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

[The Rabbi]

Six mother scratching years of He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named...

Lovely grasp of economics this is:

And this has been due to Republcian economic policies that began under Bush. It wasn't just Bush, it has been this philosophy that cutting taxes for the wealthy and keeping wages low benefits the economy. It does not. Supply side economics has been the biggest failure in my lifetime. It is more than obvious that demand is what drives the economy, not supply. Increase demand, and the economy improves. Make the middle class stronger, and less people will require government assistance.

You are a dunce.
Supply side has worked every time.
Demand side has failed every time.
It is very simple.

 

[TooTall]

How does the middle class tax cuts (niggernomics) create jobs?

God you people are so thick. No wonder you vote republican. Tax cuts help the middle class spend money. They are the big spenders when it comes to economic demand in this consumer spending economy we have.

Aren't you glad that Bush cut tax rates for the middle class?

Sure, the CBO said almost 1/3rd of deficits 2001-2010 can be traced to Dubya's tax cuts. Of course those 'jobs' Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies were supposed to create, never came. He lost 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years as he doubled the debt

If only that were true,the nation saw the 2nd longest economic expansion during the Bush years,cherry picking doesn't tell the whole story,but hacks love to do that.

REALLY? 2ND LONGEST? lol


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

Bush and his aides are quick to point out that they oversaw 52 straight months of job growth in the middle of this decade, and that the economy expanded at a steady clip from 2003 to 2007. But economists, including some former advisers to Bush, say it increasingly looks as if the nation's economic expansion was driven to a large degree by the interrelated booms in the housing market, consumer spending and financial markets. Those booms, which the Bush administration encouraged with the idea of an "ownership society," have proved unsustainable.

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."

...Even excluding the 2008 recession, however, Bush presided over a weak period for the U.S. economy. For example, for the first seven years of the Bush administration, gross domestic product grew at a paltry 2.1 percent annual rate.


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades


DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair

Yes,really!

"An economy usually grows rapidly in the years immediately following a recession. As Peter Ferrera points out in Forbes, the U.S. economy has not even reached its long run average rate of growth of 3.3 percent; the highest annual growth rate since Obama took office was 2.8 percent. Total growth in real GDP over the 19 quarters of economic recovery since the second quarter of 2009 has been 10.2 percent. Growth over the same length of time during previous post-World War II recoveries has ranged from 15.1 percent during George W. Bush’s presidency to 30 percent during the recovery that began when John F. Kennedy was elected.

Over the first five years of Obama’s presidency, the U.S. economy grew more slowly than during any five-year period since just after the end of World War II, averaging less than 1.3 percent per year. If we leave out the sharp recession of 1945-46 following World War II, Obama looks even worse, ranking dead last among all presidents since 1932. No other president since the Great Depression has presided over such a steadily poor rate of economic growth during his first five years in office."

The Obama Economic Record The Worst Five Years Since World War II The Daily Caller

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Republicans exploded inflation, destroyed 18 million jobs & increased SNAP recipients by 30 million people. Democrats have restored 10.5 million jobs, but thanks to the massive inflation explosion Republicans left us with we have 18 million in working households still on the government SNAP tit. $10 minimum wage will fix that problem by dumping 18 million off SNAP & create more jobs.

Did you ever hear of Jimmy Carter's inflation?

All minimal wages do is artificially drive up the cost of goods and services while taking money out of the economy that would have been spent on something else, thus losing jobs. Libtards always have a difficult time understanding the free market but then they have never been known to get anything right so it is kinda of expected.

You are clearly an idiot. Wages never drive inflation. Inflation is caused by excess fractional reserve lending, deficit spending & government defaulting on debt payments like under Carter, never from higher wages. Your econ professor fed you a line of shit.

You continue to prove you are an ignoramus in the highest degree.
Cost-Push Inflation Definition Investopedia

You are the idiot who can't prove raising minimum wage ever caused inflation or unemployment in the USA. Definitions are proof of nothing you stupid idiot. I have tons of proof Republicans explode inflation & cause mass unemployment.

