Bush Crashed the Economy and other lame excuses

[GoneBezerk]

But....but....but it is Buuuuuuuush's fault since he was sitting in the White House when the scheme blew up.

Of course, they turn around and blow off anything that happens under Obamination's time in the White House even when his fingerprints are at the scene of the crime like Libya, the Porkulus failing, etc.

This is why the institutions wanted this change.

they had before this been BANNED from selling securities because shit had been done in the past by them to distory the markets for a quick profit.


all of the sudden banks could do what ever they wanted.

and they did

If this had not occurred, 2008 would have occurred in 2001 right after 9/11. Banks were in trouble way back then and they found a way to keep the bubble going.

2008 was the result of government policies from the 30's all the way to 2008, you might want to look into the issue beyond the Bush years.

 

[rdean]

Don't worry. It wasn't just Bush. It was Bush following Republican policies. Notice, Republicans have the presidency and control both houses for a number of years, at the end of that time, everything falls apart. That doesn't happened overnight. It only seems that way because Republican memory lasts weeks, not years.

 

[healthmyths]

I do NOT BLAME Obama for any job losses that began with recession that started in 2007! Nor was it Bush's fault!
Bush pushed the tax cuts that lowered from and it took affect in 2003.. BUT was in response to the Recession that officially started in March 2001 and ended Nov. 2001.
BUT Bush nor anyone except God/Obama knew what was in store!
Dot Com bust that cost $5 trillion and reduced tax revenue by $66 billion a year!
9/11 which I am sure Obama/God knew was going to happen but not the mortal Bush it cost $24 billion a year NOW in taxable revenue!
Finally NONE of you seem to take in account the WORST HURRICANE SEASONS... cost $1 trillion economic losses, and all of the above had 850,000 jobs lost!
These jobs generated at a minimum of $5 billion a year in payroll taxes alone gone!

In fact According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more.
The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.
In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.
Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts - Forbes

According to this web site Issues 2012 | The U.S. Tax System: Who Really Pays?

Here is how much Federal Revenue INCREASED Under Bush, How much more was collected from the Rich under Bush and what group paid the most taxes...

 

[lukelk]

Democrats can you please tell us in your own words how it is still possible that the Obama economy continues to suck because of Boooooooooosh?

Let's review:

Lehman Brother collapsed first, they're gone these 4 Christmases past

Bear Stearns was a weak sister, they're gone these 4 Christmases past

Merrill Lynch: a subsidiary of BofA these 4 Christmases past

Fannie? Freddie? Sucked up $200B of Capital and totally dominate the residential mortgage market

Banks are profitable, so what exactly are you talking about when you mindless parrot Obama's talking points?

Frank you are one of the most slow, misinformed hacks on here, you make these posts that are so clearly wrong it makes one think that your critical thinking is at a 5 grade level.

 

[lukelk]

I do NOT BLAME Obama for any job losses that began with recession that started in 2007! Nor was it Bush's fault!
Bush pushed the tax cuts that lowered from and it took affect in 2003.. BUT was in response to the Recession that officially started in March 2001 and ended Nov. 2001.
BUT Bush nor anyone except God/Obama knew what was in store!
Dot Com bust that cost $5 trillion and reduced tax revenue by $66 billion a year!
9/11 which I am sure Obama/God knew was going to happen but not the mortal Bush it cost $24 billion a year NOW in taxable revenue!
Finally NONE of you seem to take in account the WORST HURRICANE SEASONS... cost $1 trillion economic losses, and all of the above had 850,000 jobs lost!
These jobs generated at a minimum of $5 billion a year in payroll taxes alone gone!

In fact According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more.
The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.
In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.
Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts - Forbes

According to this web site Issues 2012 | The U.S. Tax System: Who Really Pays?

Here is how much Federal Revenue INCREASED Under Bush, How much more was collected from the Rich under Bush and what group paid the most taxes...

View attachment 23285

View attachment 23286

View attachment 23287

Clearly you don't understand how the bush tax cuts worked. Try looking at the whole picture, also stop spreading myths

 

[GoneBezerk]

Asshole....the bad changes to Glass-Steagall and the CRA were mostly Bill Clinton's fault.

