Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy

[The Rabbi]

A wing nutter who doesn't want to pay his bills. Shocking. I thought the REASON the Dubya tax cuts were to 'create jobs' through 'job creator' policies? lol

Dubya/GOP took US from 20%+ of GDP in federal tax revenues to less than 15% (Korean war levels) AS they blew up spending!!!!

And the spending keeps going on and on. Obama's lowest deficit is higher than any of Bush's. Unemplloyment averaged 5.8% during Bush's 8 years. Not a lot of room for creating jobs if everyone that wants one already has one.

Weird, Dubya had a $1.2+ trillion deficit his last F/Y that started Oct 1, 2008. AS OF JAN 8, 2009, 12 DAYS BEFORE OBAMA???


CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News

UNEMPLOYMENT AVERAGED? Oh you mean he inherited less than 4% unemployment and with his ponzi scheme and borrowing, created a false economy? What was the trend like Dubya's last year again? lol



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?


A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!


A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And you think that all happened in a Repub vacuum right?
Who publicly challenge Freddi and Fanny,and who said everything was fine?

FREDIE/FANNIE? LOL



One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.

Bush talked about GSE (F/F) reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again.

The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R),now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”

“What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

Oxley was Chairman of the House Financial Services committee and sponsor of the only reform bill to pass any chamber of the republican controlled congress


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown

Wall Street Not Fannie and Freddie Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast


BUT


JUNE 17, 2004

Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan

Groups ask HUD to rethink plan that would increase financing of homes to low-income people.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush s low-income housing - Jun. 17 2004


Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Barney Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

MUCH MORE HERE ON DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE AND BUST

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now lets be fair here.

The bush boy did "reform" fannie mae and home lending practices.

He started out by declaring that all state regulations on lending to be void. All that controlled lending was federal regulations which the bush boy was removing as fast as he could.

One regulation he removed very publicly was the law that prohibited Fannie Mae from buying sub prime mortgage loans. Which was how those bad loans were dumped by banks onto investors all over the world. Their logic was that they would be "bundled with good loans." So when the bad loans failed the good ones would compensate for them. Which never happened because they were bundled with too many bad sub prime loans.

Meanwhile lending companies were investing in derivatives that
the loans would default. So some lending companies and banks made money on the loans, selling the loans and then when the loans went bad. That's when insurance companies like AIG went bankrupt.

It was irresponsible deregulation that caused the collapse. The democrats aren't the party of deregulation. That would be the republicans. And they went wild with it in the bush boy years.

Do you make this stuff up as you go? Or are you reading from some other left wing website? Because there is absolutely no truth to any of that.

 

[Listening]

And the spending keeps going on and on. Obama's lowest deficit is higher than any of Bush's. Unemplloyment averaged 5.8% during Bush's 8 years. Not a lot of room for creating jobs if everyone that wants one already has one.

Weird, Dubya had a $1.2+ trillion deficit his last F/Y that started Oct 1, 2008. AS OF JAN 8, 2009, 12 DAYS BEFORE OBAMA???


CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News

UNEMPLOYMENT AVERAGED? Oh you mean he inherited less than 4% unemployment and with his ponzi scheme and borrowing, created a false economy? What was the trend like Dubya's last year again? lol



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?


A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!


A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And you think that all happened in a Repub vacuum right?
Who publicly challenge Freddi and Fanny,and who said everything was fine?

FREDIE/FANNIE? LOL



One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.

Bush talked about GSE (F/F) reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again.

The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R),now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”

“What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

Oxley was Chairman of the House Financial Services committee and sponsor of the only reform bill to pass any chamber of the republican controlled congress


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown

Wall Street Not Fannie and Freddie Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast


BUT


JUNE 17, 2004

Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan

Groups ask HUD to rethink plan that would increase financing of homes to low-income people.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush s low-income housing - Jun. 17 2004


Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Barney Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

MUCH MORE HERE ON DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE AND BUST

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now lets be fair here.

