patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,193,251 comments by 13,874 users - Patrick, PeopleUnited, yoddaa online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 56 - 95 of 95 Search these comments
Â¥
2011 Nov 30, 12:33pm
Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy
pretty sad you've gotta link to a right-wing propaganda mill to make your point, thomas.
Whatever our economy accomplished during the 1980s, it was built on an s-curve of leverage:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3CQ
It might have been "successful", but it wasn't responsible. Something was certainly rotten in the state of Denmark when I was coming out of college in the early 1990s, and frankly I have yet to really undertand what really underpinned the recovery of the mid-1990s.
One thing that did get rolling in the mid-1990s was the return of leverage in the financial sector:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3CS
shows how annual debt take-on in Big Finance went to over 5% of GDP in the mid-1990s.
Additionally, the yuan rate was lowered dramatically prior to 1995:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AEXCHUS
That's part of the story but I haven't worked it all out yet.
Maybe it was the return of the Baby Boom too that got the economy rolling again. They were aged 34 to 49 in 1995. Or maybe it was all the $1 gasoline, that was great. Plus Windows 95 and the dotcom revolution, that didn't hurt either.
Â¥
2011 Nov 30, 12:35pm
The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
which was followed by a tax rise:
" One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction. "
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html
which was followed by a tax rise:
You mean consolidated 15 to 4 tax rate brackets. Similar to what we have today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
Income tax rates
The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%. Many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate (married filing jointly) was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income.[1] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income.
The rate structure also maintained a novel "bubble rate." The rates were not 15%/28%, as widely reported. Rather, the rates were 15%/28%/33%/28%. The "bubble rate" of 33% simply elevated the 15% rate to 28% for higher-income taxpayers. As a result, for taxpayers after a certain income level, TRA86 provided a flat tax of 28%. This was jettisoned in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, otherwise known as the "Bush tax increase", which violated his Taxpayer Protection Pledge.
Â¥
2011 Nov 30, 12:56pm
It just kills you, that Reagan has outclassed many far and wide margin.
Reagan was a clown, but yes, it kills me that so many retards in this country idolize his administration.
It might have been "successful", but it wasn't responsible. Something was certainly rotten in the state of Denmark when I was coming out of college in the early 1990s, and frankly I have yet to really undertand what really underpinned the recovery of the mid-1990s.
Think back 10-12 years prior to you coming out of college. Well it sure was rotten in the US when Carter was in office.
Reagan was a clown, but yes, it kills me that so many retards in this country idolize his administration.
Maybe ... they were right and you were wrong.
Â¥
2011 Dec 1, 3:33am
they were right and you were wrong.
if by 'right' you mean looting my country, then yes, conservatives were right.
So much misinvestment and disinvestment started in the 1980s, eg. the reversion to Vietnam-level defense spending:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3Du
It was the beginning of the unravelling.
In 2005 dollars, we have spent $16T on defense since FY82, $500B per year, $4000 per household per year suck of wealth.
The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
Reagan had multiple tax laws passed -- the 1981 one is the main one where taxes went way down, but look at his tax laws from 1982 and 1984, for example, to see where these cuts were pared way back. Then look at 1983 when payroll taxes were hiked for Social Security and Medicare. The 1986 tax reform was intended to be revenue neutral, but generally served to raise taxes on the rich a bit by cutting deductions/exemptions that largely benefited the rich. Overall taxes during the Reagan era matched the 40-year average, and overall spending was noticeably higher than the 40-year average because Reagan thought deficits didn't matter (http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm).
There are many good analyses of Reagan's various tax laws around the web that explain how much taxes were actually raised by broadening the tax base and doing other things. These facts are only a mystery to people who naively think supply-side economics works. It's not that lowering rates brought in more tax revenue -- the combination of raising taxes by broadening the tax base and the economy getting better brought in more tax revenue. Another key principle was keeping the income tax the same as the capital gains tax so that there was no tax preference for labor vs. investment. As I've mentioned before, I've even spoken to Reagan's tax policy architect about some of these issues. Bruce Bartlett who worked in the Reagan administration has also talked about this a bit too.
Reagan was also the inventor of "amnesty" (as teabaggers call it) for undocumented immigrants. It raised GDP, of course, as comprehensive immigration reform would do today.
Reagan was far more of a pragmatist than the Tea-flavored Kool Aid-drinking people who seem to be running his party now. He would likely be considered a heretic and a RINO.
Reagan was far more of a pragmatist
That was even true as California Governor. He was simply way way ahead of many.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/n-p-Nuu8hYQ
All this Marxist vs Capitalist hoo-ha is so out-of-date. I love when the tea-baggers accuse someone of being socialist because they reveal that they don't know what the word means.
Marxism failed, for sure. But our current course of laissez faire capitalism is an equal failure.
So, what is working on the globe? Do we want to be Somalia (no government regulation!) or Germany (Heavily regulated).
Seems to me, that the Northern European model is the one to follow... Germany, Iceland (and the other Scandinavian countries) are in much better shape than the USA. I might point out that Canada is also in better shape than the USA... and follows the Northern European model of relatively high taxes, a strong social safety net and heavily regulated corporations (especially banks).
