger hit.


And we haven't even discussed the AMT, which virtually eliminates deductions for couples who make the mistake of doing things like buying a house, having children, or living in a high tax state.

To be sure, there are a bunch of people who confuse marginal with effective tax rates, and their error should be gently pointed out. But it is hard to correct the errors of others while simultaneously making a fairly sizeable error of your own. So I've put together a handy graphic showing you what income levels trigger deduction phaseouts or surtaxes. The red line shows you where the phaseout is complete--i.e., where the deduction completely disappears.

<figure class="multimedia section"> http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2012/11/20/should-people-who-make-250-000-a-year-worry-about-obama-s-tax-proposals/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage.img.503.png/1353436467203.cached.png (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=113387078825505&set=a.113387075492172.22464.113263568837856&type=1&theater) <figcaption class="figcaption"> </figcaption> </figure> So for example, a married couple filing jointly in 2013 with two kids at home and one in college who go from making $100,000 to $125,000 loses a $2,000 child tax credit and $1800 worth of HOPE credit, an increase of almost 4% in their effective--not marginal--tax rate. The marginal tax rate on their extra earnings is 15.2% just from deduction losses; that comes on top of the 28% they'll be paying the federal government in income taxes, and whatever state income tax they owe.

A couple who goes from $150,000 to $185,000 loses tuition deductibility and the ability to contribute to an IRA. They also become eligible for the AMT, and if they aren't hit by the AMT, they will get hit by the Pease deduction phaseout. (If they're filing in 2012, they don't get hit by the deduction phaseout, but do lose the Opportunity Tax Credit, to the tune of $2500). Exactly how much they lose will depend on their deductions, but it's thousands of dollars, representing a substantial increase in their effective--again, not their marginal--tax rate. And if the Bush tax cuts expire, they'll also be facing a 3% tax hike on about half of their annual income, another effective increase of 1.5%.

A couple that goes from $180,000 to $251,000, meanwhile, loses access to Coverdell Education Savings Accounts and the adoption tax credit, loses $2250 worth of deductions under the Pease rules, almost certainly pays AMT, and has any investment income hit with a 3.8% surtax. Under Obama's plan, it's true that the top marginal tax rate will only affect about $1,000 worth of their income. But the other tax law changes that have occurred (or will) under his administration make for a sizeable increase in their overall tax burden. At the margin, this couple is probably better off earning the extra money. But there will couples who will not be--and a number of couples who will have to think hard about whether it wouldn't be better to cut back on the high-stress job.

This is not necessarily an argument against increasing those taxes; I favor letting all the Bush tax rates expire because we don't seem to have any plans to cut spending to match the revenue that those tax rates bring in. But it isn't true that this is simply trivial for all but the superrich.

Indeed, this graph really should include the EITC, which as I've written elsewhere, effectively creates a high marginal tax rate for the poor. But the phaseout is calculated based on the number of children you have, which means that there's no way to cleanly display it on the same graph as everything else. Anyway, just keep in mind that there's a big tax hit for poor people who make more money, too.


* This article originally contained an example about the 3.8% investment surtax which was incorrect, so I've removed it. I misread a source, and thought that the investment surtax applied to all investment income, when actually there's a fairly complicated formula that should keep this from happening. I apologize for the error.

[aboutime]

IMO. All of this boils down to one, very simple aspect of American life.

Those who call themselves "The HAVE NOT'S" are basically Jealous of the "HAVE'S".

Take away the HAVE'S, and guess what kind of country you end up with?

(Hint... CLASS WARFARE)

Anyone care to expound, or provide an Honest answer?

[tailfins]

There are options. I wonder how exercising these options affects the economy. I get paid by the hour and risk hitting some of these income limits. It reaches a point where taking off a month or two becomes much less costly because of the higher taxes.

[April15]

So why does none of the supposed "increase" affect my families tax? I know why because I planned ahead!

[jimnyc]

So why does none of the supposed "increase" affect my families tax? I know why because I planned ahead!

Wow, a blast from the past. Glad to see you back at DP! Would you like a cookie now? LOL :lol:

Just busting chops. :salute:

[aboutime]

So why does none of the supposed "increase" affect my families tax? I know why because I planned ahead!


Good for you. Welcome to the Individual Responsibility Club April15.

Sadly. Far too many uninformed, even uneducated Americans have little, if any idea how, or what they can do to avoid that "CLIFF" Obama and the members of Congress keep warning us about.

Planning ahead isn't natural for most. We know. A larger majority of Americans, from all of the Classes, Rich, Middle, and Poor only live day to day, week to week, and month to month.

If January 1st arrives and Obama with Congress have not rectified the Looming Tax Increases.

We are going to see an America we never wanted to see. Up close, and Personal.

[April15]

Good for you. Welcome to the Individual Responsibility Club April15.

Sadly. Far too many uninformed, even uneducated Americans have little, if any idea how, or what they can do to avoid that "CLIFF" Obama and the members of Congress keep warning us about.

Planning ahead isn't natural for most. We know. A larger majority of Americans, from all of the Classes, Rich, Middle, and Poor only live day to day, week to week, and month to month.

If January 1st arrives and Obama with Congress have not rectified the Looming Tax Increases.

We are going to see an America we never wanted to see. Up close, and Personal.The ending of the unwise tax cut is long over due. The nation needs it, the end of it, to be financially prudent. I am glad that the interest on our debt is .009% which is just about nothing.

[jimnyc]

The ending of the unwise tax cut is long over due. The nation needs it, the end of it, to be financially prudent. I am glad that the interest on our debt is .009% which is just about nothing.