The bush boy did "reform" fannie mae and home lending practices.

He started out by declaring that all state regulations on lending to be void. All that controlled lending was federal regulations which the bush boy was removing as fast as he could.

One regulation he removed very publicly was the law that prohibited Fannie Mae from buying sub prime mortgage loans. Which was how those bad loans were dumped by banks onto investors all over the world. Their logic was that they would be "bundled with good loans." So when the bad loans failed the good ones would compensate for them. Which never happened because they were bundled with too many bad sub prime loans.

Meanwhile lending companies were investing in derivatives that
the loans would default. So some lending companies and banks made money on the loans, selling the loans and then when the loans went bad. That's when insurance companies like AIG went bankrupt.

It was irresponsible deregulation that caused the collapse. The democrats aren't the party of deregulation. That would be the republicans. And they went wild with it in the bush boy years.

Do you make this stuff up as you go? Or are you reading from some other left wing website? Because there is absolutely no truth to any of that.

It's a deflection.

DanaTheDumb is getting her ass kicked by Keys and she needs to move on.

Her ass is pretty sore.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I have read right wing bullshit and left wing bullshit and researched the situation for years. My conclusion is subprime mortgages are what caused the melt down. If you want to lay blame, you can start with James Earl Carter and the (HR 6655) CRA signed into law 10/12/77

One more time there ernie. Sub primes were the culprit. Sub prime mortgages were originated primarily by mortgage brokers. Not banks.

And the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was designed to apply to Federally insured BANKS.

Banks did not originate sub prime loans.

The exposure some banks had to sub prime junk loans was usually through a mortgage broker relationship or they bought sub prime loans already closed thinking they were purchasing better quality paper than they were.

That's what happened to Fannie and Freddie. Sure, late in the game even they lowered mortgage standards. But they got burnt the same way other secondary market players got burnt. They bought portfolios of loans that were misrepresented as to loan quality.

You have to remember, lots of regional and mid size banks NEVER GOT into any lending trouble. And they still complied with CRA requirements and never made or bought any junk sub prime loans. And they did originate conforming loans written to Fannie/Freddie guidelines.

If the CRA was the culprit and all Federally insured banks have to follow CRA requirements (which they do) then they all should have failed. But they didn't.

What color is the sky in your world?

Fannie And Freddie were the world PREMIERE FUNDING MEANS OF SUB-PRIME LOANS! They were THE ORIGINATORS OF SUCH... they hired private mortgage BROKERS TO PRODUCE SUB-PRIME LOANS: BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT MORTGAGE BROKERS DO: THEY BROKER MORTGAGES!

ROFLMNAO! This notion that Mortgage Brokers just went out and made sub-prime deals through their Snidely Whiplash Capitalist GREED is FANTASY!

Fannie and FREDDIE were THE GUARANTORS... THEY are THE REASON THAT THOSE BROKERS >COULD< and DID broker those LOANS! Because Freddie and Fannie GUARANTEED THE LOANS! So, there was NO REASON (Beyond the obvious, which is that such is unprincipled, thus unsustainable and will inevitably lead to catastrophe and financial collapse) to NOT MAKE THE LOANS: BECAUSE THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS GUARANTEEING THAT THE LOOMING LOSSES WOULD BE PAID BY THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Which is inevitably WHY the loans HAD TO BE SECURITIZED... to spread the pending losses across the markets... because THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS INCAPABLE OF PAYING THE TAB!

It was a grand conspiracy... of monumental stupidity. And it was a WHOLESALE RESULT OF SOCIALIST POLICY!

ROFLMNAO!

Folks, it is becoming impossible to under estimate the propensity for unbridled foolishness... on the Left.

