gain, I didn't support the bailouts... never have, never will. I also didn't support the liberal policy of mandating sub-prime loans to low income borrowers which created the housing/finance crisis. It had nothing to do with regulation.
So you're just spreading propaganda about the housing bubble, with good reason! The housing bubble was the culmination of Conservative leveraging of our economy. No one mandated subprime loans...that's a lie. What happened and what caused the bubble to appear was Bush's regulators ceasing the enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans
beginning in 2004, just like his working group says.
So help me understand why you think the turmoil was caused by ambivalent, vague "mandates" as you say, and not by the "dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for subprime loans beginning late 2004 and extending to 2007" like Bush's Working Group says?
The economic growth under Reagan certainly didn't come from policy signed into law 30 years later under George W. Bush.
What economic growth during Reagan? So you're muddying economic growth, of which there was none until Congress increased spending and the Fed lowered interest rates beginning in 1983 (we were in stagflation from Q1 1981 - Q3 1981, then a recession from Q4 1981 through Q4 1982), with revenue growth and you're wrong on both counts. Reagan's economic growth from 1981-1984
was shit. It wasn't until he doubled the deficit, increasing government spending and the Fed lowering interest rates, that the economy started moving. But that was short-lived because like all Conservative economies, they're built on a house of cards; in the case of Reagan, the S&L's, which ended up collapsing right as he was leaving office, paving the way for the recession that would occur just a couple short years later during Bush the Elder. So Reagan, like Bush the Dumber, was riding a bubble that was destined to pop.
You people just make up shit all the time to justify your shit policies, don't you?
I think I readily admitted Bush signed it into law... Bush wasn't Conservative! I did not agree with this policy and said so vociferously at the time..
So I find this confusing because you say you opposed the Bush Tax Cuts, yet they did exactly what you want; lowered the top marginal rate. The lowering of the other rates doesn't have any impact on the effects of lowering the top marginal rate, even though you are trying to make the connection.
So walk me through that...how does lowering a middle class worker's tax rate from, say, 28% to 25% impact the economic activity of a rich person whose marginal rate was lowered from 39.6% to 35%? Because that's what you're arguing...that tax cuts for the rich lead to increased revenue. That's the principle behind your push to cut taxes for the rich, isn't it? You believe that if the top marginal rate was cut, the wealthy would then increase their consumption which would result in increased revenues to make up for the drop in revenues from the income tax cut, right? That's your belief system, isn't it? So explain to me what anyone else's rates have to do with the actions of the wealthy upon receiving a boost to their after-tax income? Cause I don't think you can. I think you're bullshitting.
Again, you continue trying to claim that Bush was a Conservative and his policies were Conservative. Bush is responsible for the formation of the Tea Party! Go study some ******* history dude! Bush was not a Conservative other than on populist social conservative issues.
No, the Teabaggers were just a bunch of people who wanted to posture as fiscally responsible when the entire time they supported tax cuts and all of Bush's policies. You say there was this massive resistance from Conservatives to Bush...where was that resistance? You can
say you opposed Bush's policies, yet you're defending them.
So it seems to me that what's going on here is that you have an identity crisis. You rightfully recognize the Bush policies were shit, but you didn't know that at the time, so you now posture that you opposed them that whole time (but were strangely silent along with all the other self-professed "Conservatives who opposed Bush"). Speaking of which - I was out protesting the Iraq War...don't remember seeing any Conservatives there! In fact, the only Conservatives I did see were the ones screaming at me that I was a traitor and an appeaser because I opposed the stupid war. The trouble with people like you is that no record exists of you opposing Bush. Instead, there's record of you
defending his policies while at the same time pretending you opposed them.
I don't buy it. I think you're just trying to make everyone think something about you that is completely untrue because your ego means more to you than the truth.
What a poseur.
I've explained numerous times on this forum why the Bush tax cuts weren't as great and awesome as the Reagan tax cuts but it seems to fall on deaf ears. Bush cut all rates and didn't expand the base. Reagan cut top marginals dramatically while expanding the base. Bush's plan resulted in slower economic growth which didn't show revenue gains for about 3 years. Reagan had revenue gains the following year and nearly doubled tax revenues in his 8 years.
The Bush Tax Cuts and the Reagan Tax Cuts were not great at all, and were the same thing; a tax cut for the rich disguised as a tax cut for everyone, even though all the benefits of these cuts go to the top, and even though you cannot prove that cutting the rates for the rich leads to increased consumption by the rich. In fact, we have data that proves the opposite...that when the wealthy get a tax cut, they don't spend it in the economy.
They save it.