The debt itself over 16 trillion is not nothing though. I'd rather 6 trillion wasn't spent in the past 4 years, and then end up worse off economically for that trouble!

[April15]

The debt itself over 16 trillion is not nothing though. I'd rather 6 trillion wasn't spent in the past 4 years, and then end up worse off economically for that trouble!I wish we hadn't either but a full blown depression would have us speaking Chinese right now.

[jimnyc]

I wish we hadn't either but a full blown depression would have us speaking Chinese right now.

Not handing out welfare and other goodies and bailing out private corporations, would not have put us in a full blown depression. And the bailouts and handouts did nothing at all to prevent a damn thing. The rate of decline of our economy has steadily went downhill. Congress spending what they don't have, year after year after year is what put us in this position. It's real simple - stop all the wasteful spending. That's the only thing that will stop the debt and slowly revive the economy, that and lower taxes and rates. Increasing taxes on the rich will only have them pass it down, just as Obamacare will be passed down to employees and consumers.

[tailfins]

I wish we hadn't either but a full blown depression would have us speaking Chinese right now.

I don't know about speaking Chinese, but my opinion of Obama voters are a bunch of people that were "Turning Japanese" on election day. Pay careful attention to the below music video if you don't know what I'm talking about.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEmJ-VWPDM4

[April15]

Tailfins i do not have sound.

[fj1200]

The ending of the unwise tax cut is long over due. The nation needs it, the end of it, to be financially prudent. I am glad that the interest on our debt is .009% which is just about nothing.

So citizens should pay higher taxes...


So why does none of the supposed "increase" affect my families tax? I know why because I planned ahead!

But proper planning ensures that no one would pay higher taxes... Thanks for the lesson in why rates have nothing to do with revenues.


I wish we hadn't either but a full blown depression would have us speaking Chinese right now.

Considering that excessive government intervention in economic decision making is what causes depressions... it's amazing we aren't in one.

[aboutime]

The ending of the unwise tax cut is long over due. The nation needs it, the end of it, to be financially prudent. I am glad that the interest on our debt is .009% which is just about nothing.


Gotta disagree with you April. Allowing taxes to increase for anybody, like they will in January if nothing is done to stop them. Will only bring more of a recession, more unemployment, and less investment in the economy by the People themselves.

If you are not working, not earning a paycheck, and dependent upon govt. Nothing improves, but we all, eventually become More broke than we are now.

We cannot afford to borrow any more.

[Kathianne]

So citizens should pay higher taxes...



But proper planning ensures that no one would pay higher taxes... Thanks for the lesson in why rates have nothing to do with revenues.



Considering that excessive government intervention in economic decision making is what causes depressions... it's amazing we aren't in one.

I'm also thinking that if we hadn't built up the deficit by borrowing from the Chinese, language would not have been the major problem. I'm very uncertain that going into hock actually kept us out of a 'depression' in the first place.

It seems there is an argument to be made that we are and have been in what would be considered a 'depression' if there weren't so many 'circuit breakers.' The real question to my mind is, 'have we really avoided a depression or just delayed it, while building up this huge pile of debt?

[fj1200]

I'm also thinking that if we hadn't built up the deficit by borrowing from the Chinese, language would not have been the major problem. I'm very uncertain that going into hock actually kept us out of a 'depression' in the first place.

It seems there is an argument to be made that we are and have been in what would be considered a 'depression' if there weren't so many 'circuit breakers.' The real question to my mind is, 'have we really avoided a depression or just delayed it, while building up this huge pile of debt?

I'm not worried about China as the Japanese have about as much debt and I'm not worried about a depression at this point either. What I see coming, without some tax cuts and some deregulation to get us more competitive globally, is the slow drip of '70s stagnation. I just don't see the 30's because there isn't any real protectionist fervor and the Fed is far more advanced than they were back then. The debt, and more the unfunded liabilities, is the wild card; it's unprecedented for us and I don't see us following the path of Greece, our fundamentals are quite different.

[Kathianne]

I'm not worried about China as the Japanese have about as much debt and I'm not worried about a depression at this point either. What I see coming, without some tax cuts and some deregulation to get us more competitive globally, is the slow drip of '70s stagnation. I just don't see the 30's because there isn't any real protectionist fervor and the Fed is far more advanced than they were back then. The debt, and more the unfunded liabilities, is the wild card; it's unprecedented for us and I don't see us following the path of Greece, our fundamentals are quite different.

I hope you are right in the long term.

[fj1200]

I hope you are right in the long term.

Not that any long-term scenario looks good right now. People will live with a slow drip (almost four years running so far :eek:) and I don't know if the need for drastic change due to serious economic crises will have people looking for the fleeting security of Dem policies or be accepting of some real changes that conservatism could offer (with the right leadership).

[tailfins]

Tailfins i do not have sound.

Then this will get the point across about Obama voters were "turning Japanese".

http://i41.tinypic.com/i2opad.jpg

[April15]

So citizens should pay higher taxes...



But proper planning ensures that no one would pay higher taxes... Thanks for the lesson in why rates have nothing to do with revenues.



Considering that excessive government intervention in economic decision making is what causes depressions... it's amazing we aren't in one.Have the Bush cuts given you more cash? Most likely not. To return to the pre Bush rates is not bad.
Proper planning only works for some people not all.
And the repeal of Glass-Steagall is what precipitated this latest recession/depression. And a big thanks to The Ray Goon for starting the repeal.

[April15]

I'm also thinking that if we hadn't built up the deficit by borrowing from the Chinese, language would not have been the major problem. I'm very uncertain that going into hock actually kept us out of a 'depression' in the first place.