 

[Dana7360]

Republicans only econonic solutions are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

Demand is all-important right? Guess who the "demand" is for my employer? Businesses. My employer is, in its turn, a "demand" for a massive number of other businesses. I guess you forgot that businesses are customers too. I guess in your oversimplified "economic reality" businesses are only ever suppliers, and never consume anything.

Stimulating businesses does stimulate both supply and demand every time.

So go ahead and tell me why stimulating demand without stimulating supply is a better solution?

If there's no one to buy the product supply is worthless.

Giving tax cuts to businesses doesn't create jobs. That's not how capitalism works.

No employer is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing. No matter how many tax cuts that employer gets. That employer is only going to pocket the extra money. The only reason why an employer would hire new employees is that there's more work to do than the existing staff can handle in a regular work week. If that's happening that means the company is having more sales which means they're making more money and the last thing that employer needs is a tax cut.

Without that demand from customers, no business can stay open. Businesses aren't the only consumers in our economy and they certainly aren't enough to keep other businesses profitable.

Sure a farmer can buy all the equipment he wants but without customers to buy his crop, he goes bankrupt. Sure a store can be fully stocked with the latest goods and services but if they don't have customers to buy their goods and services that business closes.

Capitalism needs the free flow of money throughout the economy to work. The only way to make sure that happens is with living wages, taxes and regulations. Without it, all you end up with is monopolies and a destroyed economy.

Beautifully said.

Thank you.

I did take that economics class in college. It was required for my degree in accounting.

All I posted is taught in economics 101.

We all know conservatives believe that education is bad and they don't have much education past high school so they aren't capable of grasping basic economics.

 

[Listening]

Republicans only econonic solutions are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

Demand is all-important right? Guess who the "demand" is for my employer? Businesses. My employer is, in its turn, a "demand" for a massive number of other businesses. I guess you forgot that businesses are customers too. I guess in your oversimplified "economic reality" businesses are only ever suppliers, and never consume anything.

Stimulating businesses does stimulate both supply and demand every time.

So go ahead and tell me why stimulating demand without stimulating supply is a better solution?

If there's no one to buy the product supply is worthless.

Giving tax cuts to businesses doesn't create jobs. That's not how capitalism works.

No employer is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing. No matter how many tax cuts that employer gets. That employer is only going to pocket the extra money. The only reason why an employer would hire new employees is that there's more work to do than the existing staff can handle in a regular work week. If that's happening that means the company is having more sales which means they're making more money and the last thing that employer needs is a tax cut.

Without that demand from customers, no business can stay open. Businesses aren't the only consumers in our economy and they certainly aren't enough to keep other businesses profitable.

Sure a farmer can buy all the equipment he wants but without customers to buy his crop, he goes bankrupt. Sure a store can be fully stocked with the latest goods and services but if they don't have customers to buy their goods and services that business closes.

Capitalism needs the free flow of money throughout the economy to work. The only way to make sure that happens is with living wages, taxes and regulations. Without it, all you end up with is monopolies and a destroyed economy.

Beautifully said.

Thank you.

I did take that economics class in college. It was required for my degree in accounting.

All I posted is taught in economics 101.

We all know conservatives believe that education is bad and they don't have much education past high school so they aren't capable of grasping basic economics.

Well, you might consider some advance economics courses since the basics are nothing more than paper studies that have little or no application in the real world.

It is quite clear you never got past 101. Too bad.

"We all know" ? Who is we ? Or have you just revealed yourself to be part of the to-arrogant-to-know-you-are-a-dumbass crowd that has people like RDean in it ?

Education....are you saying you are more educated than....us ?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Republicans only econonic solutions are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

Demand is all-important right? Guess who the "demand" is for my employer? Businesses. My employer is, in its turn, a "demand" for a massive number of other businesses. I guess you forgot that businesses are customers too. I guess in your oversimplified "economic reality" businesses are only ever suppliers, and never consume anything.

Stimulating businesses does stimulate both supply and demand every time.

So go ahead and tell me why stimulating demand without stimulating supply is a better solution?

