What is Trump's actual economic plan? Anyone know?

[Vigilante]

This thread is just chock full of DDS!!!!...The entertainment value is HUGE!

Signs you might have Donald Derangement Syndrome...

DannyTN | 7/23/2015
Signs you might have Donald Derangement Syndrome... You thought Donald wouldn't file his financials. You still think Donald didn't file financials. (Severe) You think the financials he filed are materially inaccurate. You hope Trump is really bankrupt instead of mega-rich. You think aversion to a comb over is a reason to vote. You keep mentioning how much Ted Cruz has raised. You think Donald should apologize for stating the truth. You think Donald will apologize for stating the truth. You think Donald will drop out even though he is winning. You think Donald will run third party even though he...

 

[danielpalos]

I believe the Huffington Post may have gotten it right the first time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

― Benjamin Franklin

Only the Right is cognitively dissonant enough to blame the least wealthy who vote the least.

So you're retracting this: "I love it when the clueless and Causeless Right has no Thing but fallacy to work with."

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Democrat policies caused it, didn't they.

Citation please, Person on the Right.

Why do the wealthiest need even more money to allegedly create jobs?

IN 1985, THE FORBES 400 were worth $221 billion combined. Today, they’re worth $1.13 trillion—more than the GDP of Canada.

THERE’VE BEEN FEW new additions to the Forbes 400. The median household income has also stagnated—at around $44,000.

AMONG THE FORBES 400 who gave to a 2004 presidential campaign, 72% gave to Bush.

IN 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.

IN 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000.

ONLY ESTATES worth more than $1.5 million are taxed. That’s less than 1% of all estates. Still, repealing the estate tax will cost the government at least $55 billion a year.

.... Source: A Look at the Numbers How the Rich Get Richer Mother Jones

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

Still no relevant answer as to why the wealthiest in the US, who are "worth more than Canada" need even more money to create more jobs.

oh; and, citation, please.

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

 

[NYcarbineer]

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

― Benjamin Franklin

Only the Right is cognitively dissonant enough to blame the least wealthy who vote the least.

So you're retracting this: "I love it when the clueless and Causeless Right has no Thing but fallacy to work with."

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Democrat policies caused it, didn't they.

Citation please, Person on the Right.

Why do the wealthiest need even more money to allegedly create jobs?

IN 1985, THE FORBES 400 were worth $221 billion combined. Today, they’re worth $1.13 trillion—more than the GDP of Canada.

THERE’VE BEEN FEW new additions to the Forbes 400. The median household income has also stagnated—at around $44,000.

AMONG THE FORBES 400 who gave to a 2004 presidential campaign, 72% gave to Bush.

IN 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.

IN 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000.

ONLY ESTATES worth more than $1.5 million are taxed. That’s less than 1% of all estates. Still, repealing the estate tax will cost the government at least $55 billion a year.

.... Source: A Look at the Numbers How the Rich Get Richer Mother Jones

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

Still no relevant answer as to why the wealthiest in the US, who are "worth more than Canada" need even more money to create more jobs.

oh; and, citation, please.

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

Absurd.

 

[bedowin62]

oh look carbintard is here!!!!

 

[danielpalos]

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

― Benjamin Franklin

Only the Right is cognitively dissonant enough to blame the least wealthy who vote the least.

So you're retracting this: "I love it when the clueless and Causeless Right has no Thing but fallacy to work with."

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Democrat policies caused it, didn't they.

Citation please, Person on the Right.

Why do the wealthiest need even more money to allegedly create jobs?

IN 1985, THE FORBES 400 were worth $221 billion combined. Today, they’re worth $1.13 trillion—more than the GDP of Canada.

THERE’VE BEEN FEW new additions to the Forbes 400. The median household income has also stagnated—at around $44,000.

AMONG THE FORBES 400 who gave to a 2004 presidential campaign, 72% gave to Bush.

IN 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.

IN 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000.

ONLY ESTATES worth more than $1.5 million are taxed. That’s less than 1% of all estates. Still, repealing the estate tax will cost the government at least $55 billion a year.

.... Source: A Look at the Numbers How the Rich Get Richer Mother Jones

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

Still no relevant answer as to why the wealthiest in the US, who are "worth more than Canada" need even more money to create more jobs.

oh; and, citation, please.

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

citation, please. In any Case, socialism requires a work ethic and plenty of practice, unlike lazy, laissez-fair capitalism.

Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you're retracting this: "I love it when the clueless and Causeless Right has no Thing but fallacy to work with."

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Democrat policies caused it, didn't they.

Citation please, Person on the Right.

Why do the wealthiest need even more money to allegedly create jobs?

IN 1985, THE FORBES 400 were worth $221 billion combined. Today, they’re worth $1.13 trillion—more than the GDP of Canada.

THERE’VE BEEN FEW new additions to the Forbes 400. The median household income has also stagnated—at around $44,000.

AMONG THE FORBES 400 who gave to a 2004 presidential campaign, 72% gave to Bush.

IN 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.

IN 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000.

ONLY ESTATES worth more than $1.5 million are taxed. That’s less than 1% of all estates. Still, repealing the estate tax will cost the government at least $55 billion a year.

.... Source: A Look at the Numbers How the Rich Get Richer Mother Jones

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

Still no relevant answer as to why the wealthiest in the US, who are "worth more than Canada" need even more money to create more jobs.

oh; and, citation, please.

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

citation, please. In any Case, socialism requires a work ethic and plenty of practice, unlike lazy, laissez-fair capitalism.

Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country.

Citation for what???

I'm simply asking you to state the obvious.

Had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) would there would have been a mortgage meltdown?

Need a simpler construction?

Sure.

If lending for the purposes of buying a home had left up to the standards set by the banks and lending institutions, without government deciding who should be given same, would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Examples?

a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. Democrat Clinton Administration housing secretary, Democrat Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.


c. In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.) Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio—that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.


d. . In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.
See Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga City Journal Spring 2009



See how easily I prove you to be a lying fool?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you're retracting this: "I love it when the clueless and Causeless Right has no Thing but fallacy to work with."

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Democrat policies caused it, didn't they.

Citation please, Person on the Right.

Why do the wealthiest need even more money to allegedly create jobs?

IN 1985, THE FORBES 400 were worth $221 billion combined. Today, they’re worth $1.13 trillion—more than the GDP of Canada.

THERE’VE BEEN FEW new additions to the Forbes 400. The median household income has also stagnated—at around $44,000.

AMONG THE FORBES 400 who gave to a 2004 presidential campaign, 72% gave to Bush.

IN 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.

IN 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000.

ONLY ESTATES worth more than $1.5 million are taxed. That’s less than 1% of all estates. Still, repealing the estate tax will cost the government at least $55 billion a year.

.... Source: A Look at the Numbers How the Rich Get Richer Mother Jones

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

Still no relevant answer as to why the wealthiest in the US, who are "worth more than Canada" need even more money to create more jobs.

oh; and, citation, please.

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

citation, please. In any Case, socialism requires a work ethic and plenty of practice, unlike lazy, laissez-fair capitalism.

Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country.

"Canada has a lot of jobs as a country."

a. Canada was not saddled with the incompetent Barack Obama

b. Canada did not destroy a $ trillion with a bogus "stimulus" plan.


"Although Reinhart and Rogoff put the United States and Canada into different classifications, the two countries' unemployment rates rose in lock step from August 2008 until February 2009, when the stimulus was passed in the United States. ...It was only after the United States enacted the stimulus that the two countries economic fortunes began to diverge. After that, Canada began to substantially outperform the US in job creation, the supposed point of the stimulus. In the US, unemployment rose to 10.1 % by October 2009, and remained at least at 9.5% for the next 14 months. Canadian unemployment peaked at 7.7 % in July and August of 2009, and has been falling ever since."

Lott, "At The Brink," p. 102-103.

a. When the American unemployment rate in September 2011 was stuck at 9.1 %, Canada's had fallen to 6.3%. The US had increased by 1.3 % since Obama became President, while Canadian unemployment had already fallen below its January 2009 level. Lott, Op. Cit.

b. In January 2009, prior to the Obama Stimulus, the WSJ had surveyed economic forecasters. They predicted an increase of 0.8 % in unemployment by December of 2009. Instead, 4 months after the Stimulus...it had climbed by 2.1 %, while in Canada....up 1 %. Lott, Op. Cit.


Keynesianism will never die for the simple reason that it gives politicians a reason, an excuse, to spend money.


See how easily I prove you to be a lying fool?

 

[danielpalos]

Citation please, Person on the Right.

Why do the wealthiest need even more money to allegedly create jobs?