Don't worry. It wasn't just Bush. It was Bush following Republican policies. Notice, Republicans have the presidency and control both houses for a number of years, at the end of that time, everything falls apart. That doesn't happened overnight. It only seems that way because Republican memory lasts weeks, not years.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

If we still have people on this forum arguing who is to blame for the economic collapse , who are supposed to be more politically in tune, we're in deep trouble. We don't have ONE political party willing to be honest enough and responsible enough to do the right thing..Just look at the Fiscal cliff talks.. IT'S ALL BS. We all know entitlement spending has to be reformed and that we're broke- beyond broke.. we're going belly up ,yet NOT one politician who sits in Washington is talking real solutions.. this is exactly how it's been for YEARS. Both parties FUBAR.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Moron....since you think the Bush tax cuts are bad....why are they only expiring next week????

Obamination is starting his next term in a few weeks....yet he and the Democraps allowed those "evil" Bush tax cuts to exist under their nose for 4 years.

Oh, it's said many of the Bush tax cuts will be extended once a deal is made next week.....

I do NOT BLAME Obama for any job losses that began with recession that started in 2007! Nor was it Bush's fault!
Bush pushed the tax cuts that lowered from and it took affect in 2003.. BUT was in response to the Recession that officially started in March 2001 and ended Nov. 2001.
BUT Bush nor anyone except God/Obama knew what was in store!
Dot Com bust that cost $5 trillion and reduced tax revenue by $66 billion a year!
9/11 which I am sure Obama/God knew was going to happen but not the mortal Bush it cost $24 billion a year NOW in taxable revenue!
Finally NONE of you seem to take in account the WORST HURRICANE SEASONS... cost $1 trillion economic losses, and all of the above had 850,000 jobs lost!
These jobs generated at a minimum of $5 billion a year in payroll taxes alone gone!

In fact According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more.
The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.
In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.
Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts - Forbes

According to this web site Issues 2012 | The U.S. Tax System: Who Really Pays?

Here is how much Federal Revenue INCREASED Under Bush, How much more was collected from the Rich under Bush and what group paid the most taxes...

View attachment 23285

View attachment 23286

View attachment 23287

Clearly you don't understand how the bush tax cuts worked. Try looking at the whole picture, also stop spreading myths

 

[healthmyths]

I do NOT BLAME Obama for any job losses that began with recession that started in 2007! Nor was it Bush's fault!
Bush pushed the tax cuts that lowered from and it took affect in 2003.. BUT was in response to the Recession that officially started in March 2001 and ended Nov. 2001.
BUT Bush nor anyone except God/Obama knew what was in store!
Dot Com bust that cost $5 trillion and reduced tax revenue by $66 billion a year!
9/11 which I am sure Obama/God knew was going to happen but not the mortal Bush it cost $24 billion a year NOW in taxable revenue!
Finally NONE of you seem to take in account the WORST HURRICANE SEASONS... cost $1 trillion economic losses, and all of the above had 850,000 jobs lost!
These jobs generated at a minimum of $5 billion a year in payroll taxes alone gone!

In fact According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more.
The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.
In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.
Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts - Forbes

According to this web site Issues 2012 | The U.S. Tax System: Who Really Pays?

Here is how much Federal Revenue INCREASED Under Bush, How much more was collected from the Rich under Bush and what group paid the most taxes...

View attachment 23285

View attachment 23286

View attachment 23287

Clearly you don't understand how the bush tax cuts worked. Try looking at the whole picture, also stop spreading myths

Was the dot.com bust that cost $5 trillion and an average of $66 billion a year in lost tax revenue a MYTH???
Was 9/11 a myth and it's $2 trillion in businesses/market/job losses A MYTH??
How about the $1 trillion real businesses destroyed, jobs lost due to the WORST SEASONS of hurricanes!! Those a myth??

$100 billion a year since 2003 has been written off against federal tax revenue do you know that IS NOT A MYTH!!!
REAL money was NOT paid to the Federal government in TAXES due to the above "MYTHS"!!!
REALITY !
Now address the graphs that show that 85% of ALL tax revenue collected comes from the top 25% tax payers!
AND In spite of the losses in revenue because of the 16% growth in GDP the highest in history under Bush the graphs in Figure 6 show
Bush Tax revenues the HIGHEST in history 27% growth AFTER tax cuts vs the best Clinton did by RAISING rates.

WHICH affect created MORE tax revenue... Bush tax cuts increased 27% all the while after losing $100 billion due to Dot.com/911 and hurricanes!
Please note statistics from the White House OMAB!!!

 

[Rocko]

Beofre GLB act brokers were accredited.

they had a license to lose if they acted in certain ways.

with NO broker rules the banks could tell any (trained and picked by the institution its self) broker to jsut do what your told or lose your job.


with the rules the broker could say " I cant do that I will lose my license".


