Home > Opinion > Peter Roff > Republicans Plan to Make Death Tax a 2010 Election Issue

Republicans Plan to Make Death Tax a 2010 Election Issue

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Wants to talk about sub prime.
Where did I say sub prime in this discussion.
Was shown how obama and Bill got regular Banks to make bad loans.
Showed Bill signing law.
Focus...
Well we have honest Steve to keep us on the straight and narrow. You no lie...

Bill Hedges of MO 11:45PM July 21, 2010

By most accounts Clinton's pressure of F/F to expand purchases of loans made to low income and moderate income borrowers didn't really extend much to subprime loans. One 2002 report asserts;
"Subprime lending has grown rapidly in the past decade as a segment within the conventional mortgage market. Last year, lenders originated about $173 billion in subprime loans, up from just $25 billion in 1993...Interestingly, subprime market growth in the 1990s occurred largely without the participation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The GSEs started showing interest in this market toward the end of the decade and now purchase A-minus mortgages as a regular part of their business. National Mortgage News, a trade publication, estimates their combined market share in 2001 grew by 74 percent, representing about 11.5 percent of all subprime loan originations in that year. Some market analysts estimate that GSEs will soon be purchasing as much as one-half of all subprime originations."
http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/125/goingsubprime.html
Clinton did press F/F to back more loans made to low and moderate income people but the vast majority were not subprime loans.
The 2008 financial crisis resulted in $4 trillion in total bank losses. F/F lost less than half a trillion. Furthermore, the heavily edited youtube video by a far right wing blogger doesn't prove anything. The program only put up $2.1 billion to conform with fair housing laws. Private banks made trillions in subprime loans and sold them in the secondary market to private investors. You have never mentioned this fact. Also, we don't know what the default rate was on the low income lending program. Many of these borrowers didn't default. Many middle class borrowers did and their loans weren't backed by F/F.
No matter what the stupid, highly edited youtube video says, F/F didn't make sufficient subprime loans to be responsible for the crash. The people who put the edited version of the C-Span footage on youtube had an political agenda and lie like most right wingers.

steve of IL 11:08PM July 21, 2010

I was never talking about that. Get with the program.
Even HUD Sec Cuomo speaking for President Clinton is wrong according to Steve.
Hahahahaha.
If Clinton admitted being wrong Steve would call Clinton a liar.
Steve, you are a basket case…
Here is part of other article comment Steve said is wrong. So Sec of HUD discussing his duties is wrong and Steve is right.
Video from C-Spam
“EVIDENCE FOUND!!! Clinton administration's "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" They forced banks to make BAD LOANS and ACORN and Obama's tie to all of it!!!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64
WOW…

Bill Hedges of MO 10:28PM July 21, 2010

The two imposters were shown to be lying. After pending lawsuit if over they may have to issue an apology and ACORN will get its funding restored.

steve of IL 10:10PM July 21, 2010

Steve dismisses youtube. Period. Was C-Span video poor guy. I plainly said so in comment. Shows Steve desire not to face evidence demeaning to his politics.
He obviously did not watch my 2nd video so he responds to Acorn with recent events.
His claim to great knowledge and MA got blown out of water. Ship loaded with TNT or better nitro. Education shows through. Steve shows dumb.
Am sure when I shamed him he slid under a rock. Licking his wounds.

