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

[Ernie S.]

What caused the 2008 recession has been debated ad nauseum here. The single greatest cause of the melt down was Liberals forcing lenders to write mortgages for people that had no chance of paying them

Like you said, people here have shown stupid people like you over and over what happened in the housing collapse. And you are so stupid you still get it wrong. Again and again and again ad nauseum.

Can't you read anything but right wing bullshit?

I have read right wing bullshit and left wing bullshit and researched the situation for years. My conclusion is subprime mortgages are what caused the melt down. If you want to lay blame, you can start with James Earl Carter and the (HR 6655) CRA signed into law 10/12/77

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House....

While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, it’s not even close.

The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.
Stocks Return More With Democrat in White House BGOV Barometer - Bloomberg

These analysis do nothing to account for th additional factors that go into a presidency. Carter left Reagan a bigger mess than Obama inherited and yet he turned it around. Obama has run this country into the ground.

Reagan turned it around by going on a debt fuelled spending spree. [sic]

ROFLMNAO!

Folks, this sort of delusion is simply more evidence of the danger intrinsic to allowing the insane to live free.

Understand that this same would-be 'contributor'... has TWICE voted for the Peasantpimp of the Union States, who added SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DEBT than the US incurred in the 8 years of Ronaldus Magnus, IN HIS FIRST YEAR as Peasantpimp of the Union States. And since then, Peasantpimp obama has added more debt to the US Federal Government than EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE THE ORIGINAL GW: COMBINED!

And yet, the sycophants of Left-think STILL feel that they can turn toward Reagan's Presidency as the hallmark of debt accumulation.

It is TRULY idiocy on PARADE!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I know more than you do.

You forgot to go; nah nah nah nah boo boo.

I know the truth.

LMAO The truth about WHAT?

YOUR way has produced the worse economies in history.

Really? That Clinton economy sure sucked eh? And EVEN Obama could have had a better economy IF he could have created government jobs like Ronnie Reagan created government jobs.

And don't come back and say Reagan didn't oversee an explosion in government spending. Cause I thought you said you know what the "truth" is.

Clinton left us with a recession, that you guys blamed Bush for.

Why do you even bother? You spew such non sense. Clinton is responsible for the recession of Bush's early presidency yet dems are to blame for the crash of 2008.

You are disengenous filth.

I tell the truth. Bush inherited a recession. Obama inherited a recovery. The deficit is higher now than when the recession started. Dem policies have produced poverty. GOP policies have produced prosperity. The facts are undeniable.

You are actually that much of a moron to think Obama inherited a recovery? My god even you can't be that dumb. You actually believe that? My god. May the Creator have mercy on your pitiful soul.

The US Economy was, in point of fact, recovering from the Catastrophic Failure of Socialist Policy, which caused the collapse of the International Financial Markets, when the Peasantpimp of the Union States took power.

That's not even a debatable point.

All the Peasantpimp of the Union States merely exacerbated the problem, setting policy which turned a recession into a depression then doubled down on that foolishness, prolonging the depression.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

Demand is all-important right? Guess who the "demand" is for my employer? Businesses. My employer is, in its turn, a "demand" for a massive number of other businesses. I guess you forgot that businesses are customers too. I guess in your oversimplified "economic reality" businesses are only ever suppliers, and never consume anything.

Stimulating businesses does stimulate both supply and demand every time.

So go ahead and tell me why stimulating demand without stimulating supply is a better solution?

If there's no one to buy the product supply is worthless.

Giving tax cuts to businesses doesn't create jobs. That's not how capitalism works.

No employer is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing. No matter how many tax cuts that employer gets. That employer is only going to pocket the extra money. The only reason why an employer would hire new employees is that there's more work to do than the existing staff can handle in a regular work week. If that's happening that means the company is having more sales which means they're making more money and the last thing that employer needs is a tax cut.

Without that demand from customers, no business can stay open. Businesses aren't the only consumers in our economy and they certainly aren't enough to keep other businesses profitable.

Sure a farmer can buy all the equipment he wants but without customers to buy his crop, he goes bankrupt. Sure a store can be fully stocked with the latest goods and services but if they don't have customers to buy their goods and services that business closes.

Capitalism needs the free flow of money throughout the economy to work. The only way to make sure that happens is with living wages, taxes and regulations. Without it, all you end up with is monopolies and a destroyed economy.

 

[Billy000]

You forgot to go; nah nah nah nah boo boo.

LMAO The truth about WHAT?