You never did explain which Obama policy was responsible for killing inflation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Republicans exploded inflation, destroyed 18 million jobs & increased SNAP recipients by 30 million people. Democrats have restored 10.5 million jobs, but thanks to the massive inflation explosion Republicans left us with we have 18 million in working households still on the government SNAP tit. $10 minimum wage will fix that problem by dumping 18 million off SNAP & create more jobs.

Did you ever hear of Jimmy Carter's inflation?

All minimal wages do is artificially drive up the cost of goods and services while taking money out of the economy that would have been spent on something else, thus losing jobs. Libtards always have a difficult time understanding the free market but then they have never been known to get anything right so it is kinda of expected.

You are clearly an idiot. Wages never drive inflation. Inflation is caused by excess fractional reserve lending, deficit spending & government defaulting on debt payments like under Carter, never from higher wages. Your econ professor fed you a line of shit.

You continue to prove you are an ignoramus in the highest degree.
Cost-Push Inflation Definition Investopedia

You are the idiot who can't prove raising minimum wage ever caused inflation or unemployment in the USA. Definitions are proof of nothing you stupid idiot. I have tons of proof Republicans explode inflation & cause mass unemployment.

so you seriously don't think increasing production costs is going to cause prices to rise? So are manufacturers going to put themselves out of business by complying with government mandated cost raises and not increase the price of the product at all? Does it make sense to allow government to eat up profits or worse, to operate a business at a loss?

we are talking about the livelihood of people. If they do not raise costs to match expenses their family doesn't eat. They either raise the costs or find a way to cut costs by firing workers and having those that remain do more.

but then minimum wage increases have never been a out helping people to progressives. It's been about pricing unskilled labor, the so called "undesirables", out of the market. You know those minority groups you guys don't like.

so you seriously don't think increasing production costs is going to cause prices to rise?

His recommendations don't involve thinking. It's all about feelings.

 

[chikenwing]

Six mother scratching years of He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named...

Lovely grasp of economics this is:

And this has been due to Republcian economic policies that began under Bush. It wasn't just Bush, it has been this philosophy that cutting taxes for the wealthy and keeping wages low benefits the economy. It does not. Supply side economics has been the biggest failure in my lifetime. It is more than obvious that demand is what drives the economy, not supply. Increase demand, and the economy improves. Make the middle class stronger, and less people will require government assistance.

Bush cut taxes for everyone that got a wage or a salary. That included the middle class, which made them 'stronger.' How would you make the middle class 'stronger'? Raise their taxes, perhaps?

That one always got me,when asked who enjoyed the largest tax cut,the left will default without question to the rich,which is false.
They can't tell you why they say that ,its just they did.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

Like idiotic libtards do, example, the current clown in office.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The greatest economy in the entire history of America is the RONALD REAGAN REPUBLICAN SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS 80S.
You lose again.

There's no evidence the economy under Reagan did well because of supply side economics. Zero. Bush's tax cuts were huge and job growth under him was pitiful.

WRONG.
The Real Reagan Economic Record Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy
President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2
No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century

You lose again.

YOU MEAN THE GOP CONGRESS CAME OUT WITH A REPORT CLAIMING CREDIT FOR CLINTON'S BOOM WAS CAUSED BY RONNIE? LOL

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY? OH RIGHT TRIPLING THE DEBT AS HE GUTTED REVENUES AND BLEW UP SPENDING?


The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.


This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his “Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,” along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter. They singled out Reagan’s 1981 tax cut that lowered top marginal rates from 70% to 28% as the basis for the campaign, leaving out the inconvenient reality that he subsequently raised taxes eleven times, according to former Republican Senator Alan Simpson who “was there.”

Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan

With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.