It seems there is an argument to be made that we are and have been in what would be considered a 'depression' if there weren't so many 'circuit breakers.' The real question to my mind is, 'have we really avoided a depression or just delayed it, while building up this huge pile of debt?If you could borrow money at .009% interest would you? The interest is technically zero interest except the "loan" is so big.

[jimnyc]

If you could borrow money at .009% interest would you? The interest is technically zero interest except the "loan" is so big.

Not if I couldn't afford the loan, and the money was being handed out like candy, and left the country worse off after spending it.

[April15]

Not handing out welfare and other goodies and bailing out private corporations, would not have put us in a full blown depression. And the bailouts and handouts did nothing at all to prevent a damn thing. The rate of decline of our economy has steadily went downhill. Congress spending what they don't have, year after year after year is what put us in this position. It's real simple - stop all the wasteful spending. That's the only thing that will stop the debt and slowly revive the economy, that and lower taxes and rates. Increasing taxes on the rich will only have them pass it down, just as Obamacare will be passed down to employees and consumers.
I would say the economy is growing. Just not as fast as many would like. One of this nations biggist problems for growth is we make nothing here anymore to sell on the world market. We are a consumer nation by default from the offshoring of manufacturing.

[jimnyc]

I would say the economy is growing. Just not as fast as many would like. One of this nations biggist problems for growth is we make nothing here anymore to sell on the world market. We are a consumer nation by default from the offshoring of manufacturing.

'Cept that many economic indicators has slowly fallen in the past 4 years. Wouldn't growth mean that they have risen?

[April15]

Gotta disagree with you April. Allowing taxes to increase for anybody, like they will in January if nothing is done to stop them. Will only bring more of a recession, more unemployment, and less investment in the economy by the People themselves.

If you are not working, not earning a paycheck, and dependent upon govt. Nothing improves, but we all, eventually become More broke than we are now.

We cannot afford to borrow any more.Where I live the economy is growing nicely. Construction is up, housing is up and outside of the midwest drought making food go up early next year i can see no reason to expect any slowdown regardless of tax increases.

[April15]

Not if I couldn't afford the loan, and the money was being handed out like candy, and left the country worse off after spending it.Are you a government? Do you need profit to live? Big difference there. In my view the country was well served by the stimulus but it should have been a little bit bigger than it was.

[jimnyc]

Are you a government? Do you need profit to live? Big difference there. In my view the country was well served by the stimulus but it should have been a little bit bigger than it was.

Please take that statement, and then explain the economic indicators:

America Before President Obama Took Office and Now

<tbody>

Before
Now
Change


Number of Unemployed1
12.0 Million
13.1 Million
+9%


Long-Term Unemployed2
2.7 Million
5.6 Million
+107%


Unemployment Rate3
7.8%
8.5%
+9%


“High Unemployment” States4
22
43
+95%


Misery Index5
7.83
11.46
+46%


Price of Gas6
$1.85
$3.39
+83%


“Typical” Monthly Family Food Cost7
$974
$1,013
+4%


Median Value of Single-Family Home8
$196,600
$169,100
-14%


Rate of Mortgage Delinquencies9
6.62%
10.23%
+55%


U.S. National Debt10
$10.6 Trillion
$15.2 Trillion
+43%

</tbody>

1 Number of unemployed in January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208909-3046939).
2 “Long-term unemployed” means for over 26 weeks; data for January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208910-3046939).
3 Unemployment rates in January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208911-3046939).
4 “High unemployment” means having a 3-month average unemployment rate of 6% or higher. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ “Extended Benefits Trigger Notice” for January 18, 2009 and January 22, 2012. http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/trigger/2009/trig_011809.html (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208912-3046939) and http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/euc_trigger/2012/euc_012212.html (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208913-3046939).
5 The “Misery Index” equals unemployment plus inflation. For January 2009 and December 2012. http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.asp (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208914-3046939).
6 Average retail price per gallon, January 2009 week 3 and January 2012 week 4. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208915-3046939).
7 U.S. Department of Agriculture, values represent monthly “moderate” cost per family of four for January 2009 and November 2011. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodCost-Home.htm (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208916-3046939).
8 U.S. median sales price of existing single-family homes for metropolitan areas for 2008 and 2011 Q3. http://www.realtor.org/research/research/metroprice (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208917-3046939).
9 Residential mortgage delinquencies (real estate loans) for 2008 Q4 and 2011 Q3. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/chargeoff/default.htm (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208918-3046939).
10 Values for January 21, 2009 and January 23, 2012. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208919-3046939).

[jimnyc]

Are you a government? Do you need profit to live? Big difference there. In my view the country was well served by the stimulus but it should have been a little bit bigger than it was.

And the answer to that question is YES. The cost of living increases and therefore the income on various fronts need to increase as well to meet that increase - or move to the ghetto.

[April15]

'Cept that many economic indicators has slowly fallen in the past 4 years. Wouldn't growth mean that they have risen?GDP has risen and that is the primary indicator of recession/growth. It has not grown dramatically but considering the depth of the recession that is a good thing. Too fast an expansion would leave the economy open to radical downfalls. Slow and steady is a more secure but frustrating growth.