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

Still no relevant answer as to why the wealthiest in the US, who are "worth more than Canada" need even more money to create more jobs.

oh; and, citation, please.

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

citation, please. In any Case, socialism requires a work ethic and plenty of practice, unlike lazy, laissez-fair capitalism.

Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country.

Citation for what???

I'm simply asking you to state the obvious.

Had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) would there would have been a mortgage meltdown?

Need a simpler construction?

Sure.

If lending for the purposes of buying a home had left up to the standards set by the banks and lending institutions, without government deciding who should be given same, would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Examples?

a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. Democrat Clinton Administration housing secretary, Democrat Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.


c. In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.) Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio—that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.


d. . In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.
See Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga City Journal Spring 2009



See how easily I prove you to be a lying fool?

FDR's administration was in the 1930's; political wonder chic.

 

[danielpalos]

Citation please, Person on the Right.

Why do the wealthiest need even more money to allegedly create jobs?

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

Still no relevant answer as to why the wealthiest in the US, who are "worth more than Canada" need even more money to create more jobs.

oh; and, citation, please.

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

citation, please. In any Case, socialism requires a work ethic and plenty of practice, unlike lazy, laissez-fair capitalism.

Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country.

"Canada has a lot of jobs as a country."

a. Canada was not saddled with the incompetent Barack Obama

b. Canada did not destroy a $ trillion with a bogus "stimulus" plan.


"Although Reinhart and Rogoff put the United States and Canada into different classifications, the two countries' unemployment rates rose in lock step from August 2008 until February 2009, when the stimulus was passed in the United States. ...It was only after the United States enacted the stimulus that the two countries economic fortunes began to diverge. After that, Canada began to substantially outperform the US in job creation, the supposed point of the stimulus. In the US, unemployment rose to 10.1 % by October 2009, and remained at least at 9.5% for the next 14 months. Canadian unemployment peaked at 7.7 % in July and August of 2009, and has been falling ever since."

Lott, "At The Brink," p. 102-103.

a. When the American unemployment rate in September 2011 was stuck at 9.1 %, Canada's had fallen to 6.3%. The US had increased by 1.3 % since Obama became President, while Canadian unemployment had already fallen below its January 2009 level. Lott, Op. Cit.

b. In January 2009, prior to the Obama Stimulus, the WSJ had surveyed economic forecasters. They predicted an increase of 0.8 % in unemployment by December of 2009. Instead, 4 months after the Stimulus...it had climbed by 2.1 %, while in Canada....up 1 %. Lott, Op. Cit.


Keynesianism will never die for the simple reason that it gives politicians a reason, an excuse, to spend money.


See how easily I prove you to be a lying fool?

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it; Person on the Right.

Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country; how many jobs total does Canada have that the wealthiest in the US could not create since they are richer than Canada.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

Still no relevant answer as to why the wealthiest in the US, who are "worth more than Canada" need even more money to create more jobs.

oh; and, citation, please.

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

citation, please. In any Case, socialism requires a work ethic and plenty of practice, unlike lazy, laissez-fair capitalism.

Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country.

Citation for what???

I'm simply asking you to state the obvious.

Had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) would there would have been a mortgage meltdown?

Need a simpler construction?

Sure.

If lending for the purposes of buying a home had left up to the standards set by the banks and lending institutions, without government deciding who should be given same, would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Examples?

a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. Democrat Clinton Administration housing secretary, Democrat Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.


c. In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.) Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio—that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.


d. . In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.
See Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga City Journal Spring 2009



See how easily I prove you to be a lying fool?

FDR's administration was in the 1930's; political wonder chic.

"The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal. It is agovernment-sponsored enterprise (GSE) ...."
Fannie Mae - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1938


Fourth time: would there have been a mortage meltdown/recession had not FDR invaded the private economy via Fannie....and then Freddie (later)?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

Still no relevant answer as to why the wealthiest in the US, who are "worth more than Canada" need even more money to create more jobs.

oh; and, citation, please.

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

citation, please. In any Case, socialism requires a work ethic and plenty of practice, unlike lazy, laissez-fair capitalism.

Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country.

"Canada has a lot of jobs as a country."

a. Canada was not saddled with the incompetent Barack Obama

b. Canada did not destroy a $ trillion with a bogus "stimulus" plan.