Bill Hedges of MO 9:41PM July 21, 2010

The truth about what happened is here;
What didn't happen? An explosion of sub-prime lending. That came later. So for starters, the timing is entirely wrong...while homeownership increased significantly during the Clinton years, sub-prime (and also Alt-A) lending was still under 10 percent of mortgage originations when President Bill Clinton left office...As the Center for Responsible Lending has demonstrated, between 1998 and 2006, only about 9 percent of sub-prime loans went to first-time homebuyers.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=dont_blame_the_community_reinvestment_act
At this time Fannie and Freddie weren't into subprime lending. According to the NYT;
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
This hardly counts as risky subprime lending. The facts simply don't implicate Clinton. There was no mortgage crisis during Clinton's Administration and no F/F crisis.
Heres a Bloomberg/Business Week Report;
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims of the credit crisis, not culprits...Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie. Look at the numbers. While the credit bubble was peaking from 2003 to 2006, the amount of loans originated by Fannie and Freddie dropped from $2.7 trillion to $1 trillion. Meanwhile, in the private sector, the amount of subprime loans originated jumped to $600 billion from $335 billion and Alt-A loans hit $400 billion from $85 billion in 2003. Fannie and Freddie, which wouldn’t accept crazy floating rate loans, which required income verification and minimum down payments, were left out of the insanity.
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/fannie_mae_and.html

steve of IL 9:40PM July 21, 2010

steve and his type need to be out here , everyone needs to see how desperate the progressive are . steve will roll over and play dead , sit up and beg , scratch at the door to go out , make a fool of himself , anything to tow the progressive agenda .

Hunter of WI 9:19PM July 21, 2010

You will not be happy until this country has nothing except big goverment and total control . A failing goverment , and failing more everyday .
What the HELL gives you or your goverment the right to take wealth from people who have earned and want to pass it on ? Are you jealous , or just plain lazy ?
You are very pathetic ..

Hunter of WI 9:00PM July 21, 2010

"Scott Galupo.. Obama Brought Budget Deficit Political Problems Upon Himself"
Steve made big boo boo:
Andrew Cuomo, hud Sec. under Clinton speaking on C-Span.
Media matters talking about Acorn in 2009’
Real dumb Steve. Cuomo speaking before 2000.

Bill Hedges of MO 8:44PM July 21, 2010

Most people die free of any estate tax liability to the government. According to CBPP;
"...the estates of fewer than 3 out of every 1,000 people who die now owe any estate tax whatsoever because the first $3.5 million of the value of any estate (effectively the first $7 million of an estate for a married couple) is exempt from the tax. Some advocates of estate-tax repeal have tried to portray repeal as "killing the death tax." But other observers, such as the columnist E. J. Dionne, have characterized estate-tax repeal as the "Paris Hilton tax cut."
Eliminating the estate tax which in 2009, affected only 0.24% of the US population, would add trillions to future US federal debt. It would not make fiscal sense to dump the estate tax.
It wouldn't make economic sense either. The idea that repealing the estate tax increases private savings by not taxing it at the time of death has been refuted. There is no good evidence that the estate tax reduces savings and investment. The CBPP report explains why;
"The reason is simple: while repealing the estate tax might lead some people to save more, it also would lead the government to borrow more to offset the lost revenue. Government borrowing "soaks up" capital that would otherwise be available for investment in the economy. In the case of estate-tax repeal, the added government borrowing would more than outweigh any added private saving, leaving the economy no better off and quite possibly worse off."
The most common myth, that it is a form of "double taxation" is also wrong. Most of the income taxed on large, taxable estates consist of unrealized capital gains that have never been taxed. One reason for the estate tax is to not allow this wealth to "slip through the cracks." The report concludes;
"One reason the estate tax was created was to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing income that was never taxed under the income tax. The taxation of this income is essentially deferred and ultimately taxed for the first time through the estate tax."
To date, no small business or family farm has ever had to be liquidated to pay the government the estate taxes owed. Far too few estates even owe such a tax. Those who do generally have sufficient income to pay the tax without liquidating their assets. Furthermore, the effective rate of estate taxation is generally quite low, usually lower than the federal income tax rate. In the highly unlikely event that someone would have to liquidate their assets to pay the tax, the government allows a long payment schedule that would enable those liable for the tax to avoid having to liquidate their assets in order to pay it. Concern about the estate tax is highly unwarranted and is just more GOP/Tea Party partisan political spin.
https://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2655

steve of IL 8:26PM July 21, 2010