If there's no one to buy the product supply is worthless.

Giving tax cuts to businesses doesn't create jobs. That's not how capitalism works.

No employer is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing. No matter how many tax cuts that employer gets. That employer is only going to pocket the extra money. The only reason why an employer would hire new employees is that there's more work to do than the existing staff can handle in a regular work week. If that's happening that means the company is having more sales which means they're making more money and the last thing that employer needs is a tax cut.

Without that demand from customers, no business can stay open. Businesses aren't the only consumers in our economy and they certainly aren't enough to keep other businesses profitable.

Sure a farmer can buy all the equipment he wants but without customers to buy his crop, he goes bankrupt. Sure a store can be fully stocked with the latest goods and services but if they don't have customers to buy their goods and services that business closes.

Capitalism needs the free flow of money throughout the economy to work. The only way to make sure that happens is with living wages, taxes and regulations. Without it, all you end up with is monopolies and a destroyed economy.

Beautifully said.

Thank you.

I did take that economics class in college. It was required for my degree in accounting.

All I posted is taught in economics 101.

We all know conservatives believe that education is bad and they don't have much education past high school so they aren't capable of grasping basic economics.

You ... are an imbecile. As the owner of several accountants, I can safely tell you and assure the reader, that it is absolutely NOT POSSIBLE THAT YOU ARE AN ACCOUNTANT!

It is also, not possible that you have ever taken Econ 101. You are as ignorant of Economics as a STONE!

 

[Dragonlady]

Why do you even bother? You spew such non sense. Clinton is responsible for the recession of Bush's early presidency yet dems are to blame for the crash of 2008.

You are disengenous filth.

I tell the truth. Bush inherited a recession. Obama inherited a recovery. The deficit is higher now than when the recession started. Dem policies have produced poverty. GOP policies have produced prosperity. The facts are undeniable.

You are actually that much of a moron to think Obama inherited a recovery? My god even you can't be that dumb. You actually believe that? My god. May the Creator have mercy on your pitiful soul.

The US Economy was, in point of fact, recovering from the Catastrophic Failure of Socialist Policy, which caused the collapse of the International Financial Markets, when the Peasantpimp of the Union States took power.

That's not even a debatable point.

All the Peasantpimp of the Union States merely exacerbated the problem, setting policy which turned a recession into a depression then doubled down on that foolishness, prolonging the depression.

Are you fucking kidding me? It absolutely blows my mind the things you people say. I am astounded.

Let me help you without with basic knowledge about dates and events ok? Let's add some realism. The job crash happened in Bush's last 4 MONTHS. You're trying to tell me the crash of 2008 was reversed and in growth within 4 months without any aid of government legislation? News flash, genius: we lost 3 million jobs in Bush's final months. 3 million. The economy was in a free fall

See, even you admit the crqash had bottomed out by the time Obama took office.
Thanks for proving my point. Numbskull

The crash hadn't even come close to bottoming out when Obama took office. The first year Obama was in office was spent dealing with the crisis.

I've read your posts in this thread and cannot fathom how anyone can be so willfully blind to the economic catastrophes visited upon the economy by Republican administrations going back to Nixon.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The reader should know and for the most part probably already does... that Banks do 'broker mortgages'.

It is true that banks were the very last financial party to get on board the sub-prime train to death... and that is because Banks live and die on their financial security... they are not only subject to stringent regulation in terms of their financial integrity, but their reputations is their stock on trade. Making foolish loans is indicative of foolishness, thus the presence of fools.

In financial circles; which is to say in communities of serious people, fools are usually that which is 'For Dinner'.

Thus, those whose interests are not well served by being consumed... foolishness is AVOIDED AT ALL COST.

The biggest fools in the financial market was Fannie and Freddie and the Socialists in the US Federal Government which sustained them.