In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons’ easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY? OH RIGHT TRIPLING THE DEBT AS HE GUTTED REVENUES

Reagan gutted revenues? What were they in 1981? In 1989?

 

[Dad2three]

Bush exploded Food Stamps! They were going down until Bush & Republicans took over in 2001. Food stamps went up every year Bush was in office.

Jesus, Kiss...did you REALLY just post that graph as a defense of Barack Obama and progressive economic policies? I mean...yes...food stamps did increase slightly under Bush but took off like a freakin' ROCKET under Barry! Just saying...

You don't see the trend line ROCKETING up under Dubya? IN 2008? LOL

DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


NOW IF, LIKE SOOOOO MANY RIGHTIES WANT TO DO IS BLAME THE DEMS WHO CAME INTO CONGRESS JAN 2007, PLEASE GIVE ME THE BILLS THEY PASSED IN CONGRESS THAT BECAME LAW? lol

 

[Dad2three]

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.

The greatest economy in the entire history of America is the RONALD REAGAN REPUBLICAN SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS 80S.
You lose again.

There's no evidence the economy under Reagan did well because of supply side economics. Zero. Bush's tax cuts were huge and job growth under him was pitiful.

WRONG.
The Real Reagan Economic Record Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy
President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2
No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century

You lose again.

YOU MEAN THE GOP CONGRESS CAME OUT WITH A REPORT CLAIMING CREDIT FOR CLINTON'S BOOM WAS CAUSED BY RONNIE? LOL

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY? OH RIGHT TRIPLING THE DEBT AS HE GUTTED REVENUES AND BLEW UP SPENDING?


The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.


This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his “Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,” along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter. They singled out Reagan’s 1981 tax cut that lowered top marginal rates from 70% to 28% as the basis for the campaign, leaving out the inconvenient reality that he subsequently raised taxes eleven times, according to former Republican Senator Alan Simpson who “was there.”

Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan

With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.


In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons’ easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY? OH RIGHT TRIPLING THE DEBT AS HE GUTTED REVENUES

Reagan gutted revenues? What were they in 1981? In 1989?

Oh you mean because Ronnie increased SS taxes by 60% AND STILL blew up the debt?


EVEN WITH HIS 11 TAX REVENUES INCREASES?

Carter had 19%+ of GDP his final F/Y

Ronnie took US to 17.8%

BUT INCOME TAXES WENT FROM 9.1% OF GDP TO 8% (OF COURSE POPPY BUSH INHERITED THE MASS OF RONNIE'S TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH AS THEY PULLED OUT AS MUCH AS THEY COULD HIS LAST 2 YEARS AT 28%, STUCK POPPY BUSH AT 7.4%-7.5%, LOL)


YOU KNOW THEY MEASURE IT GDP TO ACCOUNT FOR MORE PEOPLE ENTERING THE WORKFORCE AND INFLATION RIGHT???? LOL


Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."

 

[Dad2three]

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.

"Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs"..
It did?
Prove it..
Then define "job".....

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs

It's no surprise that the administration would proclaim its own policies a success. But its verdict is backed by economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, who say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product by 2.1% to 2.7%.


Economists agree Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com

Did you even read that USA Today article, Dad? The gist of it is that economists DON'T agree! They don't agree that the stimulus created 3 million jobs. Some think it did...some think it had a minor impact on job creation...and some don't think it had any affect at all.

Here's my question for you...

The economy is growing faster NOW than it has in years...correct? Are we doing massive government stimulus to make that happen? Big infrastructure spending? I think we can all agree the answer to that is NO? So why is the economy growing faster now?

Got it, you can't be honest. Shocking....

CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

Under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

"Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. "That," he added, "is a distinct minority."





You mean thanks to fiscal responsibility of Prez Obama and getting regulators back on the beat, despite listening to right wingers who wanted austerity (which other nations used and are now going into their 2-3 recession), the US is moving forward, despite the GOP effort otherwise? YES

WHY DIDN'T DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES WORK AGAIN?? LOL

 

[Dad2three]

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.