It would END their carreer and put them in jail.


No broker rules means NO regulation.

are you catching on yet?

Securities brokers do need licenses. It's called a series 7 license, and they also need a series 63 license to be able to sell securities in the state in which they do buisness. The securities industry is heavly regulated by a government agency called FINRA.

 

[healthmyths]

If we still have people on this forum arguing who is to blame for the economic collapse , who are supposed to be more politically in tune, we're in deep trouble. We don't have ONE political party willing to be honest enough and responsible enough to do the right thing..Just look at the Fiscal cliff talks.. IT'S ALL BS. We all know entitlement spending has to be reformed and that we're broke- beyond broke.. we're going belly up ,yet NOT one politician who sits in Washington is talking real solutions.. this is exactly how it's been for YEARS. Both parties FUBAR.

Unlike the Obamatron/Democrats who SEE NO wrong with their party... I am first a conservative then a GOP and more objective then almost ALL Obamatron/democrats!
Objective enough and smart enough to know the GOP is wrong in one major premise... the MSM is objective!
THE GOP leadership especially doesn't seem to be aware the MSM bias will paint GOP as dumb and Democrats as smart.
MSM bias proven by the FACT 85% of the 1,353 employees at three major broadcast television networks gave to the Democrats.. geez.. do you think they might be a little biased?????

So the GOP must first recognize the MSM is the enemy!

Everytime the MSM interviews GOP leadership.. the leadership must state that clearly for the general public to understand!
If I were Boehner every time I was interviewed I'd first inject that above statistic 85% of network television employees donated to Democrats!
Then I would explain how GROWING the GDP increases tax revenues!
Then I would explain GOP will NOT cut anyone over 55 Medicare or Social security!
I would though explain patiently for most Americans don't understand that today's 65 year old person will actually live longer today then when Social security started!
The fact that in the 30s few people lived to 65 which was what SS was counting on!!!
So the GOP unlike the Democrats KNOW this and simply changing the retirement age to 67 SAVES trillions over the next 30 years!

That's the 4 blocks of information that will SAVE our way of life!
A) REcognize the MSM bias has caused all of these problems
B) Growing the GDP by 4% will generate trillions more in taxes then ANY TAX increases will generate!
C) REPEAT REPEAT GOP NOT cutting any SS/Medicare (rescinding Obama's $716 billion Medicare CUTS!!!) for anyone over 55 years!
D) REPEAT Age 65 is not the same today as it was when SS started ... hence raising to age 67 and trillions will be saved!

 

[Toronado3800]

I do NOT BLAME Obama for any job losses that began with recession that started in 2007! Nor was it Bush's fault!
Bush pushed the tax cuts that lowered from and it took affect in 2003.. BUT was in response to the Recession that officially started in March 2001 and ended Nov. 2001.
BUT Bush nor anyone except God/Obama knew what was in store!
Dot Com bust that cost $5 trillion and reduced tax revenue by $66 billion a year!
9/11 which I am sure Obama/God knew was going to happen but not the mortal Bush it cost $24 billion a year NOW in taxable revenue!
Finally NONE of you seem to take in account the WORST HURRICANE SEASONS... cost $1 trillion economic losses, and all of the above had 850,000 jobs lost!
These jobs generated at a minimum of $5 billion a year in payroll taxes alone gone!

In fact According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more.
The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.
In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.
Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts - Forbes

According to this web site Issues 2012 | The U.S. Tax System: Who Really Pays?

Here is how much Federal Revenue INCREASED Under Bush, How much more was collected from the Rich under Bush and what group paid the most taxes...

View attachment 23285

View attachment 23286

View attachment 23287

Clearly you don't understand how the bush tax cuts worked. Try looking at the whole picture, also stop spreading myths

Was the dot.com bust that cost $5 trillion and an average of $66 billion a year in lost tax revenue a MYTH???
Was 9/11 a myth and it's $2 trillion in businesses/market/job losses A MYTH??
How about the $1 trillion real businesses destroyed, jobs lost due to the WORST SEASONS of hurricanes!! Those a myth??

$100 billion a year since 2003 has been written off against federal tax revenue do you know that IS NOT A MYTH!!!
REAL money was NOT paid to the Federal government in TAXES due to the above "MYTHS"!!!
REALITY !
Now address the graphs that show that 85% of ALL tax revenue collected comes from the top 25% tax payers!
AND In spite of the losses in revenue because of the 16% growth in GDP the highest in history under Bush the graphs in Figure 6 show
Bush Tax revenues the HIGHEST in history 27% growth AFTER tax cuts vs the best Clinton did by RAISING rates.