"Although Reinhart and Rogoff put the United States and Canada into different classifications, the two countries' unemployment rates rose in lock step from August 2008 until February 2009, when the stimulus was passed in the United States. ...It was only after the United States enacted the stimulus that the two countries economic fortunes began to diverge. After that, Canada began to substantially outperform the US in job creation, the supposed point of the stimulus. In the US, unemployment rose to 10.1 % by October 2009, and remained at least at 9.5% for the next 14 months. Canadian unemployment peaked at 7.7 % in July and August of 2009, and has been falling ever since."

Lott, "At The Brink," p. 102-103.

a. When the American unemployment rate in September 2011 was stuck at 9.1 %, Canada's had fallen to 6.3%. The US had increased by 1.3 % since Obama became President, while Canadian unemployment had already fallen below its January 2009 level. Lott, Op. Cit.

b. In January 2009, prior to the Obama Stimulus, the WSJ had surveyed economic forecasters. They predicted an increase of 0.8 % in unemployment by December of 2009. Instead, 4 months after the Stimulus...it had climbed by 2.1 %, while in Canada....up 1 %. Lott, Op. Cit.


Keynesianism will never die for the simple reason that it gives politicians a reason, an excuse, to spend money.


See how easily I prove you to be a lying fool?

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it; Person on the Right.

Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country; how many jobs total does Canada have that the wealthiest in the US could not create since they are richer than Canada.

Answer: Democrat/Liberal/Progressive office holder.

 

[danielpalos]

Still no relevant answer as to why the wealthiest in the US, who are "worth more than Canada" need even more money to create more jobs.

oh; and, citation, please.

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

citation, please. In any Case, socialism requires a work ethic and plenty of practice, unlike lazy, laissez-fair capitalism.

Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country.

Citation for what???

I'm simply asking you to state the obvious.

Had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) would there would have been a mortgage meltdown?

Need a simpler construction?

Sure.

If lending for the purposes of buying a home had left up to the standards set by the banks and lending institutions, without government deciding who should be given same, would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Examples?

a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. Democrat Clinton Administration housing secretary, Democrat Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.


c. In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.) Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio—that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.


d. . In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.
See Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga City Journal Spring 2009



See how easily I prove you to be a lying fool?

FDR's administration was in the 1930's; political wonder chic.

"The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal. It is agovernment-sponsored enterprise (GSE) ...."
Fannie Mae - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1938


Fourth time: would there have been a mortage meltdown/recession had not FDR invaded the private economy via Fannie....and then Freddie (later)?

There was a meltdown in 1929; what did Hoover do with Capitalism but Hoover-ville the People.

 

[danielpalos]

Still no relevant answer as to why the wealthiest in the US, who are "worth more than Canada" need even more money to create more jobs.

oh; and, citation, please.

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

citation, please. In any Case, socialism requires a work ethic and plenty of practice, unlike lazy, laissez-fair capitalism.

Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country.

"Canada has a lot of jobs as a country."

a. Canada was not saddled with the incompetent Barack Obama

b. Canada did not destroy a $ trillion with a bogus "stimulus" plan.


"Although Reinhart and Rogoff put the United States and Canada into different classifications, the two countries' unemployment rates rose in lock step from August 2008 until February 2009, when the stimulus was passed in the United States. ...It was only after the United States enacted the stimulus that the two countries economic fortunes began to diverge. After that, Canada began to substantially outperform the US in job creation, the supposed point of the stimulus. In the US, unemployment rose to 10.1 % by October 2009, and remained at least at 9.5% for the next 14 months. Canadian unemployment peaked at 7.7 % in July and August of 2009, and has been falling ever since."

Lott, "At The Brink," p. 102-103.

a. When the American unemployment rate in September 2011 was stuck at 9.1 %, Canada's had fallen to 6.3%. The US had increased by 1.3 % since Obama became President, while Canadian unemployment had already fallen below its January 2009 level. Lott, Op. Cit.

b. In January 2009, prior to the Obama Stimulus, the WSJ had surveyed economic forecasters. They predicted an increase of 0.8 % in unemployment by December of 2009. Instead, 4 months after the Stimulus...it had climbed by 2.1 %, while in Canada....up 1 %. Lott, Op. Cit.


Keynesianism will never die for the simple reason that it gives politicians a reason, an excuse, to spend money.


See how easily I prove you to be a lying fool?

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it; Person on the Right.

Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country; how many jobs total does Canada have that the wealthiest in the US could not create since they are richer than Canada.