Oh... and for the inevitable commenter that tells me to "move there" - please spare me your pointless vitriol.
Oh... and for the inevitable commenter that tells me to "move there" - please spare me your pointless vitriol.
Lets get back down to earth and ask.. YOU as a consumer would you Move there and over-bid, over-pay, over-borrow ?
Some how people moving to Irvine came up with silly notion that homes were really actually worth 3-4x more than 1997 prices. What kind of bank regulations will solve this notion ?
Turn your question around, what happened that allowed such lousy underwriting? Answer: the repeal of Glass-Steagall. That allowed investment banks to get involved caused the creation of mortgage derivatives and the "off-loading" of risk. Suddenly, banks didn't give two hoots about your ability to repay and they flooded the market with money to create more loans, which they then packaged and resold. They needed an endless supply of new loans to fuel their ponzi-like compensation model that was dependent getting new debtor to take loans so banksters could "earn" commission.
Because so few seem to know this, here is a definition of MARXISM/SOCIALISM: "In a socialist society private property in the means of production would be superseded by co-operative ownership. There would be no private ownership of productive capacity."
---------
I don't see anyone advocating that... so the word does not belong in this debate. It's become a childish insult like saying "Such-and-such is so gay" when it has nothing to do with homosexuality AT ALL.
Like I said..."As if its going to change your pathic little neo-marxist views".
Turn your question around, what happened that allowed such lousy underwriting? Answer: the repeal of Glass-Steagall. That allowed investment banks to get involved caused the creation of mortgage derivatives and the "off-loading" of risk. Suddenly, banks didn't give two hoots about your ability to repay and they flooded the market with money to create more loans, which they then packaged and resold. They needed an endless supply of new loans to fuel their ponzi-like compensation model that was dependent getting new debtor to take loans so banksters could "earn" commission.
If you want to talk about the Pozi "Commission" scheme you can certainly discuss that as it comes to real estate agents. Banks do no earn a commission. They generate a fee, not distributed to any one individual employee.
At what point exactly in you comments above, made the buyer think the homes like in Irvine were worth 2-3x more than a few years ago. Have you ever seen prices like in Irvine skyrocket that high in such a short period of time. Is that 200-300K home really worth 700-800K in less than 10 years ? What were these people thinking ...
bmwman91
2011 Dec 1, 1:43pm
OK, guys. Let's not make this thread into a lame political dispute. I mean, it is sort of too late, but how about a separate thread in the politics section.
bmwman91
2011 Dec 1, 2:42pm
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says
All other things being equal, or different, I'd still take a shit on a Realtor®'s face.
That was implied. Really, does anyone NOT know that step #1 of buying or selling a house requires a sufficiently sloppy dump to be unloaded on a realtor's face? Some prefer to be unconventional and give them a good old Cleveland Steamer instead. It is important to be inclusive of all preferences for buying & selling styles!
JodyChunder
2011 Dec 1, 3:04pm
What would I do if nothing change? I'd keep on buying & selling real estate. Keep on adding 2 rental properties to my portfolio per year for the next 10 years.
YES buy REAL ESTATE! EMAN has the bright lights on...buy houses. any where you can fine them cheap and and rent them out. some one needs the rental so you are not hogging up the homes $$$$$$ Awesome stuff EMAN you will be rich.
JodyChunder
2011 Dec 1, 3:10pm
Cleveland! Had many good timesin Cleveland! Bought my first car there in fact 1956 Imperial hardtop wish i still had it.
bmwman91
2011 Dec 1, 3:12pm
Yes, but did you ride a steamer? You seemed to enjoy yourself there, so I would assume so.
bmwman91
2011 Dec 1, 3:20pm
Nevermind. Perhaps I was confused. Next time you work with a realtor though, you should ask if they will let you ride the Cleveland Steamer with them.
bmwman91
2011 Dec 1, 3:28pm
OK good. I was starting to feel a little guilty & was going to have to explain it. Heck, you may have gotten unlucky (or lucky, who knows these days), and the realtor might be into that sort of stuff!
Anyway...things that don't have to do with that...
JodyChunder
2011 Dec 1, 4:42pm
you have no idea what you have done. i can not eat my before bed snack now
Tue, 29 Nov 2011 at 5:16 am Quote Like Flag Take It Outside Permalink Share
ArtimusMaxtor says
Food does not grow in the United States for the most part it is barren land
Are you kidding me?????? Have you ever driven through the midwest?
We actually have a competitive advantage in food. It may not be free but we grow a lot of it. We also process and export quite a bit. It is actually the only area besides the military industrial complex where we actually export more than we import.
See here:
I'm not waiting, I'm watching. I'm completely convinced my lasting happiness has nothing to do with what I buy. In my pursuit of happiness, I won't buy anything impeding that pursuit.
Barren land meaning you can't find any food just looking for it save a few berries.
You appear to have thought a lot about this idea, but have you considered reading some other sources? I note that you're providing no other sources for your ideas. I think there are aspects of your idea that have not come to your mind, which is how all ideas work. A single person does not usually cover all, or even most, of the relevant information connected with an idea.