WHICH affect created MORE tax revenue... Bush tax cuts increased 27% all the while after losing $100 billion due to Dot.com/911 and hurricanes!
Please note statistics from the White House OMAB!!!

Just curious, if the deficit was a trillion less now, how different would our economy be.

1/15th ish of the national debt....our interest payment on it woukd be 1/15th less? 6% is not insignificant but I dunno if things wojld be noticably different.

Ey, I am going to take them hurricane numbers over to the flood wall folks and ask them why they keep building in high liability places. Darn cities and local governments counting on state and fededal aid when the rivers rise costing America a bit of competitiveness with China just so St Peters has an industrial park instead of O'Fallon where it doesn't flood.

 

[Toronado3800]

Not that the Corps of Engineers is w/o fault or whoever decided to allow New Orleans to rebuild.

 

[JoeB131]

why did the banks who didnt even have to comply with CRA write a shit load of them and then roll them into securities and sell them?

If they wanted to expand, open new ATMs, merge, acquire, they had to comply with the CRA. The banks that did not, and remained healthy, were the small banks that continued to red line and deny loans to minority borrowers. They did survive. They survived as healthy banks still able to do business. UNTIL, obama started his wash of regulators who declared these banking practices illegal and took them over. Small banks no matter how healthy were closed and sold off to larger banks that were CRA compliant., As an added special attraction for the government, depositors who had in excess of $100,000 lost their money down to that amount to the federal regulators. Was there ever an accounting of how much money the government got by taking over these small banks? No. Democrats didn't find it worthwhile to mention.

Of the top 25 banks that failed, only one did CRA Loans.

 

[francoHFW]

Xmas thanks to the Santa Claus GOP who gave us the cronyism and corruption Second Pub World Depression, the stupidest wars ever, 3 1/2 years of mindless obstruction, and the Pub Propaganda machine that produces the silliest loudmouths ever.

 

[healthmyths]

Clearly you don't understand how the bush tax cuts worked. Try looking at the whole picture, also stop spreading myths

Was the dot.com bust that cost $5 trillion and an average of $66 billion a year in lost tax revenue a MYTH???
Was 9/11 a myth and it's $2 trillion in businesses/market/job losses A MYTH??
How about the $1 trillion real businesses destroyed, jobs lost due to the WORST SEASONS of hurricanes!! Those a myth??

$100 billion a year since 2003 has been written off against federal tax revenue do you know that IS NOT A MYTH!!!
REAL money was NOT paid to the Federal government in TAXES due to the above "MYTHS"!!!
REALITY !
Now address the graphs that show that 85% of ALL tax revenue collected comes from the top 25% tax payers!
AND In spite of the losses in revenue because of the 16% growth in GDP the highest in history under Bush the graphs in Figure 6 show
Bush Tax revenues the HIGHEST in history 27% growth AFTER tax cuts vs the best Clinton did by RAISING rates.

WHICH affect created MORE tax revenue... Bush tax cuts increased 27% all the while after losing $100 billion due to Dot.com/911 and hurricanes!
Please note statistics from the White House OMAB!!!

Just curious, if the deficit was a trillion less now, how different would our economy be.

1/15th ish of the national debt....our interest payment on it woukd be 1/15th less? 6% is not insignificant but I dunno if things wojld be noticably different.

Ey, I am going to take them hurricane numbers over to the flood wall folks and ask them why they keep building in high liability places. Darn cities and local governments counting on state and fededal aid when the rivers rise costing America a bit of competitiveness with China just so St Peters has an industrial park instead of O'Fallon where it doesn't flood.

Again... doesn't alter the FACTS! $8 trillion in losses translated to $100 billion a year IN LOST TAX REVENUE!
Why is that so hard to admit?

AND YeT IN spite of that Bush's efforts kept the economy going!
Remember when EVERY ONE chastened him for giving a speech two weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush urged Americans not to be cowed: “Get down to Disney World in Florida,” he declared. “Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed.” Personal consumption expenditures increased sharply in October 2001, and the recession that had begun in March of that year came to an abrupt end by November.

WHY do you think he did that? Because his economic advisers told him Americans were VERY fearful about what was going to happen!
Think about it! If we had had video of Pearl Harbor and that was NOT as destructive or impactful as jets and WTC building collapsing for all to see!

some idiots complained that Bush encouraged Americans to be Americans after that!
HOW dumb to criticize what Bush was suppose to do... be a leader!!!