Answer: Democrat/Liberal/Progressive office holder.

not relevant; Ms. Trump supporter. Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country; how many jobs total does Canada have that the wealthiest in the US could not create since they are richer than Canada.

 

[bedowin62]

Perhaps you're ready to admit that had FDR not invaded the private economy via GSE's Fannie (and subsequently Freddy) there would never have been a mortgage meltdown.

Well???

citation, please. In any Case, socialism requires a work ethic and plenty of practice, unlike lazy, laissez-fair capitalism.

Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country.

"Canada has a lot of jobs as a country."

a. Canada was not saddled with the incompetent Barack Obama

b. Canada did not destroy a $ trillion with a bogus "stimulus" plan.


"Although Reinhart and Rogoff put the United States and Canada into different classifications, the two countries' unemployment rates rose in lock step from August 2008 until February 2009, when the stimulus was passed in the United States. ...It was only after the United States enacted the stimulus that the two countries economic fortunes began to diverge. After that, Canada began to substantially outperform the US in job creation, the supposed point of the stimulus. In the US, unemployment rose to 10.1 % by October 2009, and remained at least at 9.5% for the next 14 months. Canadian unemployment peaked at 7.7 % in July and August of 2009, and has been falling ever since."

Lott, "At The Brink," p. 102-103.

a. When the American unemployment rate in September 2011 was stuck at 9.1 %, Canada's had fallen to 6.3%. The US had increased by 1.3 % since Obama became President, while Canadian unemployment had already fallen below its January 2009 level. Lott, Op. Cit.

b. In January 2009, prior to the Obama Stimulus, the WSJ had surveyed economic forecasters. They predicted an increase of 0.8 % in unemployment by December of 2009. Instead, 4 months after the Stimulus...it had climbed by 2.1 %, while in Canada....up 1 %. Lott, Op. Cit.


Keynesianism will never die for the simple reason that it gives politicians a reason, an excuse, to spend money.


See how easily I prove you to be a lying fool?

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it; Person on the Right.

Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country; how many jobs total does Canada have that the wealthiest in the US could not create since they are richer than Canada.

Answer: Democrat/Liberal/Progressive office holder.

not relevant; Ms. Trump supporter. Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country; how many jobs total does Canada have that the wealthiest in the US could not create since they are richer than Canada.

you've been reduced to a babbling fool

 

[Vigilante]

Come on Kaz, we realize you hate Trump, but anyone with a search engine can find what his "STARTING POINT ECONOMICALLY" is!

Here, then, are just five of Donald Trump’s solutions for turning the nation around.

1. Foreign Interventions Must Require Cost-Sharing Plans to Reduce U.S. Costs and Guarantee Veterans and Their Families Are Protected

“Money is itself a weapon,” writes Trump.

Before America spends trillions of dollars fighting other nations’ battles, Trump says the U.S. should implement cost-sharing agreements similar to the one advocated in a September 2010 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study to reduce the cost burden on U.S. taxpayers and provide funds for the families of fallen or wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.

“It’s hardly a radical idea,” writes Trump. “In September 2010, our own GAO and others studied the issue in depth and concluded that a cost-sharing plan is feasible and wise. The report, titled “U.S. Cost-Sharing: Iraq Has a Cumulative Budget Surplus, Offering the Potential for Further Cost-Sharing” noted that the Iraqi government is running a $52.1 billion surplus. As Trump notes, director of the Defense Department’s Office of Net assessment Andrew Marshall, pointed out that oil revenues could also be used to offset the sticker price for U.S. intervention.

“Why are we footing the bill and getting nothing in return?” writes Trump. “I’ll give you the answer. It’s because our so-called ‘leaders’ in Washington know absolutely nothing about negotiations and dealmaking.”

1. Pass NOPEC Legislation to Break OPEC’s Grip on Energy Prices

In Time to Get Tough, Trump advocated passage of the “No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act (NOPEC—S.394) which would amend the Sherman Antitrust Act to allow the U.S. government to sue OPEC for violating antitrust laws.

Trump notes the bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee four times with bipartisan backing, “and in May 2008, the NOPEC bill passed the House” before “President George W. Bush got spooked and threatened to veto the bill” over fears of “retaliatory action” with wars raging in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Passing NOPEC, wrote Trump, would have allowed the U.S. to bust up the OPEC cartel.