[April15]

Please take that statement, and then explain the economic indicators:

America Before President Obama Took Office and Now

<tbody>

Before
Now
Change


Number of Unemployed1
12.0 Million
13.1 Million
+9%


Long-Term Unemployed2
2.7 Million
5.6 Million
+107%


Unemployment Rate3
7.8%
8.5%
+9%


“High Unemployment” States4
22
43
+95%


Misery Index5
7.83
11.46
+46%


Price of Gas6
$1.85
$3.39
+83%


“Typical” Monthly Family Food Cost7
$974
$1,013
+4%


Median Value of Single-Family Home8
$196,600
$169,100
-14%


Rate of Mortgage Delinquencies9
6.62%
10.23%
+55%


U.S. National Debt10
$10.6 Trillion
$15.2 Trillion
+43%

</tbody>

1 Number of unemployed in January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208909-3046939).
2 “Long-term unemployed” means for over 26 weeks; data for January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208910-3046939).
3 Unemployment rates in January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208911-3046939).
4 “High unemployment” means having a 3-month average unemployment rate of 6% or higher. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ “Extended Benefits Trigger Notice” for January 18, 2009 and January 22, 2012. http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/trigger/2009/trig_011809.html (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208912-3046939) and http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/euc_trigger/2012/euc_012212.html (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208913-3046939).
5 The “Misery Index” equals unemployment plus inflation. For January 2009 and December 2012. http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.asp (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208914-3046939).
6 Average retail price per gallon, January 2009 week 3 and January 2012 week 4. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208915-3046939).
7 U.S. Department of Agriculture, values represent monthly “moderate” cost per family of four for January 2009 and November 2011. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodCost-Home.htm (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208916-3046939).
8 U.S. median sales price of existing single-family homes for metropolitan areas for 2008 and 2011 Q3. http://www.realtor.org/research/research/metroprice (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208917-3046939).
9 Residential mortgage delinquencies (real estate loans) for 2008 Q4 and 2011 Q3. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/chargeoff/default.htm (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208918-3046939).
10 Values for January 21, 2009 and January 23, 2012. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=208919-3046939).

Before President Obama Took Office and Now
That is one key of the misconception that many people have. Outside of unemployment the rest are legacy facts. Fuel is governed by the futures market.

[jimnyc]

GDP has risen and that is the primary indicator of recession/growth. It has not grown dramatically but considering the depth of the recession that is a good thing. Too fast an expansion would leave the economy open to radical downfalls. Slow and steady is a more secure but frustrating growth.

It has risen, just barely, and hasn't really affected any of the other indicators. While it's risen a miniscule growth, unemployment still blows, gas prices are killing people, cost to eat has risen, the debt has went up like 45%, incomes per household have went down, poverty level increased, welfare has skyrocketed, food stamps up by 45 million, credit downgraded 2x, worst job creation in like 70 years, health insurance up...

[tailfins]

Where I live the economy is growing nicely. Construction is up, housing is up and outside of the midwest drought making food go up early next year i can see no reason to expect any slowdown regardless of tax increases.

We will have a clearer picture in six month's time.

[jimnyc]

Before President Obama Took Office and Now
That is one key of the misconception that many people have. Outside of unemployment the rest are legacy facts. Fuel is governed by the futures market.


Just toss aside unemployment? LOL The numbers are useless to those without jobs! And the debt increasing like a geyser?

[April15]

It has risen, just barely, and hasn't really affected any of the other indicators. While it's risen a miniscule growth, unemployment still blows, gas prices are killing people, cost to eat has risen, the debt has went up like 45%, incomes per household have went down, poverty level increased, welfare has skyrocketed, food stamps up by 45 million, credit downgraded 2x, worst job creation in like 70 years, health insurance up...As fuel and transportation are out of the presidents hands, the futures market controls crude oil and fuel prices, and the large part of the rest are legacy problems you should be glad it is not worse.

[April15]

We will have a clearer picture in six month's time.Yes we will. I hope the situation gets better for the entire nation and not just the area in which I live.

[jimnyc]

As fuel and transportation are out of the presidents hands, the futures market controls crude oil and fuel prices, and the large part of the rest are legacy problems you should be glad it is not worse.

So whatever is good, is from Obama, and anything that reflects poorly, is from predecessors?

[aboutime]

As fuel and transportation are out of the presidents hands, the futures market controls crude oil and fuel prices, and the large part of the rest are legacy problems you should be glad it is not worse.


Not true April15. Mister Obama has the power to eliminate, and stop all of the unnecessary additives placed on gasoline, with the stroke of a pen. And he also has the power to sign legislation that would STOP the newer, higher taxes on ENERGY that electric generating plants will soon be forced to increase...passing on those higher costs to US...WE THE PEOPLE....the consumers.

So. You cannot honestly say fuel and transportation are out of his hands. But then. If you defend Obama. YOU MUST BE RIGHT!

[April15]

So whatever is good, is from Obama, and anything that reflects poorly, is from predecessors?Why would you think that? There are legacy issues and then there are those things that need to have co operation from the other side of the aisle. The one that has been quoted as wanting Obama to fail and be a one term president regardless the cost. Mitch McConnell.

[April15]

Not true April15. Mister Obama has the power to eliminate, and stop all of the unnecessary additives placed on gasoline, with the stroke of a pen. And he also has the power to sign legislation that would STOP the newer, higher taxes on ENERGY that electric generating plants will soon be forced to increase...passing on those higher costs to US...WE THE PEOPLE....the consumers.

So. You cannot honestly say fuel and transportation are out of his hands. But then. If you defend Obama. YOU MUST BE RIGHT!The cost of fuel is dictated by the futures market. I for one like the clean air that is such an improvement to the air of my childhood thanks to California's very strict air policies.
I have solar so I do not have to face any generation tax. I do not believe California will have any coal tax.
I can say that fuel and transportation costs are out of his hands. The notion of pollution before people is not negotiable.