The greatest economy in the entire history of America is the RONALD REAGAN REPUBLICAN SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS 80S.
You lose again.

Really? When Ronnie had a top tax rate of 50% the first 6 years? How is that possible? He also increased revenues (mainly tax increases on the working class) 11 times in 8 years!)


Not-Quite-So-Good Times Off Wall Street

But the expansion of stockownership to nearly 30% of American households still left more than two-thirds of the country shut out of direct benefits from the great bull market of the Age of Reagan. For the 70% of American households that still lacked any stake at all in the stock market, the Reagan economy was not quite so lustrous as it seemed to those enjoying the fruits of rising equity values. Real wages, which had increased steadily from 1945 to 1972 but then stalled through the stagflation era, remained flat through the 1980s as well. Unemployment declined from the atrocious highs of the late 1970s and early 1980s, but the high-paying blue-collar industrial jobs that had been the mainstay of the midcentury economy continued to disappear. (It's important to note that this process began long before Reagan came into office, however.) In short, the economic outlook for middle- and working-class families who depended on wages for their incomes was somewhat better than it had been during the bleak 1970s, but still significantly worse than it had been during the 1950s and '60s.

The uneven distribution of benefits from the Reagan boom reflected a growing trend toward what has been called the "financialization" of the American economy


Economy in The Reagan Era






"My colleagues and I have been very appreciative of your [President Clinton's] support of the Fed over the years, and your commitment to fiscal discipline has been instrumental in achieving what in a few weeks will be the longest economic expansion in the nation's history." — Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, January 4, 2000, with President Clinton at Chairman Greenspan's re-nomination announcement


One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit." — Goldman Sachs, March 1998


"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." — Business Week, May 19, 1997

And you cretins call HERITAGE biased.

SO ALL YOU HAVE ARE AD HOMS? You can't actually refute ANYTHING? How about Greenspan? Goldman Sachs? Biz Week? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Republicans have no place in democrat America. Democrats have no place in republican America.

Not a problem. Democrats can get the hell out of here. They hate America anyway.

You mean those LIBERALS WHO CREATED AMERICA? While the conservatives (Torry) stood with King George?

 

[KissMy]

Republicans exploded inflation, destroyed 18 million jobs & increased SNAP recipients by 30 million people. Democrats have restored 10.5 million jobs, but thanks to the massive inflation explosion Republicans left us with we have 18 million in working households still on the government SNAP tit. $10 minimum wage will fix that problem by dumping 18 million off SNAP & create more jobs.

Did you ever hear of Jimmy Carter's inflation?

All minimal wages do is artificially drive up the cost of goods and services while taking money out of the economy that would have been spent on something else, thus losing jobs. Libtards always have a difficult time understanding the free market but then they have never been known to get anything right so it is kinda of expected.

You are clearly an idiot. Wages never drive inflation. Inflation is caused by excess fractional reserve lending, deficit spending & government defaulting on debt payments like under Carter, never from higher wages. Your econ professor fed you a line of shit.

You continue to prove you are an ignoramus in the highest degree.
Cost-Push Inflation Definition Investopedia

You are the idiot who can't prove raising minimum wage ever caused inflation or unemployment in the USA. Definitions are proof of nothing you stupid idiot. I have tons of proof Republicans explode inflation & cause mass unemployment.

so you seriously don't think increasing production costs is going to cause prices to rise? So are manufacturers going to put themselves out of business by complying with government mandated cost raises and not increase the price of the product at all? Does it make sense to allow government to eat up profits or worse, to operate a business at a loss?

we are talking about the livelihood of people. If they do not raise costs to match expenses their family doesn't eat. They either raise the costs or find a way to cut costs by firing workers and having those that remain do more.

but then minimum wage increases have never been a out helping people to progressives. It's been about pricing unskilled labor, the so called "undesirables", out of the market. You know those minority groups you guys don't like.