“Imagine how much money the average American would save if we busted the OPEC cartel. Imagine how much stronger economic shape we would be in if we made the Iraqi government agree to a cost-sharing plan that paid us back the $1.5 trillion we’ve dropped on liberating Iraq.”

Trump added, “Just those two acts of leadership alone would represent a huge leap forward for our country.”

1. Crack Down on China’s Currency Manipulation by Calculating Taxes on Imports Based on How Much a Manufacturing Country’s Currency is Undervalued

Trump says he believes passionately in free trade, but only when the rules are fair and currency is properly valued. He cites a study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics that finds that even a 20 percent revaulation of Chinese currency would create 300,000 to 700,000 American jobs.

“Getting China to stop playing its currency charades can begin whenever we elect a president ready to take decisive action,” writes Trump. “[Obama] could start by signing into law a bill the U.S. House of Representatives approved on a 348 to 79 vote in September 2010. It would allow our government to calculate taxes on imports based on how much the manufacturing country’s currency is undervalued.”

Trump notes Obama’s then-Treasury Sec. Timothy Geithner warned such a move might spark a “trade war.”

“It’s the utter weakness and failure to fight for American interests from Geithner and Obama that have left us underwriting China’s economic rise and our own economic collapse,” writes Trump. “It’s a plain fact: free trade requires having fair rules that apply to everyone.”

1. Spur Job and Wealth Creation through a 5-Point Tax Plan

“People are smart,” writes Trump. “They know you can’t be ‘for’ jobs and against those who create them.”

That, says Trump, is why America’s president should advocate for and win a five-point tax plan to spark economic growth and allow Americans to keep more of what they earn.

First, Trump says the U.S. must repeal the death tax. He cites a CBO study that found the death tax is a proven jobs killer that “will strip $1.6 trillion of small business capital out of the hands of job creators” and will result in a loss of 1.5 million new jobs.

Second, Trump says smart tax policy includes lowering the tax rate on capital gains and dividends. “Capitalism requires capital,” writes Trump. “When government robs capital from investors, it takes away the money that creates jobs.”

Third, Trump would reduce the corporate tax rate to zero. “How can we expect companies to hire American workers and locate their businesses in America when our government taxes them at exorbitant rates for doing so?” writes Trump. “I want to encourage American companies to stay here and hire American workers, and I want foreign companies to relocate their businesses to the United States and create jobs here.”

Fourth, Trump says he would impose a 20 percent tax on those who outsource jobs overseas. Trump says “for those companies who made the mistake of sending their businesses overseas but have seen the light and are ready to come home and bring jobs with them, they pay zero tax.”

Finally, Trump says its time to implement a fairer and simpler income tax:

• Up to $30,000, you pay 1 percent
• From $30,000 to $100,000, you pay 5 percent
• From $100,000 to $1 million, you pay 10 percent
• On $1 million or above, your rate is 15 percent

1. Finish the Border Fence, Boot Out Criminal Illegals, and Reform America’s Legal Immigration System

Trump cites a 2011 GAO study that found America’s prisons house 351,000 criminal aliens who committed crimes after illegally entering America. “The GAO says that the annual price tag to incarcerate these thugs is $1.1 billion. And get this: criminal aliens have an average of seven arrests.” He says criminal illegal aliens must go.

In addition to specific reforms for America’s legal immigration system, Trump says the Commander-in-Chief must enforce existing immigration laws and finish the border fence.

Citing several studies, Trump says “properly built walls work. We just need the political will to finish the job.”

Trump’s Time to Get Tough lays out several more detailed conservative policy reforms, including cracking down on entitlement fraud, ending Obamacare, and reforming America’s ever-growing welfare state. As he puts it, America needs “a safety net, not a hammock.”

Put simply, GOP establishment figures eager to dismiss Trump’s candidacy do so at their peril. Like it or not, Donald Trump has serious policy plans to offer—and the star power and savvy to make them heard.

Now anyone want to talk about them, let's go!

 

[danielpalos]

citation, please. In any Case, socialism requires a work ethic and plenty of practice, unlike lazy, laissez-fair capitalism.

Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country.

"Canada has a lot of jobs as a country."

a. Canada was not saddled with the incompetent Barack Obama

b. Canada did not destroy a $ trillion with a bogus "stimulus" plan.