This was readily demonstrated by the DECADES of coercion by the aforementioned fools, to supply SOUND: ACTUARIAL LENDING PRINCIPLE, for the Left's perverted notions of FAIRNESS... wherein it was said that "It is only 'fair' that everyone should own their own home."

That would-be Leftist Axiom is of course NONSENSE. Because what is FAIR is that those who are capable of servicing the requirements to PURCHASE A HOME, are fairly entitled to own their own home. And THAT is simply an immutable principle in nature... .

Banks therefore, being FULLY AWARE of that principle fought the Left back for DECADES... until inevitably the Left set the law up in such a way that the Banks simply had no more legal basis to reject the idiocy.

Once the Federal Government began to guarantee sub-prime loans, the legal argument was lost... and they had little choice but to participate. And even THEN... they set their exposure to the lowest possible levels, thus they suffered the lowest possible losses.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I tell the truth. Bush inherited a recession. Obama inherited a recovery. The deficit is higher now than when the recession started. Dem policies have produced poverty. GOP policies have produced prosperity. The facts are undeniable.

You are actually that much of a moron to think Obama inherited a recovery? My god even you can't be that dumb. You actually believe that? My god. May the Creator have mercy on your pitiful soul.

The US Economy was, in point of fact, recovering from the Catastrophic Failure of Socialist Policy, which caused the collapse of the International Financial Markets, when the Peasantpimp of the Union States took power.

That's not even a debatable point.

All the Peasantpimp of the Union States merely exacerbated the problem, setting policy which turned a recession into a depression then doubled down on that foolishness, prolonging the depression.

Are you fucking kidding me? It absolutely blows my mind the things you people say. I am astounded.

Let me help you without with basic knowledge about dates and events ok? Let's add some realism. The job crash happened in Bush's last 4 MONTHS. You're trying to tell me the crash of 2008 was reversed and in growth within 4 months without any aid of government legislation? News flash, genius: we lost 3 million jobs in Bush's final months. 3 million. The economy was in a free fall

See, even you admit the crqash had bottomed out by the time Obama took office.
Thanks for proving my point. Numbskull

The crash hadn't even come close to bottoming out when Obama took office. The first year Obama was in office was spent dealing with the crisis.

I've read your posts in this thread and cannot fathom how anyone can be so willfully blind to the economic catastrophes visited upon the economy by Republican administrations going back to Nixon.

ROFLMNAO!

You're DELUSIONAL.

The crash had come and gone, by the time the Brown-Clown was selected by the guilty-white inhabitants of the Rabbit Hole.

 

[birddog]

It's a little too coincidental that investment money that was available dried up in the Fall of 2008 when it became obvious that Obama was going to be elected. A plunge in the SM was the result.

 

[Listening]

I tell the truth. Bush inherited a recession. Obama inherited a recovery. The deficit is higher now than when the recession started. Dem policies have produced poverty. GOP policies have produced prosperity. The facts are undeniable.

You are actually that much of a moron to think Obama inherited a recovery? My god even you can't be that dumb. You actually believe that? My god. May the Creator have mercy on your pitiful soul.

The US Economy was, in point of fact, recovering from the Catastrophic Failure of Socialist Policy, which caused the collapse of the International Financial Markets, when the Peasantpimp of the Union States took power.

That's not even a debatable point.

All the Peasantpimp of the Union States merely exacerbated the problem, setting policy which turned a recession into a depression then doubled down on that foolishness, prolonging the depression.

Are you fucking kidding me? It absolutely blows my mind the things you people say. I am astounded.

Let me help you without with basic knowledge about dates and events ok? Let's add some realism. The job crash happened in Bush's last 4 MONTHS. You're trying to tell me the crash of 2008 was reversed and in growth within 4 months without any aid of government legislation? News flash, genius: we lost 3 million jobs in Bush's final months. 3 million. The economy was in a free fall

See, even you admit the crqash had bottomed out by the time Obama took office.
Thanks for proving my point. Numbskull

The crash hadn't even come close to bottoming out when Obama took office. The first year Obama was in office was spent dealing with the crisis.

