Bush Crashed the Economy and other lame excuses

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.

Y
Also HOW in the hell are you going to GET Americans to buy goods and services when you have LABOR UNIONS demanding to classify grass cutters
As defined by the current United Auto Worker contract negotiated with the "Big Five" (GM, Ford, Chrysler, and top parts makers Delphi and Visteon), an auto "production worker" is a job description that covers anything from mowing grass to cleaning the toilets.

In the real world, these jobs would be outsourced to $8 an hour, no-benefit wage earners,
but on Planet Big Five, these jobs get the same wages as any auto line-worker:
an average $26 an hour ($60,000 a year) plus benefits that bring the company's
total cost per worker to a staggering $65 an hour."
What is the average hourly wage of a UAW auto worker? - Yahoo! Answers

WHILE: ANY wonder businesses are closing in the USA and moving offshore where the Average Chinese worker's hourly wage: $0.14.
What is the average wage for auto worker

YOU live in a fantasy world and HERE are the realities!

NOT ONE MENTION of the following JOB KILLING EVENTS!!!

THESE events HAPPENED! They cost 850,000 JOBS PLUS COSTING TAX REVENUES of $100 billion a year PLUS government OUTLAYS for disaster loans,etc.
Why is it so HARD to use the REALITY of what HAPPENED then the fiction of what YOU make UP?

A) Didn't the marvelous dot.com ( that Clinton phony surplus bubble)* bust occur? YES! What did it cost?
1) $5 trillion in market losses which meant the taxpayers who had tax liabilities of $60 billion from 2002 and beyond GONE!
2) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts....billions in payroll taxes!!!

Do YOU think those people that had $5 trillion in losses DIDN"T report those losses in their ADJUSTED TAX INCOME over the next 30 years which is what IRS allows?
For example if a Dot.com investor loss $1 million of that $5 trillion that means the investor has 30 years to write off against taxable income $33,000.
So Instead of having a tax on $1 million or at 35% $350,000 by subtracting $33,000 from $1 million that means taxes of 35% on $966,000 or $338,000 a loss to the US treasury of $12,000 from just this $1 million of the $5 trillion!
Or for every $1 million in losses $12,000 loss in tax revenue or on the $5 trillion nearly $60 billion in tax revenue for each year from 2003 and 30 years forward.

B) Did 9/11 happen??? YES what did that cost?
1) Then we had 9/11 which cost $2 trillion or at the above example another $24 billion in loss tax revenue from 2004 and next 30 years.
2)145,00 jobs lost in NYC alone due to 9/11... what did that cost? Billions in payroll taxes!

and regarding hurricanes... THE WORST SEASONS not hurricanes like Sandy SEASONS!!!
C) DID the worst hurricane SEASONS not hurricanes SEASONS occur? YES what did that cost?
Hurricanes cost $1 trillion.. at the above another $12 billion in loss tax revenue.
Collectively Federal tax revenue Loss due to the $8 trillion in losses nearly $100 billion a year from 2003 and next 30 years!
 
Just to be fair.... Boosh did do his part to kick our economy in the nads.
YOU MEAN these EVENTS HAPPEN THAT Bush HAD NOTHING to do with???
Dot.com bust/9/11 OH.. Yeah I remember BUSH CAUSED ALL those worst hurricane SEASONS cause he is a GOD!! Oh wait... That's Obama!!!

WOULD idiots that BLAME Bush... PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW these events DIDN'T happen and and if they DID why they would NOT have ANY affect on the economy???

A) Didn't the marvelous dot.com ( that Clinton phony surplus bubble)* bust occur? YES! What did it cost?
1) $5 trillion in market losses which meant the taxpayers who had tax liabilities of $60 billion from 2002 and beyond GONE!
2) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts....billions in payroll taxes!!!

Do YOU think those people that had $5 trillion in losses DIDN"T report those losses in their ADJUSTED TAX INCOME over the next 30 years which is what IRS allows?
For example if a Dot.com investor loss $1 million of that $5 trillion that means the investor has 30 years to write off against taxable income $33,000.
So Instead of having a tax on $1 million or at 35% $350,000 by subtracting $33,000 from $1 million that means taxes of 35% on $966,000 or $338,000 a loss to the US treasury of $12,000 from just this $1 million of the $5 trillion!
Or for every $1 million in losses $12,000 loss in tax revenue or on the $5 trillion nearly $60 billion in tax revenue for each year from 2003 and 30 years forward.

B) Did 9/11 happen??? YES what did that cost?
1) Then we had 9/11 which cost $2 trillion or at the above example another $24 billion in loss tax revenue from 2004 and next 30 years.
2)145,00 jobs lost in NYC alone due to 9/11... what did that cost? Billions in payroll taxes!

and regarding hurricanes... THE WORST SEASONS not hurricanes like Sandy SEASONS!!!
C) DID the worst hurricane SEASONS not hurricanes SEASONS occur? YES what did that cost?
Hurricanes cost $1 trillion.. at the above another $12 billion in loss tax revenue.
Collectively Federal tax revenue Loss due to the $8 trillion in losses nearly $100 billion a year from 2003 and next 30 years!

Then payroll taxes
Assuming 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com bust -- 145,000 lost due to 9/11 (remember airlines didn't fly for 3 days!) 400,000 jobs lost due to hurricanes..
850,000 jobs lost.
So at say an average of $30,000 per job and Social Security and Medicare EMPLOYEE pays 7.65% or $2,295 paid by employee.. BUT I imagine you and many like you forget the EMPLOYER matches that and also pays $2,295 or a total of $4,590 paid in by Employee and Employer!
$4,590 times 850,000 jobs or near $4 billion a year due to those LOST jobs in Federal REVENUE!

So between these two tax revenue generators losing over $100 billion a year all due to what... EVENTS beyond ANYONE's control!!!

A) NO ONE IS TALKING AbOUT LOWERING TAXES do you understand!!! The question is should taxes go BACK UP instead of staying the same??

B) PRETTY FU<<K ING SIMPLE ... IF you understand the market economy ,GDP and tax revenue sources...which obviously you don't!!!

Good God. Imagine bush's economy if not for all that imaginary money his phoney housing market temporarily put in the system.
 
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.

All banks have to comply with CRA
 

Forum List

Back
Top