29 Sep 08
Originally posted by howardgeeYou don't possess an understanding of what the legislation was trying to do.
My question is simple:
Assuming that Brian Mae, Freddie Mercury and AIG had continued paying Tax at the same rate as their returns for 2006-2007, then how many years would it have taken them combined to "repay" the $700 billion stolen from the taxpayers?
I have searched in vain for their tax contributions.
Can anyone indicate how much corporation tax they have paid recently?
30 Sep 08
Originally posted by SleepyguyLike most right wing talking points, blaming the CRA in any significant way is nonsense.
Tune into C-SPAN right now and listen. The true capitalists are the house republicans who are railing against this bailout.
Neither this bailout nor the damned Community Reinvestment Act which helped paved the way here, have anything to do with capitalism. True capitalism would not have forced banks to make unsound loans, nor would it reward the idiot ...[text shortened]... re blameless. Obviously they took stupid risks, and true capitalism would have them pay for it.
The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”
Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).
Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_blogspotting
30 Sep 08
Originally posted by SleepyguyOf course it's true. The mortgage securities market which caused this crisis was totally unregulated. Vast fortunes were made on the selling of these dubious "assets" until the subprime mortgage crisis showed that these financial emperors had no clothes. As shown above, the CRA had nothing to do with this affair and the explicit letter of the law says that the US doesn't back the GSE's assets. A good article on the front page of yesterday's New York Times goes into how AIG fall apart due to the selling of the mortgage securities which netted one of their London affiliates' 377 employees over a $1 million a year in average compensation to push a product that was essentially worth very little in this economic climate.
I don't need any hints and I'm under no illusions. It would be very very bad for everyone. If I were a house republican today I'd probably have to hold my nose and vote for the damned thing. But this isn't capitalism, nor was the implicit federal guarantee of the GSE's, nor was the CRA. If we had been behaving as capitalists all along we wouldn't be he ...[text shortened]... now claiming that unbridled capitalism has brought us here, but that is not true at all.
30 Sep 08
Originally posted by howardgeeSo, a whole day has passed and not one person can tell me how much corporation tax any of these 3 companies paid in the last financial year before they got snared in their own web of carelessness.
My question is simple:
Assuming that Brian Mae, Freddie Mercury and AIG had continued paying Tax at the same rate as their returns for 2006-2007, then how many years would it have taken them combined to "repay" the $700 billion stolen from the taxpayers?
I have searched in vain for their tax contributions.
Can anyone indicate how much corporation tax they have paid recently?
Why is this?
1. The information is not readily available. (worrying, as should be made public)
2. They have not been making tax returns on time. (Illegal)
3. The right whingers on this site do not want to reveal the pathetically low amounts of tax they were paying, as it makes a mockery of the gross amount being handed to them on a plate.
30 Sep 08
"On a GAAP basis, based on the accounting policy changes I mentioned earlier, our 2007 net losses amounted to roughly $3.1 billion, or $5.37 per diluted share, compared with 2006 net income of $2.3 billion. "
http://www.freddiemac.com/investors/ar/2007/03_01.htm
Oh great, so over the last 2 years, Freddie Mac has made a net loss of $800,000,000, which means that far from paying tax, Freddie has actually being claiming tax rebates against losses!!!
Time to let these incompetent buffoons go to the wall, if you ask me.
30 Sep 08
The US economy is going down the crapper. American wages remain the same even as inflation screws the Worker.
Americans are finally waking up that the American Way is not really a way for them at all. Most people in this country are locked out from the promises our leaders have barfed in our faces over the years.
30 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderDid I not say this?
Like most right wing talking points, blaming the CRA in any significant way is nonsense.
"Not that the CRA is the only reason we got here, nor that the banks are blameless. Obviously they took stupid risks, and true capitalism would have them pay for it."
I guess you forgot to quote that part.
30 Sep 08
Originally posted by no1marauderThe explicit letter of the law did not curb belief in the implicit govt guarantee of the GSE's. The anti-capitalist notion that the GSE's could take greater risks because they would be bailed out by the taxpayer if they got in trouble, PLUS the mindset evident in the CRA (and I'm not excluding Bush from this), that ever riskier loans should be extended to people who obviously could not pay them back, is what got us here.
Of course it's true. The mortgage securities market which caused this crisis was totally unregulated. Vast fortunes were made on the selling of these dubious "assets" until the subprime mortgage crisis showed that these financial emperors had no clothes. As shown above, the CRA had nothing to do with this affair and the explicit letter of the law says th ...[text shortened]... sation to push a product that was essentially worth very little in this economic climate.
If Fannie and Freddie were actually free market, "true capitalist" institutions they could never have gotten away with their risky behavior because no one would have bought their securities without the implied guarantee of the govt.
If the GSE's had not been created and mortgages had been left to the free market, we would not be where we are.
30 Sep 08
Originally posted by SleepyguyDems said more Regs were not needed...ooops!
The explicit letter of the law did not curb belief in the implicit govt guarantee of the GSE's. The anti-capitalist notion that the GSE's could take greater risks because they would be bailed out by the taxpayer if they got in trouble, PLUS the mindset evident in the CRA (and I'm not excluding Bush from this), that ever riskier loans should be extended to ...[text shortened]... een created and mortgages had been left to the free market, we would not be where we are.
GRANNY.