[Robert A Whit]

So why does none of the supposed "increase" affect my families tax? I know why because I planned ahead!

Did Obama send you enough information so you don't have to pay more taxes?

I understand his pals get treated very well.


$250k, Why Worry About Those Tax Increases?
May be more than you think:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...proposals.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/20/should-people-who-make-250-000-a-year-worry-about-obama-s-tax-proposals.html)

[Robert A Whit]

The cost of fuel is dictated by the futures market. I for one like the clean air that is such an improvement to the air of my childhood thanks to California's very strict air policies.
I have solar so I do not have to face any generation tax. I do not believe California will have any coal tax.
I can say that fuel and transportation costs are out of his hands. The notion of pollution before people is not negotiable.

I have presented Obama as an empty suit but you seem to paint him as a helpless empty suit.

[Robert A Whit]

Why would you think that? There are legacy issues and then there are those things that need to have co operation from the other side of the aisle. The one that has been quoted as wanting Obama to fail and be a one term president regardless the cost. Mitch McConnell.

You must appreciate Ronald Reagan who signed into laws the CARB laws and CA is the only state that has it's own rules. All other states must either use the CA laws or the Fed laws.

It was the goal of Democrats to make GW Bush a one term president. Did you notice us whining when that was their goal?

[fj1200]

Have the Bush cuts given you more cash? Most likely not. To return to the pre Bush rates is not bad.
Proper planning only works for some people not all.
And the repeal of Glass-Steagall is what precipitated this latest recession/depression. And a big thanks to The Ray Goon for starting the repeal.

The Bush cuts gave almost all workers more cash; you doubt this? Besides, tax rates are not indicative of tax revenues as your tax planning statement posit is in agreement.

Glass-Steagall? Not the problem and you might want to double check who signed the DIDMCA (hint: not Reagan) and who chearleaded G-S deregulation (hint: not Bush).


I would say the economy is growing. Just not as fast as many would like. One of this nations biggist problems for growth is we make nothing here anymore to sell on the world market. We are a consumer nation by default from the offshoring of manufacturing.

We make plenty of products here, just not of the labor intensive sort. Besides, "what is the point of production if not consumption." ;)


Where I live the economy is growing nicely. Construction is up, housing is up and outside of the midwest drought making food go up early next year i can see no reason to expect any slowdown regardless of tax increases.

Growing nicely? Every indicator from this government-led recession has grown less vigorously than all other recent recessions that have been tax cut led or even with government neutral policies. But I can see how where you live is the perfect barometer for the rest of the country. :rolleyes: I mean CA is in a wonderful position right?


GDP has risen and that is the primary indicator of recession/growth. It has not grown dramatically but considering the depth of the recession that is a good thing. Too fast an expansion would leave the economy open to radical downfalls. Slow and steady is a more secure but frustrating growth.

You honestly believe that? Recessions usually recover similar to how they were started, shallow recession - shallow growth; deep recession - vigorous growth. Tell all the unemployed/underemployed that slow and steady is good for them.

[fj1200]

As fuel and transportation are out of the presidents hands, the futures market controls crude oil and fuel prices, and the large part of the rest are legacy problems you should be glad it is not worse.

Futures markets don't control spot prices. Legacy problems? How long do we get to blame legacy problems on the Democrats who took control in January of '07. I'd think they'd have a handle on it by now considering all the budgets they've passed... oh wait.

[April15]

You must appreciate Ronald Reagan who signed into laws the CARB laws and CA is the only state that has it's own rules. All other states must either use the CA laws or the Fed laws.

It was the goal of Democrats to make GW Bush a one term president. Did you notice us whining when that was their goal?
The Ray Goon had very little choice on CARB.
As for Bonsai no one had to "try" to make him a one term putz. His presidency is right next to The Ray Goons as worst for America.

[April15]

Futures markets don't control spot prices. Legacy problems? How long do we get to blame legacy problems on the Democrats who took control in January of '07. I'd think they'd have a handle on it by now considering all the budgets they've passed... oh wait.The futures market is extremely relevant to local prices. And the rethuglians have been very successful in keeping any real budget from passing.

[April15]

The Bush cuts gave almost all workers more cash; you doubt this? Besides, tax rates are not indicative of tax revenues as your tax planning statement posit is in agreement.

I know for a fact the 2002 tax reductions did nothing for workers in America. All it did was pay for the fuel increase.

Glass-Steagall? Not the problem and you might want to double check who signed the DIDMCA (hint: not Reagan) and who chearleaded G-S deregulation (hint: not Bush).The Ray Goon started the repeal and Clinton finished it.



We make plenty of products here, just not of the labor intensive sort. Besides, "what is the point of production if not consumption." ;)Labor is where wages are earned. Washing dishes does equate to a living wage.



Growing nicely? Every indicator from this government-led recession has grown less vigorously than all other recent recessions that have been tax cut led or even with government neutral policies. But I can see how where you live is the perfect barometer for the rest of the country. :rolleyes: I mean CA is in a wonderful position right?
I am sorry you live in some third world country but here in California the economy is going nicely.



You honestly believe that? Recessions usually recover similar to how they were started, shallow recession - shallow growth; deep recession - vigorous growth. Tell all the unemployed/underemployed that slow and steady is good for them.
Where did you get that phony concept? Those who are unemployed know that a slow and steady growth will catch them.

[April15]

I have presented Obama as an empty suit but you seem to paint him as a helpless empty suit.

I do not present obama in any light. If you wish to be a piss and moan person go for it. I like to think positive as that is what makes a winner.