But regardless of most people bitching criticizing Bush long term historians will rate him as one of the GREAT Presidents who in spite of:
1) The MSM biased reporting starting with the liberation of IRAQ
2) In spite of inheriting a recession and THEN the dot com bust..
3) And then the WOrST attack in history which killed more people destroyed more property then Pearl harbor..
4) and many of you Don't Remember the Anthrax attacks that almost immobilized the post office right after 9/11..
5) And the WORST Hurricane SEASONS Plural SEASONS...
6) In spite of 850,000 jobs lost due to the above

Bush saw a
1) GDP grow 16%
2) 136,790,000 people working or 4,964,000 more end of 2008 that at the beginning 131,826,000 end of 2001

And all of this again during a totally biased MSM that constantly BASHED Bush!

 

[AmericanFirst]

If you wanna' blame any one person for the Economic Crash of 2008, blame Hank Paulson.

Why? What did Paulson do?

If anything, he saved us from Great Depression 2.0.

Using our money, yeah? Gee, thanks Hank! Seriously, that borders on a broken window fallacy. If someone damages my property and then takes it upon themselves to debit my bank account to repair it, did they save me any money? No, they still caused me to lose property.

There is no one single person responsible for the Financial Crisis, but the man most culpable is almost certainly Greenspan.

That I agree with. The housing bubble pretty much was our hangover cure from the stock bust. Except it didn't cure the hangover, it deferred it and made it worse. Greenspan was essentially the ringleader for that. Bush and various others helped too.

Obamaturd is using our money to pay for his wild spending.

 

[freedombecki]

Xmas thanks to the Santa Claus GOP who gave us the cronyism and corruption Second Pub World Depression, the stupidest wars ever, 3 1/2 years of mindless obstruction, and the Pub Propaganda machine that produces the silliest loudmouths ever.

Solyndra was Democrat corruption, quid-pro-quo style, franco, Remember?

Remember how Obama had that little photo op at the Solyndra factory?

Then how Obama called the US Treasury the following week to hustle up the $535,000,000.00 check to the manufacturer that just happened to be started off by one of his most generous campaign donors?

Remember how the DNC made sure their donors got no-pay-back, fully 100% pay-back Green loans on companies like Solyndra that were fiscally headed for the bankruptcy courts anyway because their product did not compete with foreign interests?

Remember how Solyndra greeted its 1100 employees 18 months after they got their hands on the $535,000,000.00 free money package from Uncle US Treasury?

Yep. Locked doors, no notice whatever. "Business closed permanently." signs on the employee entrance. Fremont, California.

Corrupt from beginning to end.

 

[Londoner]

Democrats can you please tell us in your own words how it is still possible that the Obama economy continues to suck because of Boooooooooosh?

The economy doesn't suck because of Bush.

The economy has been vulnerable since the late 70s when American's postwar manufacturing dominance ended. We've spent the last 30 years shipping jobs overseas - and then we slowly started replacing high wages/benefits with credit cards and other debt gimmicks.

Here is how it happened. [I'll spare you the part about how Germany and Japan re-industrialized and skip to this:] Starting in the early 80s the Capitalist realized he could generate higher returns for investors if his products were made with ultra cheap labor. I invite you to check the labels on your clothes and toasters and and vacuum cleaners. You will see "Made in China", "Made in Taiwan", "Made in Grenada". Walmart get over 40% of it's manufacturing from Communist China. Where do you think the iPad and iPhone are made.

When we started losing jobs (to give the capitalist cheaper labor costs), we created a problem. The American consumer had less money with which to buy things. So what did we do? We expanded the credit system and gave everyone credit cards, payment plans, and crazy mortgages.

Do you understand Crusader Frank? We gave the capitalist cheap labor, and to make up for lost jobs, we gave the consumer credit cards.

You can only maintain this kind of system for so long until you break the bank.

This is why Bush had the worst job creation of any American president in the past 50 years. Because 30 years of expanding the credit system (to make up for money that wasn't trickling down) had finally caught up with us.

The next GOP president will have to find a way to bring back all the jobs. We need to replace credit-based consumption with the wage-based consumption we had during the long liberal tyranny from 1945-1980 (when presidents of both parties vigorously supported the New Deal, including Eisenhower and Nixon).