I've read your posts in this thread and cannot fathom how anyone can be so willfully blind to the economic catastrophes visited upon the economy by Republican administrations going back to Nixon.

Actually, what this looks like is someone who has bought into the far left bullshit memes on the economy.

 

[Listening]

It's a little too coincidental that investment money that was available dried up in the Fall of 2008 when it became obvious that Obama was going to be elected. A plunge in the SM was the result.

Oh, we've been through this before. I work a multinational CO. that shut down domestic investment after he was elected and sat on a huge pile of cash waiting to see what he would do.

Partly because of his actions, my company chose to invest part of that money overseas.

You could not get a RFC approved for 25K if it had to do with the U.S.

Additionally, we stopped hiring domestically.

 

[The Rabbi]

I tell the truth. Bush inherited a recession. Obama inherited a recovery. The deficit is higher now than when the recession started. Dem policies have produced poverty. GOP policies have produced prosperity. The facts are undeniable.

You are actually that much of a moron to think Obama inherited a recovery? My god even you can't be that dumb. You actually believe that? My god. May the Creator have mercy on your pitiful soul.

The US Economy was, in point of fact, recovering from the Catastrophic Failure of Socialist Policy, which caused the collapse of the International Financial Markets, when the Peasantpimp of the Union States took power.

That's not even a debatable point.

All the Peasantpimp of the Union States merely exacerbated the problem, setting policy which turned a recession into a depression then doubled down on that foolishness, prolonging the depression.

Are you fucking kidding me? It absolutely blows my mind the things you people say. I am astounded.

Let me help you without with basic knowledge about dates and events ok? Let's add some realism. The job crash happened in Bush's last 4 MONTHS. You're trying to tell me the crash of 2008 was reversed and in growth within 4 months without any aid of government legislation? News flash, genius: we lost 3 million jobs in Bush's final months. 3 million. The economy was in a free fall

See, even you admit the crqash had bottomed out by the time Obama took office.
Thanks for proving my point. Numbskull

The crash hadn't even come close to bottoming out when Obama took office. The first year Obama was in office was spent dealing with the crisis.

I've read your posts in this thread and cannot fathom how anyone can be so willfully blind to the economic catastrophes visited upon the economy by Republican administrations going back to Nixon.

I have already posted proof you are totally clueless in this area.
The crash had bottomed out. There was no more banking crisis, as Bushs TARP program had saved the banks. Obama came in and used the supposed crisis as an excuse to expand federal power.

 

[The Rabbi]

Republicans only econonic solutions are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

Demand is all-important right? Guess who the "demand" is for my employer? Businesses. My employer is, in its turn, a "demand" for a massive number of other businesses. I guess you forgot that businesses are customers too. I guess in your oversimplified "economic reality" businesses are only ever suppliers, and never consume anything.

Stimulating businesses does stimulate both supply and demand every time.

So go ahead and tell me why stimulating demand without stimulating supply is a better solution?

If there's no one to buy the product supply is worthless.

Giving tax cuts to businesses doesn't create jobs. That's not how capitalism works.

No employer is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing. No matter how many tax cuts that employer gets. That employer is only going to pocket the extra money. The only reason why an employer would hire new employees is that there's more work to do than the existing staff can handle in a regular work week. If that's happening that means the company is having more sales which means they're making more money and the last thing that employer needs is a tax cut.

Without that demand from customers, no business can stay open. Businesses aren't the only consumers in our economy and they certainly aren't enough to keep other businesses profitable.

Sure a farmer can buy all the equipment he wants but without customers to buy his crop, he goes bankrupt. Sure a store can be fully stocked with the latest goods and services but if they don't have customers to buy their goods and services that business closes.

Capitalism needs the free flow of money throughout the economy to work. The only way to make sure that happens is with living wages, taxes and regulations. Without it, all you end up with is monopolies and a destroyed economy.