"Although Reinhart and Rogoff put the United States and Canada into different classifications, the two countries' unemployment rates rose in lock step from August 2008 until February 2009, when the stimulus was passed in the United States. ...It was only after the United States enacted the stimulus that the two countries economic fortunes began to diverge. After that, Canada began to substantially outperform the US in job creation, the supposed point of the stimulus. In the US, unemployment rose to 10.1 % by October 2009, and remained at least at 9.5% for the next 14 months. Canadian unemployment peaked at 7.7 % in July and August of 2009, and has been falling ever since."

Lott, "At The Brink," p. 102-103.

a. When the American unemployment rate in September 2011 was stuck at 9.1 %, Canada's had fallen to 6.3%. The US had increased by 1.3 % since Obama became President, while Canadian unemployment had already fallen below its January 2009 level. Lott, Op. Cit.

b. In January 2009, prior to the Obama Stimulus, the WSJ had surveyed economic forecasters. They predicted an increase of 0.8 % in unemployment by December of 2009. Instead, 4 months after the Stimulus...it had climbed by 2.1 %, while in Canada....up 1 %. Lott, Op. Cit.


Keynesianism will never die for the simple reason that it gives politicians a reason, an excuse, to spend money.


See how easily I prove you to be a lying fool?

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it; Person on the Right.

Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country; how many jobs total does Canada have that the wealthiest in the US could not create since they are richer than Canada.

Answer: Democrat/Liberal/Progressive office holder.

not relevant; Ms. Trump supporter. Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country; how many jobs total does Canada have that the wealthiest in the US could not create since they are richer than Canada.

you've been reduced to a babbling fool

not relevant; Mr. Trump supporter. Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country; how many jobs total does Canada have that the wealthiest in the US could not create since they are richer than Canada.

 

[danielpalos]

Come on Kaz, we realize you hate Trump, but anyone with a search engine can find what his "STARTING POINT ECONOMICALLY" is!

Here, then, are just five of Donald Trump’s solutions for turning the nation around.

1. Foreign Interventions Must Require Cost-Sharing Plans to Reduce U.S. Costs and Guarantee Veterans and Their Families Are Protected

“Money is itself a weapon,” writes Trump.

Before America spends trillions of dollars fighting other nations’ battles, Trump says the U.S. should implement cost-sharing agreements similar to the one advocated in a September 2010 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study to reduce the cost burden on U.S. taxpayers and provide funds for the families of fallen or wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.

“It’s hardly a radical idea,” writes Trump. “In September 2010, our own GAO and others studied the issue in depth and concluded that a cost-sharing plan is feasible and wise. The report, titled “U.S. Cost-Sharing: Iraq Has a Cumulative Budget Surplus, Offering the Potential for Further Cost-Sharing” noted that the Iraqi government is running a $52.1 billion surplus. As Trump notes, director of the Defense Department’s Office of Net assessment Andrew Marshall, pointed out that oil revenues could also be used to offset the sticker price for U.S. intervention.

“Why are we footing the bill and getting nothing in return?” writes Trump. “I’ll give you the answer. It’s because our so-called ‘leaders’ in Washington know absolutely nothing about negotiations and dealmaking.”

1. Pass NOPEC Legislation to Break OPEC’s Grip on Energy Prices

In Time to Get Tough, Trump advocated passage of the “No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act (NOPEC—S.394) which would amend the Sherman Antitrust Act to allow the U.S. government to sue OPEC for violating antitrust laws.

Trump notes the bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee four times with bipartisan backing, “and in May 2008, the NOPEC bill passed the House” before “President George W. Bush got spooked and threatened to veto the bill” over fears of “retaliatory action” with wars raging in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Passing NOPEC, wrote Trump, would have allowed the U.S. to bust up the OPEC cartel.

“Imagine how much money the average American would save if we busted the OPEC cartel. Imagine how much stronger economic shape we would be in if we made the Iraqi government agree to a cost-sharing plan that paid us back the $1.5 trillion we’ve dropped on liberating Iraq.”

Trump added, “Just those two acts of leadership alone would represent a huge leap forward for our country.”

1. Crack Down on China’s Currency Manipulation by Calculating Taxes on Imports Based on How Much a Manufacturing Country’s Currency is Undervalued

Trump says he believes passionately in free trade, but only when the rules are fair and currency is properly valued. He cites a study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics that finds that even a 20 percent revaulation of Chinese currency would create 300,000 to 700,000 American jobs.