You are just further proof Repubtards don't understand economics & can't run the country anywhere but in the ground. You actually believe government supporting workers does not cause massive inflation.

Raising minimum wage has never caused inflation in the USA. Destroying the US dollar is what the republican always pledge & do causing massive inflation.

 

[Dad2three]

G. W. Bush's first act as president, regarding the economy, was to intentionally bust the budget and bring back deficits.

He did it with his tax cuts.

Tax cuts bad, tax increases good. I got it!

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

 

[Dad2three]

God you people are so thick. No wonder you vote republican. Tax cuts help the middle class spend money. They are the big spenders when it comes to economic demand in this consumer spending economy we have.

Aren't you glad that Bush cut tax rates for the middle class?

Sure, the CBO said almost 1/3rd of deficits 2001-2010 can be traced to Dubya's tax cuts. Of course those 'jobs' Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies were supposed to create, never came. He lost 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years as he doubled the debt

If only that were true,the nation saw the 2nd longest economic expansion during the Bush years,cherry picking doesn't tell the whole story,but hacks love to do that.

REALLY? 2ND LONGEST? lol


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

Bush and his aides are quick to point out that they oversaw 52 straight months of job growth in the middle of this decade, and that the economy expanded at a steady clip from 2003 to 2007. But economists, including some former advisers to Bush, say it increasingly looks as if the nation's economic expansion was driven to a large degree by the interrelated booms in the housing market, consumer spending and financial markets. Those booms, which the Bush administration encouraged with the idea of an "ownership society," have proved unsustainable.

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."

...Even excluding the 2008 recession, however, Bush presided over a weak period for the U.S. economy. For example, for the first seven years of the Bush administration, gross domestic product grew at a paltry 2.1 percent annual rate.


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades


DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair

Yes,really!

"An economy usually grows rapidly in the years immediately following a recession. As Peter Ferrera points out in Forbes, the U.S. economy has not even reached its long run average rate of growth of 3.3 percent; the highest annual growth rate since Obama took office was 2.8 percent. Total growth in real GDP over the 19 quarters of economic recovery since the second quarter of 2009 has been 10.2 percent. Growth over the same length of time during previous post-World War II recoveries has ranged from 15.1 percent during George W. Bush’s presidency to 30 percent during the recovery that began when John F. Kennedy was elected.

Over the first five years of Obama’s presidency, the U.S. economy grew more slowly than during any five-year period since just after the end of World War II, averaging less than 1.3 percent per year. If we leave out the sharp recession of 1945-46 following World War II, Obama looks even worse, ranking dead last among all presidents since 1932. No other president since the Great Depression has presided over such a steadily poor rate of economic growth during his first five years in office."

The Obama Economic Record The Worst Five Years Since World War II The Daily Caller

Weird, you mean it DOESN'T matter the size of the hole Dubya/GOP/Banksters created? Just that Obama/Dems didn't fix it fast enough? Or strong enough? BET OBAMA WILL HAVE A HIGHER GROWTH GDP OVER 8 YEARS THAN DUBYA'S? HE'S ALREADY ALMOST BEAT HIM, LOL

ONCE MORE. What happened to Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies? Why wasn't the US flush with new PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS? Yes, we know Dubya had almost 2 million PUBLIC sector jobs, but he lost 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years (NOT counting the 4+ million in 2009)?

 

[The Rabbi]

Did you ever hear of Jimmy Carter's inflation?

All minimal wages do is artificially drive up the cost of goods and services while taking money out of the economy that would have been spent on something else, thus losing jobs. Libtards always have a difficult time understanding the free market but then they have never been known to get anything right so it is kinda of expected.

You are clearly an idiot. Wages never drive inflation. Inflation is caused by excess fractional reserve lending, deficit spending & government defaulting on debt payments like under Carter, never from higher wages. Your econ professor fed you a line of shit.

