Democrats caused recession in 2007

[Faun]

Not only money was not sucked out of economy, money was INJECTED into economy by increasing national debt. Remember, not only taxes didn't go up to pay for spending, they DECREASED with tax-cutting.

Besides, Great Recession didn't happen due to money in economy. It happened because real estate wasn't fool-proof investment everyone was assuming it to be.

And where does the money to fund the debt come from?

Printing money doesn't increase the value of your economy, it devalues the value of assets. If you print 10% more money, you devalue your economic assets by 10%. It didn't create value

Except that isn't how currency valuation actually works. But other than that minor detail, sure.

Of course it is.

Except it isn't. The value of the dollar didn't go down in proportion to new dollars entering the market. No currency does. As the value of currency is based on multiple factors, the quantity of them only being one.

The dollar has stronger now than it was 10 years ago, despite significant increases to the national debt and the number of dollars on the market.

How do you explain the historic inconsistency between your assumptions....and reality?

Are you commiting from the fallacy of the single cause? I didn't say that's the only thing that affects currency value. But printing money clearly devalues currency

I'm committed to the evidence. And it doesn't match your claims. Explain the inconsistencies. With evidence, please.

Printing money doesn't devalue currency, got it. You're a tool, man.

And your first part is exactly what I said in my second quote, you're assuming currency valuation is a single cause, it's not, Holmes

You just can't stop kazzing, can you?

 

[kaz]

Translation: IcebergSlim believes anything that tells him what he wants to hear and ignores everything that doesn't.

Conclusion: Iceberg slim is an idiot.

I go by the data.....

You?

Only the data you want to believe

Don't be coy......share what you've got....

Please provide sources

Right, it's for me to prove you wrong. Show where the data has driven you to an answer you didn't want to believe but had to

Prove yourself right. You merely making a claim isn't evidence of anything beyond your ability to type.

So he made a claim without support, I disagreed with it. He came back and said to prove him wrong. Now you're saying no, you're not proving him wrong, kaz. You need to prove that you're right he's wrong. You made the claim ...

LOL, I can't make up the shit you people say for real

 

[IcebergSlim]

Not by any recognized measure of recession......but, being an uninformed imbecile, you are not expected to understand these things....

Translation: IcebergSlim believes anything that tells him what he wants to hear and ignores everything that doesn't.

Conclusion: Iceberg slim is an idiot.

I go by the data.....

You?

Only the data you want to believe

Don't be coy......share what you've got....

Please provide sources

Right, it's for me to prove you wrong. Show where the data has driven you to an answer you didn't want to believe but had to

No.....I've asked you to direct me to those sources which you believe I am ignoring....

 

[IcebergSlim]

Not only money was not sucked out of economy, money was INJECTED into economy by increasing national debt. Remember, not only taxes didn't go up to pay for spending, they DECREASED with tax-cutting.

Besides, Great Recession didn't happen due to money in economy. It happened because real estate wasn't fool-proof investment everyone was assuming it to be.

And where does the money to fund the debt come from?

Printing money doesn't increase the value of your economy, it devalues the value of assets. If you print 10% more money, you devalue your economic assets by 10%. It didn't create value

Except that isn't how currency valuation actually works. But other than that minor detail, sure.

Of course it is.

Except it isn't. The value of the dollar didn't go down in proportion to new dollars entering the market. No currency does. As the value of currency is based on multiple factors, the quantity of them only being one.

The dollar has stronger now than it was 10 years ago, despite significant increases to the national debt and the number of dollars on the market.

How do you explain the historic inconsistency between your assumptions....and reality?

Are you commiting from the fallacy of the single cause? I didn't say that's the only thing that affects currency value. But printing money clearly devalues currency

I'm committed to the evidence. And it doesn't match your claims. Explain the inconsistencies. With evidence, please.

Printing money doesn't devalue currency, got it. You're a tool, man.

And your first part is exactly what I said in my second quote, you're assuming currency valuation is a single cause, it's not, Holmes

Can you provide a measure by which currency has been "devalued" in recent years?

 

[AntonToo]

Can you provide a measure by which currency has been "devalued" in recent years?

Of course he can't given that the dollar is the strongest it's been in a long time. Like most rightwingers he has no clue what he is talking about when it comes to economics, they just make up whatever is most convenient for their politics.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Can you provide a measure by which currency has been "devalued" in recent years?

Of course he can't given that the dollar is the strongest it's been in a long time. Like most rightwingers he has no clue what he is talking about when it comes to economics, they just make up whatever is most convenient for their politics.