Really? That Clinton economy sure sucked eh? And EVEN Obama could have had a better economy IF he could have created government jobs like Ronnie Reagan created government jobs.

And don't come back and say Reagan didn't oversee an explosion in government spending. Cause I thought you said you know what the "truth" is.

Clinton left us with a recession, that you guys blamed Bush for.

Why do you even bother? You spew such non sense. Clinton is responsible for the recession of Bush's early presidency yet dems are to blame for the crash of 2008.

You are disengenous filth.

I tell the truth. Bush inherited a recession. Obama inherited a recovery. The deficit is higher now than when the recession started. Dem policies have produced poverty. GOP policies have produced prosperity. The facts are undeniable.

You are actually that much of a moron to think Obama inherited a recovery? My god even you can't be that dumb. You actually believe that? My god. May the Creator have mercy on your pitiful soul.

The US Economy was, in point of fact, recovering from the Catastrophic Failure of Socialist Policy, which caused the collapse of the International Financial Markets, when the Peasantpimp of the Union States took power.

That's not even a debatable point.

All the Peasantpimp of the Union States merely exacerbated the problem, setting policy which turned a recession into a depression then doubled down on that foolishness, prolonging the depression.

Are you ******* kidding me? It absolutely blows my mind the things you people say. I am astounded.

Let me help you without with basic knowledge about dates and events ok? Let's add some realism. The job crash happened in Bush's last 4 MONTHS. You're trying to tell me the crash of 2008 was reversed and in growth within 4 months without any aid of government legislation? News flash, genius: we lost 3 million jobs in Bush's final months. 3 million. The economy was in a free fall

 

[Billy000]

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.

Demand is all-important right? Guess who the "demand" is for my employer? Businesses. My employer is, in its turn, a "demand" for a massive number of other businesses. I guess you forgot that businesses are customers too. I guess in your oversimplified "economic reality" businesses are only ever suppliers, and never consume anything.

Stimulating businesses does stimulate both supply and demand every time.

So go ahead and tell me why stimulating demand without stimulating supply is a better solution?

If there's no one to buy the product supply is worthless.

Giving tax cuts to businesses doesn't create jobs. That's not how capitalism works.

No employer is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing. No matter how many tax cuts that employer gets. That employer is only going to pocket the extra money. The only reason why an employer would hire new employees is that there's more work to do than the existing staff can handle in a regular work week. If that's happening that means the company is having more sales which means they're making more money and the last thing that employer needs is a tax cut.

Without that demand from customers, no business can stay open. Businesses aren't the only consumers in our economy and they certainly aren't enough to keep other businesses profitable.

Sure a farmer can buy all the equipment he wants but without customers to buy his crop, he goes bankrupt. Sure a store can be fully stocked with the latest goods and services but if they don't have customers to buy their goods and services that business closes.

Capitalism needs the free flow of money throughout the economy to work. The only way to make sure that happens is with living wages, taxes and regulations. Without it, all you end up with is monopolies and a destroyed economy.

Beautifully said.

 

[Listening]

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.

Demand is all-important right? Guess who the "demand" is for my employer? Businesses. My employer is, in its turn, a "demand" for a massive number of other businesses. I guess you forgot that businesses are customers too. I guess in your oversimplified "economic reality" businesses are only ever suppliers, and never consume anything.

Stimulating businesses does stimulate both supply and demand every time.

So go ahead and tell me why stimulating demand without stimulating supply is a better solution?

If there's no one to buy the product supply is worthless.

Giving tax cuts to businesses doesn't create jobs. That's not how capitalism works.

No employer is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing. No matter how many tax cuts that employer gets. That employer is only going to pocket the extra money. The only reason why an employer would hire new employees is that there's more work to do than the existing staff can handle in a regular work week. If that's happening that means the company is having more sales which means they're making more money and the last thing that employer needs is a tax cut.

Without that demand from customers, no business can stay open. Businesses aren't the only consumers in our economy and they certainly aren't enough to keep other businesses profitable.

Sure a farmer can buy all the equipment he wants but without customers to buy his crop, he goes bankrupt. Sure a store can be fully stocked with the latest goods and services but if they don't have customers to buy their goods and services that business closes.

Capitalism needs the free flow of money throughout the economy to work. The only way to make sure that happens is with living wages, taxes and regulations. Without it, all you end up with is monopolies and a destroyed economy.

Beautifully said.

Right out of a basic economics course book.

It all works on a single graph.

The problem is........

There is nothing to prove any of this at all.