[Robert A Whit]

I'm not worried about China as the Japanese have about as much debt and I'm not worried about a depression at this point either. What I see coming, without some tax cuts and some deregulation to get us more competitive globally, is the slow drip of '70s stagnation. I just don't see the 30's because there isn't any real protectionist fervor and the Fed is far more advanced than they were back then. The debt, and more the unfunded liabilities, is the wild card; it's unprecedented for us and I don't see us following the path of Greece, our fundamentals are quite different.

I am in the middle of housing from sales to loans. I had no clue the crash was happening until the week the subprimes suddenly shut down. It was spooky the way they were fine on Monday and closed down by Wednesday to Friday.

I heard today that Xmas sales are expected to be very good. We will see. We know that the tics won't fix this by the first of the year. Tics suck our blood and treasure.

The wrong crowd is in charge.

I feel like voters selected the captain of the Titanic knowing he steers into icebergs.

[Robert A Whit]

I do not present obama in any light. If you wish to be a piss and moan person go for it. I like to think positive as that is what makes a winner.

Yup

Just how I felt the day prior to the collapse of the economy. See how it worked for me?

You praising the hell out of Obama won't help a bit.

[Robert A Whit]

The futures market is extremely relevant to local prices. And the rethuglians have been very successful in keeping any real budget from passing.

And in the past era of Obama, how many Democrap senators voted for the Obama budgets?

I think zero is the correct answer.

[Kathianne]

And in the past era of Obama, how many Democrap senators voted for the Obama budgets?

I think zero is the correct answer.

think or know? Specificity counts.

[aboutime]

think or know? Specificity counts.


Kathianne. ZERO is the correct answer. Since obama has been in office. There has never been a FEDERAL BUDGET approved by the Senate. Even during their two first years when they held the Majority in both Houses of Congress.

Obama has never signed a Budget. And, according to the Constitution. It is his duty to do so.

[Robert A Whit]

Yes we will. I hope the situation gets better for the entire nation and not just the area in which I live.

Are you kidding? We both live in the same area and you know very well that this area has not shown signs of recovery except in some very small spots where the rich live.

Obama has lavished the rich with money. Then he speaks ill of them. Go figure.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. ZERO is the correct answer. Since obama has been in office. There has never been a FEDERAL BUDGET approved by the Senate. Even during their two first years when they held the Majority in both Houses of Congress.

Obama has never signed a Budget. And, according to the Constitution. It is his duty to do so.

Really? Golly Gee! Who would have thought? A Captain Obvious point.

Robert, I mean Bob ( the friendly one), have anything else to add?

[Robert A Whit]

Have the Bush cuts given you more cash? Most likely not. To return to the pre Bush rates is not bad.
Proper planning only works for some people not all.
And the repeal of Glass-Steagall is what precipitated this latest recession/depression. And a big thanks to The Ray Goon for starting the repeal.

These Democrats that put the blame on Glass Steagal may not realize it but they are blaming Clinton. Clinton to this day defends his cancelling Glass Steagal. Besides, that is not the root cause of the problem.

[tailfins]

The futures market is extremely relevant to local prices. And the rethuglians have been very successful in keeping any real budget from passing.

RETHUGLICANS?? I was paying attention until you tipped your hand as a visitor from Democrat Subterranean (I'm using a synonym on purpose). Some of us here are not blind ideologues and form opinions from observation. The elections are over for two years and most of us are little more than spectators. If typical post-recession growth doesn't come back by 2014, are you going to keep making excuses for the failure of an expansionist government?


Have the Bush cuts given you more cash? Most likely not. To return to the pre Bush rates is not bad.
Proper planning only works for some people not all.
And the repeal of Glass-Steagall is what precipitated this latest recession/depression. And a big thanks to The Ray Goon for starting the repeal.

I absolute have more cash from Bush tax cuts: The 10% bracket, the expanded child credits and the elimination of the marriage penalty have all lowered my tax bill.

[aboutime]

Really? Golly Gee! Who would have thought? A Captain Obvious point.

Robert, I mean Bob ( the friendly one), have anything else to add?


Pardon me Kathianne. Didn't realize I might be treading on Gabby grounds.

[fj1200]

The Ray Goon had very little choice on CARB.
As for Bonsai no one had to "try" to make him a one term putz. His presidency is right next to The Ray Goons as worst for America.


The futures market is extremely relevant to local prices. And the rethuglians have been very successful in keeping any real budget from passing.

:rolleyes: The ridiculousness is strong with this one.


Where did you get that phony concept? Those who are unemployed know that a slow and steady growth will catch them.

You're going to have to be more specific than that because your talking points are getting a bit muddled. "Slow and steady" will not catch up to the unemployed because population growth is outstripping job growth. Besides, I think they'd take a vigorous private sector led recovery over the anemic government led one we have now. Your assertion to the contrary is silly.


I am in the middle of housing from sales to loans. I had no clue the crash was happening until the week the subprimes suddenly shut down. It was spooky the way they were fine on Monday and closed down by Wednesday to Friday.

That's because the problems were in the markets and not with F&F.

[Robert A Whit]

Where I live the economy is growing nicely. Construction is up, housing is up and outside of the midwest drought making food go up early next year i can see no reason to expect any slowdown regardless of tax increases.

Maybe in Burlingame it is better, but not all over this area. I know. I live in the Bay Area. Food prices here go up as if trying to grow faster than gasoline prices.

I have a suspicion given you live in the vipers nest of Democraps that you voted for Obama.

I will never understand how this once great state went to Democrats control.