Their reliance on the "sovereign issuer as household" trope is a bit constraining...

 

[Skylar]

Not only money was not sucked out of economy, money was INJECTED into economy by increasing national debt. Remember, not only taxes didn't go up to pay for spending, they DECREASED with tax-cutting.

Besides, Great Recession didn't happen due to money in economy. It happened because real estate wasn't fool-proof investment everyone was assuming it to be.

And where does the money to fund the debt come from?

Printing money doesn't increase the value of your economy, it devalues the value of assets. If you print 10% more money, you devalue your economic assets by 10%. It didn't create value

Except that isn't how currency valuation actually works. But other than that minor detail, sure.

Of course it is.

Except it isn't. The value of the dollar didn't go down in proportion to new dollars entering the market. No currency does. As the value of currency is based on multiple factors, the quantity of them only being one.

The dollar has stronger now than it was 10 years ago, despite significant increases to the national debt and the number of dollars on the market.

How do you explain the historic inconsistency between your assumptions....and reality?

Are you commiting from the fallacy of the single cause? I didn't say that's the only thing that affects currency value. But printing money clearly devalues currency

I'm committed to the evidence. And it doesn't match your claims. Explain the inconsistencies. With evidence, please.

Printing money doesn't devalue currency, got it. You're a tool, man.

And your first part is exactly what I said in my second quote, you're assuming currency valuation is a single cause, it's not, Holmes

You offered us a model. We apply your model to history and it doesn't work.

Explain it. So far your explanation for why your theory doesn't work with our currency is 'You're a tool, man'.

You don't handle questions well, do you?

 

[BluesLegend]

Democrats WANTED the recession, Democrats were desperate for the recession and fanned the flames every chance they got. Why? So they could retake congress and the White House. Untold millions thrown under the bus so a handful of Democrats to win an election. They are vile filth.

 

[kaz]

And where does the money to fund the debt come from?

Printing money..

That's not at all how it works Kaz. Politicking got you all confused.

"money printing" is in monetary policy domain (sorta) like Quantitative Easing, not fiscal policy that spending on debt is. In other words, if "debt" was money printing, it wouldn't be debt as American doesn't owe to anyone dollars it prints.

America DOES owe the money it borrows to the lenders, which are both internal and external.

That quote is a lie. Yes, you did cut it out of my post, but the "Printing money" was the start of a new sentence on a separate point, it wasn't the answer to the question in the first sentence. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just didn't understand that, but don't do that. You can cut quotes to abbreviate, but you can't cut quotes to imply I said something I didn't say, and that's what you did, intentional or not.

The original point you made, which was wrong, is that government spending adds money to the economy, it doesn't remove it. There are three main ways government does that:

1) Borrowing
2) Printing money
3) Taxes

Borrowing removes money from the economy because someone buys the debt. Printing money does by devaluing the currency. Taxes are obvious. I'm saying that any of those ways, yes, they are removing money from the economy. The idea that Government can grow the economy without producing anything is ridiculous.

Again, NONE OF THIS has to do with real estate collapse. Even IF you were somehow correct more money in economy would just mean demand and correspondingly bigger bubble, because again, it wasn't lack of investment, it was the fact that the investments were very fundamentally BAD.

I didn't say it did, I said it contributed to the 2007 collapse, I didn't say it caused real estate to collapse. The real estate tax was the trigger. As I pointed out, with government on a spending orgy, government never cuts anything once it starts spending it. And outlays grew more for welfare due to loss of jobs. W's spending orgy made the dominoes down the line fall harder.

And again as for W, he continued and even expanded Slicks subprime mortgage scheme.

Which goes back to the starting point, both parties caused the crisis and both parties made it worse when it happened

 

[owebo]

Try an on-line degree, then come back.........

With you unable to pass 2nd grade grammar, who knows why you think you appear any smarter talking politics. Hell, you were even dumb enough to blame the Great Recession, starting in December, 2007, on the 2006 election -- but then couldn't cite a single bill the Democrat-led Congress passed to cause it; even though the housing collapse was already well under way in 2006.

I wish your mommy was smarter..,,

Hey, look at that... you spelled it correct that time. I actually taught a rightard something today. Kudos to me.

I am assuming you have no dad to help...,so....

No worries, I need no help educating you rightards.

It obviously takes a village with you to become the best idiot they've ever had....

 

[kaz]

And where does the money to fund the debt come from?