Beautifully said.

Thank you.

I did take that economics class in college. It was required for my degree in accounting.

All I posted is taught in economics 101.

We all know conservatives believe that education is bad and they don't have much education past high school so they aren't capable of grasping basic economics.

Well, you might consider some advance economics courses since the basics are nothing more than paper studies that have little or no application in the real world.

It is quite clear you never got past 101. Too bad.

"We all know" ? Who is we ? Or have you just revealed yourself to be part of the to-arrogant-to-know-you-are-a-dumbass crowd that has people like RDean in it ?

Education....are you saying you are more educated than....us ?

She must have gone to the same school as OnePercenter.

 

[GreenBean]

Republicans only econonic solutions are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Just Curious - where did you get those pickled statistics from ? My gut instinct tells me they are not valid, and given the track record of the Liberal militia - more than likely tainted .

 

[The Rabbi]

Republicans only econonic solutions are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Just Curious - where did you get those pickled statistics from ? My gut instinct tells me they are not valid, and given the track record of the Liberal militia - more than likely tainted .

 

[zeke]

Fannie And Freddie were the world PREMIERE FUNDING MEANS OF SUB-PRIME LOANS!

You are a nit wit whursmykeys. Look up mortgage backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations.
(CDO) Try and educate yourself. See what kind of appetite Wall Street had for those mortgage backed securities.

So you think Fannie and Freddie cooked up all those NINA low teaser rate ARMS eh? And then forced the borrower into default. Then gladly took those homes in a foreclosure action. Is that what you think? Because those socialists wanted to give those foreclosed houses to who? Black people. Right? Black people were given nice homes taken from white people under the Community Reinvestment Act that Fannie and Freddie oversaw.
That's what the CRA was all about. Giving houses to black people. Right?


So why did lending standards decline? At least one study has suggested that the decline in standards was driven by a shift of mortgage securitization from a tightly controlled duopoly to a competitive market in which mortgage originators held the most sway.[6] The worst mortgage vintage years coincided with the periods during which Government Sponsored Enterprises (specifically Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) were at their weakest, and mortgage originators and private label securitizers were at their strongest.[6]

 

[Chris]

Housing did not cause the collapse.
The collapse was caused by a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme which came about from Republican deregulation.
Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction A 516 Trillion Derivatives 8216 Time-Bomb 8217 Global Research

 

[Listening]

Housing did not cause the collapse.
The collapse was caused by a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme which came about from Republican deregulation.
Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction A 516 Trillion Derivatives 8216 Time-Bomb 8217 Global Research

Blah
Blah
Blah
Blah
Blah
Blah
Blah
Blah
Blah
Blah
Blah
Blah

 

[The Rabbi]

Fannie And Freddie were the world PREMIERE FUNDING MEANS OF SUB-PRIME LOANS!

You are a nit wit whursmykeys. Look up mortgage backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations.
(CDO) Try and educate yourself. See what kind of appetite Wall Street had for those mortgage backed securities.

So you think Fannie and Freddie cooked up all those NINA low teaser rate ARMS eh? And then forced the borrower into default. Then gladly took those homes in a foreclosure action. Is that what you think? Because those socialists wanted to give those foreclosed houses to who? Black people. Right? Black people were given nice homes taken from white people under the Community Reinvestment Act that Fannie and Freddie oversaw.
That's what the CRA was all about. Giving houses to black people. Right?


So why did lending standards decline? At least one study has suggested that the decline in standards was driven by a shift of mortgage securitization from a tightly controlled duopoly to a competitive market in which mortgage originators held the most sway.[6] The worst mortgage vintage years coincided with the periods during which Government Sponsored Enterprises (specifically Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) were at their weakest, and mortgage originators and private label securitizers were at their strongest.[6]

I thought Bush crashed the economy so he could punish people like you.