Sacramento keeps raising taxes. The living standards are still not good.

Bear in mind, Obama took care of his pals.

The rich I mean.

[Robert A Whit]

:rolleyes: The ridiculousness is strong with this one.



You're going to have to be more specific than that because your talking points are getting a bit muddled. "Slow and steady" will not catch up to the unemployed because population growth is outstripping job growth. Besides, I think they'd take a vigorous private sector led recovery over the anemic government led one we have now. Your assertion to the contrary is silly..








That's because the problems were in the markets and not with F&F.


Only that final sentence applies to me.

funny how experts are not persuaded by your claim in that final sentence.

F&F is the housing market.

[gabosaurus]

Falling off the fiscal cliff would affect public more as their income increases. Which is why I believe Congress will solve the problem. The very rich would lose millions.

http://www.smartmoney.com/taxes/income/what-a-fiscalcliff-plunge-would-cost-you-1353009406152/

[aboutime]

Falling off the fiscal cliff would affect public more as their income increases. Which is why I believe Congress will solve the problem. The very rich would lose millions.

http://www.smartmoney.com/taxes/income/what-a-fiscalcliff-plunge-would-cost-you-1353009406152/


To the contrary. The RICH won't lose anything. America, and the people who need jobs, and places to invest will be punished by the Obama government, with the Democrats because. Businesses on the brink...will fail, and other larger businesses, and corporations will just continue to Move out of the country, taking those much needed jobs with them.

That PLUNGE will, by design of Obama, and the Democrats. Push this nation further into the Debt hole that makes even more Americans dependent upon govt.
That's what the desires of Socialism, Marxism, and Communism aim for in transforming this nation into the 3rd World, European style.

[April15]

Are you kidding? We both live in the same area and you know very well that this area has not shown signs of recovery except in some very small spots where the rich live.

Obama has lavished the rich with money. Then he speaks ill of them. Go figure.Maybe you just need to get a job. Construction is going well. If you are not doing well maybe you are a conservative in a liberal state. Concrete construction is booming with all the new buildings being put up in San Jose, Santa Clara, Campbell, Fremont, and San Leandro. And Solyndra is being purchased by seagate technologies for a research and development site. The building with the for sale sign on it right by the mission off ramp.

[April15]

To the contrary. The RICH won't lose anything. America, and the people who need jobs, and places to invest will be punished by the Obama government, with the Democrats because. Businesses on the brink...will fail, and other larger businesses, and corporations will just continue to Move out of the country, taking those much needed jobs with them.

That PLUNGE will, by design of Obama, and the Democrats. Push this nation further into the Debt hole that makes even more Americans dependent upon govt.
That's what the desires of Socialism, Marxism, and Communism aim for in transforming this nation into the 3rd World, European style.
Boner is the one pushing for the failure of America. The rethuglians want to go back to the 1900's so they can institute child labor and robber Barron tactics to rape the citizens of America.

[aboutime]

Boner is the one pushing for the failure of America. The rethuglians want to go back to the 1900's so they can institute child labor and robber Barron tactics to rape the citizens of America.



Thanks for being so forthcoming with us April15. No longer need to wonder, or ask ourselves whether you meet the Gabby standards here. You answered that, all by yourself.
Hypocrisy is your game, Ignorance seems to be your aim.

You should write to the DNC, and ask them for the Updated version of the Liberal, Democrat, Talking Points manual.

[fj1200]

Only that final sentence applies to me.

funny how experts are not persuaded by your claim in that final sentence.

F&F is the housing market.

Which experts aren't? The ones you don't listen to?

No F&F is the mortgage market. They supply cash to the housing market via banks.

[red states rule]

The ending of the unwise tax cut is long over due. The nation needs it, the end of it, to be financially prudent. I am glad that the interest on our debt is .009% which is just about nothing.

Obama is currently spending FOUR BILLION DOLLARS per day MORE then the US Treasury takes in. Who and what will you tax to cover that amount? US taxpayers and companies paid about $2.5 TRILLION in taxes last year - how much more do you demand they pay? Also, even if the current tax rates are taken back to where they were under Bill Clinton, the amount of revenue that would bring in (assuming there is no negative impact on economic growth) would fund the current spending levels for about EIGHT days. Where would you suggest Obama gets the rest. BTW, the US currently pays about $250 BILLION a year in interest on the debt and as the debt rises so does the interest payments. That is hardly nothing to the US taxpayer. The floor is now yours April to answer my questions. Thanks and welcome back

[fj1200]

Boner is the one pushing for the failure of America. The rethuglians want to go back to the 1900's so they can institute child labor and robber Barron tactics to rape the citizens of America.

You sure burned out fast didn't you?

[aboutime]

You sure burned out fast didn't you?


fj. April15 was still operating with the 2011 DNC Talking Points manual. Probably got that FREE PLUNGE advertisement from the DNC pool, where they invite Obama faithful's to come and swim for Free in the Kool-aide of the day. RSVP of course.

[Robert A Whit]

Maybe you just need to get a job. Construction is going well. If you are not doing well maybe you are a conservative in a liberal state. Concrete construction is booming with all the new buildings being put up in San Jose, Santa Clara, Campbell, Fremont, and San Leandro. And Solyndra is being purchased by seagate technologies for a research and development site. The building with the for sale sign on it right by the mission off ramp.

Yes, shut down my business at age 74 and rush right out to get a job as a laborer. I live in the city of Solyndra. I am pleased to learn Seagate will occupy it.

Look, if a person is building such commercial buildings, well and good. But most of us don't build commercial buildings.