Here's the catch to bringing the jobs back ol' Frank. The capitalist is now getting his products made for 50 cents an hour. Do you know how much Nike pays their workers in South Korea and Vietnam? My point: Nike ain't going to bring those jobs back until American workers accept $4 dollars a day. Those wages will not support the consumption needed to grow jobs.

The only way to rebuild the domestic economy is to re-build the well-compensated consumption class that we had during the postwar years.

This ain't gonna happen because the capitalist is not going to give up his sweatshop labor.

Welcome to the structural flaw of post Reagan capitalism (aka neoliberalism = austerity & credit cards for the consumption classes). Capital's drive for cheap labor (aka higher returns) destroyed the goose that laid the golden egg: demand. And without demand the capitalist can't invest in the real economy of goods and services. So he ends up with massive liquid that doesn't turn into real jobs. What does he do with that liquid? He goes to Wall Street and demands high returns. And what does Wall Street do? They invent mortgage backed securities and derivatives. They invent returns out of thin air. . . which results in a meltdown.

Reaganomics was a great tool in the 80s when there was sufficient demand. By giving the capitalist lower taxes, it allowed him to add more jobs to capture that demand. But Supply Side economics doesn't work as well when the problem is demand.

If you don't restore demand by bringing back high wages, you have to use a host of after-market programs to bolster middle class solvency. This would involve comprehensive programs that take money from the very top and put it into making things like education and health care affordable. This will never happen because ol' Johnny Galt owns government.

The game is over. Demand will never be restored. We are headed for a 3rd world structure which rotates around pockets of dynastic wealth surrounded by a massive disenfranchised class of impoverished workers with no upward mobility.

American swallowed poison in 1980 and the patient is almost dead.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Democrats can you please tell us in your own words how it is still possible that the Obama economy continues to suck because of Boooooooooosh?

The economy doesn't suck because of Bush.

The economy has been vulnerable since the late 70s when American's postwar manufacturing dominance ended. We've spent the last 30 years shipping jobs overseas - and then we slowly started replacing high wages/benefits with credit cards and other debt gimmicks.

Here is how it happened. [I'll spare you the part about how Germany and Japan re-industrialized and skip to this:] Starting in the early 80s the Capitalist realized he could generate higher returns for investors if his products were made with ultra cheap labor. I invite you to check the labels on your clothes and toasters and and vacuum cleaners. You will see "Made in China", "Made in Taiwan", "Made in Grenada". Walmart get over 40% of it's manufacturing from Communist China. Where do you think the iPad and iPhone are made.

When we started losing jobs (to give the capitalist cheaper labor costs), we created a problem. The American consumer had less money with which to buy things. So what did we do? We expanded the credit system and gave everyone credit cards, payment plans, and crazy mortgages.

Do you understand Crusader Frank? We gave the capitalist cheap labor, and to make up for lost jobs, we gave the consumer credit cards.

You can only maintain this kind of system for so long until you break the bank.

This is why Bush had the worst job creation of any American president in the past 50 years. Because 30 years of expanding the credit system (to make up for money that wasn't trickling down) had finally caught up with us.

The next GOP president will have to find a way to bring back all the jobs. We need to replace credit-based consumption with the wage-based consumption we had during the long liberal tyranny from 1945-1980 (when presidents of both parties vigorously supported the New Deal, including Eisenhower and Nixon).

Here's the catch to bringing the jobs back ol' Frank. The capitalist is now getting his products made for 50 cents an hour. Do you know how much Nike pays their workers in South Korea and Vietnam? My point: Nike ain't going to bring those jobs back until American workers accept $4 dollars a day. Those wages will not support the consumption needed to grow jobs.

The only way to rebuild the domestic economy is to re-build the well-compensated consumption class that we had during the postwar years.

This ain't gonna happen because the capitalist is not going to give up his sweatshop labor.

Welcome to the structural flaw of post Reagan capitalism (aka neoliberalism = austerity & credit cards for the consumption classes). Capital's drive for cheap labor (aka higher returns) destroyed the goose that laid the golden egg: demand.

And if you don't restore demand by bringing back high wages, you have to use a host of after-market programs to bolster middle class solvency. This would involve comprehensive programs that take money from the very top and put it into making things like education and health care affordable. This will never happen because ol' Johnny Galt owns government.

The game is over. Demand will never be restored. We are headed for a 3rd world structure which rotates around pockets of dynastic wealth surrounded by a massive disenfranchised class of impoverished workers with no upward mobility.

American swallowed poison in 1980 and the patient is almost dead.

You got everything wrong again and you keep repeating that same incorrect statements hoping they become true by repetition