You continue to prove you are an ignoramus in the highest degree.
Cost-Push Inflation Definition Investopedia

You are the idiot who can't prove raising minimum wage ever caused inflation or unemployment in the USA. Definitions are proof of nothing you stupid idiot. I have tons of proof Republicans explode inflation & cause mass unemployment.

so you seriously don't think increasing production costs is going to cause prices to rise? So are manufacturers going to put themselves out of business by complying with government mandated cost raises and not increase the price of the product at all? Does it make sense to allow government to eat up profits or worse, to operate a business at a loss?

we are talking about the livelihood of people. If they do not raise costs to match expenses their family doesn't eat. They either raise the costs or find a way to cut costs by firing workers and having those that remain do more.

but then minimum wage increases have never been a out helping people to progressives. It's been about pricing unskilled labor, the so called "undesirables", out of the market. You know those minority groups you guys don't like.

You are just further proof Repubtards don't understand economics & can't run the country anywhere but in the ground. You actually believe government supporting workers does not cause massive inflation.

Raising minimum wage has never caused inflation in the USA. Destroying the US dollar is what the republican always pledge & do causing massive inflation.

You accusing anyone of not understandng economics is a hoot. Just saying.

 

[chikenwing]

G. W. Bush's first act as president, regarding the economy, was to intentionally bust the budget and bring back deficits.

He did it with his tax cuts.

Tax cuts bad, tax increases good. I got it!

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?

 

[Dad2three]

Six mother scratching years of He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named...

Lovely grasp of economics this is:

And this has been due to Republcian economic policies that began under Bush. It wasn't just Bush, it has been this philosophy that cutting taxes for the wealthy and keeping wages low benefits the economy. It does not. Supply side economics has been the biggest failure in my lifetime. It is more than obvious that demand is what drives the economy, not supply. Increase demand, and the economy improves. Make the middle class stronger, and less people will require government assistance.

Bush cut taxes for everyone that got a wage or a salary. That included the middle class, which made them 'stronger.' How would you make the middle class 'stronger'? Raise their taxes, perhaps?

That one always got me,when asked who enjoyed the largest tax cut,the left will default without question to the rich,which is false.
They can't tell you why they say that ,its just they did.

The Republican Party has pulled the wool over the eye's of the American people just so they can keep the super wealthy donating great sums of money to their campaigns


The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy

A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush’s tax policies.


The Bush-era tax cuts were designed to reduce taxes for the wealthy, and the benefits of faster growth were then supposed to trickle down to the middle class. But the economic impact of cutting capital gains rates and lowering the top marginal tax rates never materialized for working families. Inflation-adjusted median weekly earnings fell by 2.3% during the 2002-07 economic expansion, which holds the distinction for being the worst economic expansion since World War II.

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy Economic Policy Institute



Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years

• The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.

• • The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive. In each of the nine years from 2004 through 2012, the tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the highest-income taxpayers by a far larger percentage than they did for middle- and low-income taxpayers. For example, in 2010, the year in which all of the Bush income and estate tax cuts were fully phased in, they increased the after-tax income of people making over $1 million by more than 7.3 percent, but increased the after-tax income of the middle 20 percent of households by just 2.8 percent.

Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


WHY GIVE THE 'JOB CREATORS' A TAX CUT? ALL THEY DO IT PARK IT OFFSHORE. A TAX CUT TO THE BOTTOM 90%, WHO TURN AROUND AND SPEND IT, DRIVES AN ECONOMY!!

• 
  
  

 

[Dad2three]

G. W. Bush's first act as president, regarding the economy, was to intentionally bust the budget and bring back deficits.

He did it with his tax cuts.

Tax cuts bad, tax increases good. I got it!

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

 

[Dad2three]

G. W. Bush's first act as president, regarding the economy, was to intentionally bust the budget and bring back deficits.

He did it with his tax cuts.

Tax cuts bad, tax increases good. I got it!

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?

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

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