I spent 9 years in the SF Bay area doing heavy construction.

We had for all of Northern CA a grand total of about 1100 union members. I think I know a boom when I see one. As I said, Obama handed the rich plenty to thank him for. I read your boasting. I am pleased for your sake that you do well. If you give credit to Obama and that is why you voted for him, clearly all that matters to you is you.

Around me, I can tell you that there are far too many empty commercial sites. Some of these have been empty since Obama was first sworn in.

I once was a Democrat. Back in my dumb days.

I say that to reflect badly on me in those days and since I don't know you, you need not act pissy because I feel bad I lived far too long as a loyal democrat.

[Robert A Whit]

Which experts aren't? The ones you don't listen to?

No F&F is the mortgage market. They supply cash to the housing market via banks.

I have listened for decades to many experts. I try to watch enough CSPAN to stay on top of this.

I have been directly involved in finance since 1971, of homes. I have originated many home loans. I seldom used banks. Banks could always make consumer loans. Why fart with a home loan over a long time when you could make a lot more financing boats, cars and other things.

Banks were not the first line of home loans. One bank that one could claim did like home loans off and on was Wells Fargo. Locally we had a bank that did many home loans. But they also favored prime loans.

Go back to the cause of the collapse. Imagine the day before the collapse. Things were fine or so we thought.

IT was the day subprimes got shut off. Many recall the day of the stock market collapse of 1929. I peg this to the week that the subprime loan sources vanished.

Fannie to remind you one more time made the rules. All those bad loans purchased by FF followed their rules. When the rules are awful and doom the market, look no further than those with the money also making the rules.

This is why true experts put the blame on Fannie and Freddie. We lived it. We were part of the market. We noted when Fannie changed the rules. Some predicted doom. Bush was one such man. But he was not listened to by the congress. Fannie was not about to ruin it's market by going back to their old rules.

I don't know why you won't study the housing market. Don't take my word. Take the word of the Federal Reserve. They published extensively over this matter.

I have to check but I bet Professor Barro has published on this and he is a hailed economist.

[red states rule]

Once again I find it necessary to post this link for people like FU who think they know what caused the housing meltdown but in reality do not have a clue what really happened
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending


By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999 In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

[fj1200]

:facepalm99:

[fj1200]

Go back to the cause of the collapse. Imagine the day before the collapse. Things were fine or so we thought.

What day was that?

[red states rule]

:facepalm99:

[laughs] I like him. He's silly.

[fj1200]

[laughs] I like him. He's silly.

I suppose. He finds passive-aggressive behavior quite weak sauce indeed.

[red states rule]

and more on what really caused the housing meltdown, and who tried to reform Fannie and Freddie - and who opposed those reforms

http://youtu.be/cMnSp4qEXNM

[fj1200]

and more on what really caused the housing meltdown, and who tried to reform Fannie and Freddie - and who opposed those reforms

Wow, the whole debate about the entirety of the financial meltdown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008) can be summed up in a four minute YouTube video. :rolleyes: It must be a simple world to live in where all blame can be assessed by merely looking at D vs. R.

[fj1200]

IT was the day subprimes got shut off. Many recall the day of the stock market collapse of 1929. I peg this to the week that the subprime loan sources vanished.

Please tell us about that day. What caused that collapse?


I don't know why you won't study the housing market. Don't take my word. Take the word of the Federal Reserve. They published extensively over this matter.

I'm not sure what you think there is about the housing market that I'm not aware of but nevertheless, do you really think that there is only one economist with one opinion at the Federal Reserve and that they all speak with one mind? Or even that there is only one Federal Reserve Bank?


An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas in 2009, however, concluded unequivocally that the CRA was not responsible for the mortgage loan crisis, pointing out that CRA rules have been in place since 1995 whereas the poor lending emerged only a decade later.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008#cite_note-54) Furthermore, most sub-prime loans were not made to the LMI borrowers targeted by the CRA, especially in the years 2005–2006 leading up to the crisis. Nor did it find any evidence that lending under the CRA rules increased delinquency rates or that the CRA indirectly influenced independent mortgage lenders to ramp up sub-prime lending.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008


Once again I find it necessary to post this link for people like FU who think they know what caused the housing meltdown but in reality do not have a clue what really happened

September 30, 1999 In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

How did the CRA rules affect Commercial Real Estate? Are they to blame for that bubble as well?

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/cre.png

[Gaffer]

Tailfins i do not have sound.Perhaps you should have planned ahead for this.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Obama is currently spending FOUR BILLION DOLLARS per day MORE then the US Treasury takes in. Who and what will you tax to cover that amount? US taxpayers and companies paid about $2.5 TRILLION in taxes last year - how much more do you demand they pay? Also, even if the current tax rates are taken back to where they were under Bill Clinton, the amount of revenue that would bring in (assuming there is no negative impact on economic growth) would fund the current spending levels for about EIGHT days. Where would you suggest Obama gets the rest. BTW, the US currently pays about $250 BILLION a year in interest on the debt and as the debt rises so does the interest payments. That is hardly nothing to the US taxpayer. The floor is now yours April to answer my questions. Thanks and welcome back

If you want to bankrupt a nation , spending 4 billion a day more than you take in is a damn good start. However obama intends on continuing policies that will vastly decrease the take in amount , hopefully to make 8 or ten billion a day more that what is taken in. Everything that he does is by design to harm us, but his slavish, ignorant followers blow trumpets , sing and dance his praises with abandone! Echoed by the lying , soldout media, all of which should be either jailed or shot IMHO.-Tyr