Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
I'll bet the spending increase in 2009 was bigger.
Bigger how? Proportionally to the economy? Again, this is yet another example of you being vague and generalized, as to give yourself wiggle room later for you to shift the goalposts. Accuracy is not something you are terribly concerned with, which is fine. The major difference between 2008 and 1983 was that in 1983, getting credit was easy. That's why household debt spiked when the taxes were cut. Middle class families went into debt because their wages didn't grow. The economy grew, but only because of the credit bubble that was forming (and would eventually pop with the S&L's collapsing by the end of the decade, thus wiping out any gains). In 2008-9, credit was not easy to get. The credit markets were frozen and the attempt to defrost them via TARP and the Fed Discount Window did not end up trickling down to consumers as theorized. The idea was that the Fed would buy up all that bad debt, thus freeing funds for banks to resume lending. Only the banks didn't resume lending. So what did they do with the money they get for the bad debt? Paid it to themselves by way of executive compensation, or dividends which benefit majority shareholders and Board of Directors, not consumers.
The spending Obama did in 2009 was primarily revenue-neutral tax cuts for the middle class, state aid so the dumb ones that had BBA's could balance their budgets, and about $130B in infrastructure spending.
Add much higher capital requirements and a shit ton of additional regulations, banks lend less.
What regulations? I keep hearing about these phantom negotiations, but most of Dodd-Frank is tied up in the courts. Are you referring to the CFPB? How exactly has that resulted in banks lending less? You mean making banks accountable hurts banks? Wow. Shocking assessment there, professor.
As far as we know, the regulations for banks to lend to consumers hasn't changed. But the banks willingness to lend to consumers has. The banks make more money taking funds meant for loans, and pouring it into secondary markets where they are essentially gambling. I think that if a bank is going to do that, then we should tax those profits as we would any other income. After all, they tax gambling winnings in Las Vegas, yet people still go there to gamble. So taxing Wall Street gambling won't result in less Wall Street gambling. Because, why would it? If you sit on the Board of Directors of a TBTF bank, and you see that you can get more bang for your buck gambling in the secondary markets while giving yourself dividends and compensation with what you don't gamble with, why on earth would you lend to consumers????? The interest they pay is going to be far, far less than the gains you see gambling or in dividends. This is why I argue that the USPS should become a bank. The profit motive for current banks wholly determines their willingness to lend to consumers. If they are going to make more gambling in the market than they are handing out business loans, they are going to go for the gambling. Every time.
You need banks to loan for economic growth, so let's beat up on banks. LOL!
The problem is the banks aren't loaning, and not because they're victims (hardly). Because they're greedy and are run by the same folks who are the majority shareholders and Board of Directors. So what I say is fuck those banks. Turn the USPS into a bank, offer basic checking and savings services, offer small loan services, no ATM fees, free checking, and thousands of locations across the US, even in rural areas not served by TBTF banks (or are served and raked over the coals by them). Problem solved. Why not offer consumers that choice? Why do the choices have to be only greedy banks who don't give a shit?
It's true, you didn't know what Fed Funds meant. DURR.
No, it was you trying to allow yourself room to move the goalposts. Pretty transparent. Whatever. I can let it go. Maybe be more detail-oriented next time?
Reagan's GDP growth in Q2, 1983 was 9.4%. What was Obama's best rate after he raised taxes?
Reagan did not grow GDP 9.4% in 1983. That is a lie. You have to skew the numbers pretty unconventionally to get that number. Which you've done. Then you misrepresent those numbers.
Bigger how? Proportionally to the economy?
Of course.
The idea was that the Fed would buy up all that bad debt, thus freeing funds for banks to resume lending.
The Fed didn't buy any bad debt.
The spending Obama did in 2009 was primarily revenue-neutral tax cuts for the middle class
What's a "revenue neutral tax cut"?
What regulations? I keep hearing about these phantom negotiations, but most of Dodd-Frank is tied up in the courts.
Dodd-Frank didn't add a bunch of bank regulations because it's "tied up in the courts"? LOL!
The problem is the banks aren't loaning, and not because they're victims
Raise their capital requirements, sue them for previous lending, fine them for previous lending, watch them lose hundreds of billions on defaulting mortgages and then wonder why lending lags. DURR.
This is why I argue that the USPS should become a bank.
Awesome idea. Take a money losing monstrosity and add a money losing bank. What could go wrong?
No, it was you trying to allow yourself room to move the goalposts.
Yes, by saying 'Fed Funds" instead of "Federal Funds Rate", I was cleverly hiding what I really meant from someone with a wide understanding of markets. LOL!
Are you failing your ECON 101 class?
Can't figure out how young you have to be to not know what Fed Funds means.
Reagan did not grow GDP 9.4% in 1983. That is a lie.
Right there in the chart from the Fed.
You have to skew the numbers pretty unconventionally to get that number.
Did you click the link? It's the Fed. Go to their site. Lots of cool data.
Feel free to post some that shows Obama's GDP growth was better than Reagan's.