Printing money doesn't increase the value of your economy, it devalues the value of assets. If you print 10% more money, you devalue your economic assets by 10%. It didn't create value

Except that isn't how currency valuation actually works. But other than that minor detail, sure.

Of course it is.

Except it isn't. The value of the dollar didn't go down in proportion to new dollars entering the market. No currency does. As the value of currency is based on multiple factors, the quantity of them only being one.

The dollar has stronger now than it was 10 years ago, despite significant increases to the national debt and the number of dollars on the market.

How do you explain the historic inconsistency between your assumptions....and reality?

Are you commiting from the fallacy of the single cause? I didn't say that's the only thing that affects currency value. But printing money clearly devalues currency

I'm committed to the evidence. And it doesn't match your claims. Explain the inconsistencies. With evidence, please.

Printing money doesn't devalue currency, got it. You're a tool, man.

And your first part is exactly what I said in my second quote, you're assuming currency valuation is a single cause, it's not, Holmes

You offered us a model. We apply your model to history and it doesn't work.

Explain it. So far your explanation for why your theory doesn't work with our currency is 'You're a tool, man'.

You don't handle questions well, do you?

You're committing the fallacy of the single cause. And you having shown at all that history contradicts it. Just a claim you made

 

[owebo]

Translation: IcebergSlim believes anything that tells him what he wants to hear and ignores everything that doesn't.

Conclusion: Iceberg slim is an idiot.

I go by the data.....

You?

Only the data you want to believe

Oh? Is there data beyond GDP that supports the idiocy that we're still in a recession?

You mean compared to the 1970's or today? 95,000,000 people really want to know...

Did you ever reveal your source of this "95 million"?

Yes....

Public school?

 

[kaz]

And where does the money to fund the debt come from?

Printing money doesn't increase the value of your economy, it devalues the value of assets. If you print 10% more money, you devalue your economic assets by 10%. It didn't create value

Except that isn't how currency valuation actually works. But other than that minor detail, sure.

Of course it is.

Except it isn't. The value of the dollar didn't go down in proportion to new dollars entering the market. No currency does. As the value of currency is based on multiple factors, the quantity of them only being one.

The dollar has stronger now than it was 10 years ago, despite significant increases to the national debt and the number of dollars on the market.

How do you explain the historic inconsistency between your assumptions....and reality?

Are you commiting from the fallacy of the single cause? I didn't say that's the only thing that affects currency value. But printing money clearly devalues currency

I'm committed to the evidence. And it doesn't match your claims. Explain the inconsistencies. With evidence, please.

Printing money doesn't devalue currency, got it. You're a tool, man.

And your first part is exactly what I said in my second quote, you're assuming currency valuation is a single cause, it's not, Holmes

Can you provide a measure by which currency has been "devalued" in recent years?

I'm not proving the field of economics to you. If you google the subject, you'll get a plethora of sources.

And this is an answer to your question in the last post. One source you are ignoring? The field of economics

 

[Skylar]

Democrats WANTED the recession, Democrats were desperate for the recession and fanned the flames every chance they got. Why? So they could retake congress and the White House. Untold millions thrown under the bus so a handful of Democrats to win an election. They are vile filth.

Who says that democrats wanted a recession? You do, citing yourself.

Who says that they 'fanned the flames every chance they got'? You do, citing yourself.

Its you citing yourself in their motivations, you citing yourself on their goals, you citing yourself on their preferred outcomes.

Um......do you have any argument that doesn't begin and end inside your own head?

 

[kaz]

And where does the money to fund the debt come from?

Printing money doesn't increase the value of your economy, it devalues the value of assets. If you print 10% more money, you devalue your economic assets by 10%. It didn't create value

Except that isn't how currency valuation actually works. But other than that minor detail, sure.

Of course it is.

Except it isn't. The value of the dollar didn't go down in proportion to new dollars entering the market. No currency does. As the value of currency is based on multiple factors, the quantity of them only being one.

The dollar has stronger now than it was 10 years ago, despite significant increases to the national debt and the number of dollars on the market.

How do you explain the historic inconsistency between your assumptions....and reality?

Are you commiting from the fallacy of the single cause? I didn't say that's the only thing that affects currency value. But printing money clearly devalues currency

I'm committed to the evidence. And it doesn't match your claims. Explain the inconsistencies. With evidence, please.

Printing money doesn't devalue currency, got it. You're a tool, man.

