My main point is overall personal tax rates have been decreasing for the past 30 years and our deficit and debt problems have grown concurrently.

 

According to one site stat's revenue for the US in 2007 was $2,568,000,000,000, spending for the year was $2,728,000,000,000.

Revenue for the US in 2010 was $2,162,000,000,000, spending for the year was $3,456,000,000,000.

It looks like the problem is far more spending. If the economy was good, it would wipe out the deficit, if spending had remained at 2007 levels.

Capitialism is not perfect, but is the best system the world has to offer.

It will have its ups and downs. Greed is a part of our problems, but that greed is in the form of some who want more, not from their own efforts, but taking from others who are successful. In recent years we have had too many people who want to live off the gains of others.

You might want to raise some revenue if you are going to fight two wars, and the community reinvestment act did not MAKE anyone make the loans. It encouraged more loan giving but the decision was all on their own.

You might want to raise some revenue if you are going to fight two wars, and the community reinvestment act did not MAKE anyone make the loans. It encouraged more loan giving but the decision was all on their own.

 

We were fighting those two wars before Obama went on his spending spree.

The Clinton Adminstration threatened to make life a regulatory nightmare for banks if they did not loan money.

Plus the poverty pimps in and out of government shouted discrimination, when what the banks were doing was following basic business principles.

Wrong.

There is very little doubt that the underlying cause of the current credit crisis was a housing bubble. But the collapse of the bubble would not have led to a worldwide recession and credit crisis if almost 40% of all U.S. mortgages--25 million loans--were not of the low quality known as subprime or Alt-A.

 

These loans were made to borrowers with blemished credit, or involved low or no down payments, negative amortization and limited documentation of income. The loans' unprecedentedly high rates of default are what is driving down housing prices and weakening the financial system.

 

The low interest rates of the early 2000s may explain the growth of the housing bubble, but they don't explain the poor quality of these mortgages. For that we have to look to the government's distortion of the mortgage finance system through the Community Reinvestment Act and the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housing-bubble-subprime-opinions-contributors_0216_peter_wallison_edward_pinto.html

 

CRA has been around since the 70's. It did not cause this crisis. Greed by banks making sub prime loans to generate more profit are at the heart of this crisis.

According to one site stat's revenue for the US in 2007 was $2,568,000,000,000, spending for the year was $2,728,000,000,000. Revenue for the US in 2010 was $2,162,000,000,000, spending for the year was $3,456,000,000,000. It looks like the problem is far more spending.

 

I agree. Spending is much more the problem with the deficit and debt than revenue.

 

 

If the economy was good, it would wipe out the deficit, if spending had remained at 2007 levels.

 

Your own stats seem to indicate this is not true.

 

Capitialism is not perfect, but is the best system the world has to offer.

 

Absolutely agree. The shape of capitalism is what I am thinking about.

 

It will have its ups and downs. Greed is a part of our problems, but that greed is in the form of some who want more, not from their own efforts, but taking from others who are successful. In recent years we have had too many people who want to live off the gains of others.

 

See blue above.

VOR, I'm assuming the economy would have grown since 2007 and not remain stagnant at the 2007 levels.

For that reason I believe the deficit would be wiped out.

If you want to include greed as the big part of the problem then you have to include the greed of the ones who want a part of the dream on the backs of others. Nearly 50% of the people pay no income taxes. The greed of the OWS bunch makes me sick to my stomach.

And the biggest problem right now is a leader who could give a flip about the rest of us.. Obamas 4 million $ vacation. http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/18/obamas-4-million-hawaii-vacation/

Anyone that lays the blame for the collapse at the feet of people who could not afford their mortgages and not at the banks themselves has not done enough reading.

 

Read about Collaterized Debt Obligations, Credit Default Swaps, and Mortgage Backed Securities.

 

Those 3 subjects are why the banks collapsed as a result of greed and recklessness.

I generally agree with you on this. But I believe we have gone too far on the low side.

 

I would tend to agree with you also if you include ALL taxpayers, not just the top.

As to the housing and banking, plenty of greed by both lenders and borrowers contributed, although I would label the borrowers as more impatient than greedy.

If you want to include greed as the big part of the problem then you have to include the greed of the ones who want a part of the dream on the backs of others. Nearly 50% of the people pay no income taxes. The greed of the OWS bunch makes me sick to my stomach.

 

The 1% own 40% of the nation's wealth.

The 1% take home 24% of the national income.

The 1% own half, HALF I SAY, of the stocks, bonds, and mutual funds.

The 1% has just 5% of the nations personal debt.

The 1% are now taking home more of the nations income than at any time since the 1920s.

 

So who is doing what on the back of whom?

The 1% own 40% of the nation's wealth.

The 1% take home 24% of the national income.

The 1% own half, HALF I SAY, of the stocks, bonds, and mutual funds.

The 1% has just 5% of the nations personal debt.

The 1% are now taking home more of the nations income than at any time since the 1920s.

 

Maybe you would like to live in China or Cuba or North Korea or Libya or Iran? Just to name a few of the many countries were almost 100% of the wealth is in the hands of the 1%. Our 1% may control a lot of wealth, but we all are forunate to live in this country and share in its wealth, even if some have more than others.

To the haters of hard working wealth earners remember that the equality promised was about equality before the law and an equal footing in having a chance to achieve, not equality of outcome.

With that said, we have created systems that helps the truly needed and help those in need temporarily. It is not a system that makes all equal in wealth. If you want that, go to one of the above state contolled countries.

Capitalism is not to blame for the housing bubble, the Federal Reserve is. Specifically, Fed intervention in the economy — through the manipulation of interest rates and the creation of money — caused the artificial boom in mortgage lending.

 

The Fed has roughly tripled the amount of dollars and credit in circulation just since 1990. Housing prices have risen dramatically not because of simple supply and demand, but because the Fed literally created demand by making the cost of borrowing money artificially cheap. When credit is cheap, individuals tend to borrow too much and spend recklessly.

 

This is not to say that all banks, lenders, and Wall Street firms are blameless. Many of them are politically connected, and benefited directly from the Fed's easy money policies. And some lenders did make fraudulent or unethical loans. But every cent they loaned was first created by the Fed.

 

The actions of lenders are directly attributable to the policies of the Fed: when credit is cheap, why not loan money more recklessly to individuals who normally would not qualify? Even with higher default rates, lenders could make huge profits simply through volume. Subprime lending is a symptom of the housing bubble, not the cause of it.

 

Fed credit also distorts mortgage lending through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government schemes created by Congress supposedly to help poor people. Fannie and Freddie enjoy an implicit guarantee of a bailout by the federal government if their loans default, and thus are insulated from market forces. This insulation spurred investors to make funds available to Fannie and Freddie that otherwise would have been invested in other securities or more productive endeavors, thereby fueling the housing boom.

 

-Austrian School Economics

I would tend to agree with you also if you include ALL taxpayers, not just the top.

 

And I am for that. Make the top pay more and make the lower rung pay more as well. I do thik there is a floor income below which you don't pay but that needs to be as low as possible and right now it is too high.