Scientific American had an article in the last year showing that the equatorial rain belt is moving North. How does that change your idea?
I just read an article about a house that was bought in 1901 for $1000 and this month it was sold for $900k. Wow, it seems alot of profit. But the article analyzed the costs of ownership, dealing with leaking plumbing, and eventually, it was just about even with inflation.
I want to start hearing people who buy houses say, "I bought the house for $X + i% interest, meaning I bought the house for X(1+i)^30." And I want them to know that total! And I want them to know the interest was stuck in the early payments so they couldn't escape the interest!
zzyzzx
2011 Dec 8, 3:51am
You know, I would almost be OK with Las Vegas
Perhaps you would like Atlantic City better? It's got a beach and boardwalk and stuff.
zzyzzx
2011 Dec 8, 3:53am
ok I got it now bub goodle Cleveland steamer. desgustings .I
I take it that you have never seen this movie
bmwman91
2011 Dec 8, 4:15am
You know, I would almost be OK with Las Vegas
Perhaps you would like Atlantic City better? It's got a beach and boardwalk and stuff.
If the homeowner isn't insulted by your offer...you didn't bid low enough!!!
Wherever I go must have ample rock climbing within 30 minutes. New Jersey isn't too high on that list. Surfing access is a plus, but it's gotta have ROCK! By this criteria, I probably sound like I am doomed to live along coastal CA (and I may well be).
zzyzzx
2011 Dec 8, 7:34am
ok I got it now bub goodle Cleveland steamer. desgustings .I
I take it that you have never seen this movie
You know, I would almost be OK with Las Vegas
Perhaps you would like Atlantic City better? It's got a beach and boardwalk and stuff.
If the homeowner isn't insulted by your offer...you didn't bid low enough!!!
Wherever I go must have ample rock climbing within 30 minutes. New Jersey isn't too high on that list. Surfing access is a plus, but it's gotta have ROCK! By this criteria, I probably sound like I am doomed to live along coastal CA (and I may well be).
Oregon has something called the Cascades with lots of rock climbing. It's 90 minutes to surfing from Portland. Real men surf Oregon, puts hair on your chest.
Real men surf Oregon, puts hair on your chest.
Not to mention inland, they do river surfing.
« First « Previous Comments 56 - 95 of 95 Search these comments
Many participants in here, myself included, are in the "wait for the free market to return" camp. The government subsidies for housing via GSE loans, the MID, prop 13, RE agent-favoring MLS system, shadow inventory, squatters and low interest rates are all items on a (probably incomplete) list of things that us would-be buyers wish to see go away in hopes of lowering house prices. When/If some of these items go away, lots of of us probably figure that it would be OK to buy, and many of us post about how adamant we are about not buying into our current rigged-system.
OK. Obviously, we all have a pretty strong interest in buying houses, or else we wouldn't be spending time in here worrying about it. Buying a house is, for strong personal reasons, a really big aspiration for most people.
So, what if none of the things in the list above change in the next 10+ years? It isn't totally out of the realm of possibility. As far as I can tell, the groups that want to keep the game rigged like it is are also the groups that have the ability to change the rules of the game. The rest of us that are chasing some version of the American Dream can all pine away and wish for a fair, rational system, but we really do lack the means to get those with vested interests in rigging the game to un-rig it. Don't get me wrong, I have a really hard time seeing the system as it operates now lasting. Despite this, short- to mid-term economic behavior seems to be perfectly capable of doing totally irrational things. As far as I am concerned, 10 years is at the start of a "mid-term" time span when planning economic moves. Long-term, in my mind, is 30+ years, or about enough time for one generation to produce the next.
So, say that 10 years from now the game is still rigged and we all know it and hate it. How many of you would have saved & over-paid somewhere in that span? We are all waiting around for a train that we think is coming, but we aren't really sure of when. What if it doesn't come for a REALLY long time? For all of the frustration we seem to have, how many of us are really going to let it stop us? Will you eventually give-in?
Chances are that I would end up over-paying after a few more years of saving (and put down 30-50%). Despite the fact that I despise all of the crookedness in the system and live below my means, I want some personal space to run a workshop that I can walk to in 5 seconds, and to have a yard with big trees to do stupid stuff in with my climbing gear. God help me when I decide to have kids, but it would be nice to have a yard for them to run around in and provide me with manual labor when they are old enough (I knew how to use a jackhammer by the time I was 12, and spent a lot of weekends digging sprinkler line trenches and putting up drywall...it builds character, or something). The main reason I want to avoid overpaying, aside from the obvious short/mid-term issues, is the long term issue of being stuck with high property tax bills. My fiancee and I are fine with buying a $500k SFH, and in a couple more years we can put 40-50% down. We could put 25% down now, but we are, "waiting for that train." Anything over $500k is too much of a financial liability as far as we are concerned.
So, despite all of my idealism about not participating in a rigged system, I am pretty sure I'd cave in and participate at some point. I bet lots of us will. I am fairly certain that those that run this rigged system know this, and that gives them even more incentive to keep it rigged. "Look at these stupid peons...they piss & moan now, but give them a few years and they let us shoot a load in their face anyway!"
#housing