And your first part is exactly what I said in my second quote, you're assuming currency valuation is a single cause, it's not, Holmes

You offered us a model. We apply your model to history and it doesn't work.

Explain it. So far your explanation for why your theory doesn't work with our currency is 'You're a tool, man'.

You don't handle questions well, do you?

You're a tool, man. You know more about economics than economists do. You also weren't a math major or a philosophy major. Increasing the nominal value of the currency increases the real value of the economy. Yeah, only a tool would believe that

 

[healthmyths]

Whenever democrats want to say that it was the economic policies of the repubican party that led to the recession of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 then someone should just point out this video


There are plenty of other videos of democrats preventing people from addressing the issues that led to the housing bubble and collapse.

Please, it was both parties. W's spending orgy was out of control. It wasn't just the Democrats

WHAT SPENDING ORGY?????
You idiots talk about GWB spending where are your facts?
In the meantime tell me these events didn't occur. And if they didn't occur, what was the money spent by GWB for?
A) First let's talk about "spending"...



2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
But TARP has been paid back so much it made a profit!

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20

 

[kaz]

Democrats WANTED the recession, Democrats were desperate for the recession and fanned the flames every chance they got. Why? So they could retake congress and the White House. Untold millions thrown under the bus so a handful of Democrats to win an election. They are vile filth.

Who says that democrats wanted a recession? You do, citing yourself.

Who says that they 'fanned the flames every chance they got'? You do, citing yourself.

Its you citing yourself in their motivations, you citing yourself on their goals, you citing yourself on their preferred outcomes.

Um......do you have any argument that doesn't begin and end inside your own head?

I agree, it's the same faux economics Democrats always preach, there was no agenda. You actually believe that shit

 

[jillian]

Democrats WANTED the recession, Democrats were desperate for the recession and fanned the flames every chance they got. Why? So they could retake congress and the White House. Untold millions thrown under the bus so a handful of Democrats to win an election. They are vile filth.

Who says that democrats wanted a recession? You do, citing yourself.

Who says that they 'fanned the flames every chance they got'? You do, citing yourself.

Its you citing yourself in their motivations, you citing yourself on their goals, you citing yourself on their preferred outcomes.

Um......do you have any argument that doesn't begin and end inside your own head?

I agree, it's the same faux economics Democrats always preach, there was no agenda. You actually believe that shit

that's so funny. she lies and you swear to it.

it's so cute.

 

[healthmyths]

AND YET NO ONE has commented on this that occurred during GWB!
The near economic collapse on Thursday (Sept 18,2008), at 11am the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the U.S., to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic out there. If they had not done that, their estimation is that by 2pm that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.
It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.

Zero Hedge: How The World Almost Came To An End At 2PM On September 18

Anyone care to comment on what caused this????

 

[Skylar]

Except that isn't how currency valuation actually works. But other than that minor detail, sure.

Of course it is.

Except it isn't. The value of the dollar didn't go down in proportion to new dollars entering the market. No currency does. As the value of currency is based on multiple factors, the quantity of them only being one.

The dollar has stronger now than it was 10 years ago, despite significant increases to the national debt and the number of dollars on the market.

How do you explain the historic inconsistency between your assumptions....and reality?

Are you commiting from the fallacy of the single cause? I didn't say that's the only thing that affects currency value. But printing money clearly devalues currency

I'm committed to the evidence. And it doesn't match your claims. Explain the inconsistencies. With evidence, please.

Printing money doesn't devalue currency, got it. You're a tool, man.

And your first part is exactly what I said in my second quote, you're assuming currency valuation is a single cause, it's not, Holmes

You offered us a model. We apply your model to history and it doesn't work.

Explain it. So far your explanation for why your theory doesn't work with our currency is 'You're a tool, man'.

You don't handle questions well, do you?

You're a tool, man. You know more about economics than economists do. You also weren't a math major or a philosophy major. Increasing the nominal value of the currency increases the real value of the economy. Yeah, only a tool would believe that

So ad hominem....that's it? Your claims don't work because 'I'm a tool'? I wasn't aware I had that kind of macroeconomic influence.

Dude, your theory doesn't work when applied to our currency. Per you, we increase our debt and our currency values will drop proportionally. However, when we look at the actual currency valuations as we've significantly increase the debt.....and the currency does the exact opposite of what you predicted is 'supposed' to happen. Increasing rather than decreasing.

You can't explain the inconsistency between your predictions and reality. And start pulling tired fallacies of logic out of your ass when questioned.

Is....is that it?