“Getting China to stop playing its currency charades can begin whenever we elect a president ready to take decisive action,” writes Trump. “[Obama] could start by signing into law a bill the U.S. House of Representatives approved on a 348 to 79 vote in September 2010. It would allow our government to calculate taxes on imports based on how much the manufacturing country’s currency is undervalued.”

Trump notes Obama’s then-Treasury Sec. Timothy Geithner warned such a move might spark a “trade war.”

“It’s the utter weakness and failure to fight for American interests from Geithner and Obama that have left us underwriting China’s economic rise and our own economic collapse,” writes Trump. “It’s a plain fact: free trade requires having fair rules that apply to everyone.”

1. Spur Job and Wealth Creation through a 5-Point Tax Plan

“People are smart,” writes Trump. “They know you can’t be ‘for’ jobs and against those who create them.”

That, says Trump, is why America’s president should advocate for and win a five-point tax plan to spark economic growth and allow Americans to keep more of what they earn.

First, Trump says the U.S. must repeal the death tax. He cites a CBO study that found the death tax is a proven jobs killer that “will strip $1.6 trillion of small business capital out of the hands of job creators” and will result in a loss of 1.5 million new jobs.

Second, Trump says smart tax policy includes lowering the tax rate on capital gains and dividends. “Capitalism requires capital,” writes Trump. “When government robs capital from investors, it takes away the money that creates jobs.”

Third, Trump would reduce the corporate tax rate to zero. “How can we expect companies to hire American workers and locate their businesses in America when our government taxes them at exorbitant rates for doing so?” writes Trump. “I want to encourage American companies to stay here and hire American workers, and I want foreign companies to relocate their businesses to the United States and create jobs here.”

Fourth, Trump says he would impose a 20 percent tax on those who outsource jobs overseas. Trump says “for those companies who made the mistake of sending their businesses overseas but have seen the light and are ready to come home and bring jobs with them, they pay zero tax.”

Finally, Trump says its time to implement a fairer and simpler income tax:

• Up to $30,000, you pay 1 percent
• From $30,000 to $100,000, you pay 5 percent
• From $100,000 to $1 million, you pay 10 percent
• On $1 million or above, your rate is 15 percent

1. Finish the Border Fence, Boot Out Criminal Illegals, and Reform America’s Legal Immigration System

Trump cites a 2011 GAO study that found America’s prisons house 351,000 criminal aliens who committed crimes after illegally entering America. “The GAO says that the annual price tag to incarcerate these thugs is $1.1 billion. And get this: criminal aliens have an average of seven arrests.” He says criminal illegal aliens must go.

In addition to specific reforms for America’s legal immigration system, Trump says the Commander-in-Chief must enforce existing immigration laws and finish the border fence.

Citing several studies, Trump says “properly built walls work. We just need the political will to finish the job.”

Trump’s Time to Get Tough lays out several more detailed conservative policy reforms, including cracking down on entitlement fraud, ending Obamacare, and reforming America’s ever-growing welfare state. As he puts it, America needs “a safety net, not a hammock.”

Put simply, GOP establishment figures eager to dismiss Trump’s candidacy do so at their peril. Like it or not, Donald Trump has serious policy plans to offer—and the star power and savvy to make them heard.

Now anyone want to talk about them, let's go!

Why do the wealthiest in the US who are "wealthier than Canada" need even more money to allegedly create more jobs. Canada has a lot of jobs as a country; how many jobs total does Canada have that the wealthiest in the US could not create since they are "richer than Canada".

 

[mudwhistle]

The interviews I heard from the so called straight talking Trump were as much hand waiving as any other politician. He's for jobs. No shit, who isn't? He'll create them. How can government create jobs when it only destroys economic value? It can only stop destroying them. He'll run the government like a company. Um...the government doesn't create a product.

No idea what any of that actually means in terms of his policies. A lot of people like that he's pissing off the left and the liberal media. He's also going after establishment hacks like McCain, which works for me as long as he stays away from his military record. But I vote for plans, and so far Trump has offered me zero, just like all the rest of them.

Trump doesn't need to tell anyone his plans so that the media can make up lies about it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Actually, the Trump plan is the same as it was for the GOP in 2012................

Lots of bumper sticker slogans, and as much jingoistic bullshit as you can pack in.

Oh yeah..................don't forget the slick ads that were paid for by multi millionaires who are looking to take over the government and form an oligarchy..............

LIAR!!!