Our economy is to complex.

I am not a full blown supply sider. I don't believe there is just one economy.

There are several economies that can be classified different ways. They impact each other.

A single "economy" statement, especially about the U.S. economy, can be both right and wrong.

When the crash hit, the coasts were hit pretty hard. Much of the midwest was in pretty good shape (relatively speaking).

So....if we want to discuss Macro 101...take it to the economics forum.

Otherwise this is just a waste of bandwidth.

 

[Listening]

Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House....

While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, it’s not even close.

The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.
Stocks Return More With Democrat in White House BGOV Barometer - Bloomberg

These analysis do nothing to account for th additional factors that go into a presidency. Carter left Reagan a bigger mess than Obama inherited and yet he turned it around. Obama has run this country into the ground.

Reagan turned it around by going on a debt fuelled spending spree. He cut taxes rates drastically, and completely re-ordered how the tax rates and how the government is funded. He encouraged the use of public and private debt.

Reagan dramatically increased defence spending, wasted billions on the development of the Star Wars missile defence system. The boom for defence contractors fuelled private sector hiring, as did the lavish spending by the middle class.

But the wealth didn't "trickle down". The poverty rate increased dramatically. The number of people on food stamps doubled. And the stock market crashed during Reagan's second term. Unemployment increased.

Even Ronnie could see his economic policies weren't working and he raised taxes in his second term - not to the levels before his cuts, but enough that it was the largest tax increase ever.

To combat high unemployment, Reagan hired 1 million new government workers.

In short, in his second term, Reagan repudiated every major economic action of his first term. Bush wasn't smart enough to do the same.

Everyone remembers Reagan's tax cuts and saving the mess left by the Carter administration, but nobody remembers his economic actions in the second term.

The economy was starting to smoke during the second term.

Recall that while things were not great...they were getting better at such a rate that Reagan hardly "ran" for a second term and still kicked Mondale's ass.

President's don't run the economy. The best they can do is grease the skids.

Don't forget, Ronny got duped by the lying asshole democrapes in the senate into passing a tax increase but they never delivered on their promise to reduce spending.

Additionally, Reagan had to raise SS taxes to cover for Carters disgustingly stupid miscalculation.

 

[The Rabbi]

Clinton left us with a recession, that you guys blamed Bush for.

Why do you even bother? You spew such non sense. Clinton is responsible for the recession of Bush's early presidency yet dems are to blame for the crash of 2008.

You are disengenous filth.

I tell the truth. Bush inherited a recession. Obama inherited a recovery. The deficit is higher now than when the recession started. Dem policies have produced poverty. GOP policies have produced prosperity. The facts are undeniable.

You are actually that much of a moron to think Obama inherited a recovery? My god even you can't be that dumb. You actually believe that? My god. May the Creator have mercy on your pitiful soul.

The US Economy was, in point of fact, recovering from the Catastrophic Failure of Socialist Policy, which caused the collapse of the International Financial Markets, when the Peasantpimp of the Union States took power.

That's not even a debatable point.

All the Peasantpimp of the Union States merely exacerbated the problem, setting policy which turned a recession into a depression then doubled down on that foolishness, prolonging the depression.

Are you ******* kidding me? It absolutely blows my mind the things you people say. I am astounded.

Let me help you without with basic knowledge about dates and events ok? Let's add some realism. The job crash happened in Bush's last 4 MONTHS. You're trying to tell me the crash of 2008 was reversed and in growth within 4 months without any aid of government legislation? News flash, genius: we lost 3 million jobs in Bush's final months. 3 million. The economy was in a free fall

See, even you admit the crqash had bottomed out by the time Obama took office.
Thanks for proving my point. Numbskull

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Demand is all-important right? Guess who the "demand" is for my employer? Businesses. My employer is, in its turn, a "demand" for a massive number of other businesses. I guess you forgot that businesses are customers too. I guess in your oversimplified "economic reality" businesses are only ever suppliers, and never consume anything.

Stimulating businesses does stimulate both supply and demand every time.

So go ahead and tell me why stimulating demand without stimulating supply is a better solution?

If there's no one to buy the product supply is worthless.

Giving tax cuts to businesses doesn't create jobs. That's not how capitalism works.

No employer is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing. No matter how many tax cuts that employer gets. That employer is only going to pocket the extra money. The only reason why an employer would hire new employees is that there's more work to do than the existing staff can handle in a regular work week. If that's happening that means the company is having more sales which means they're making more money and the last thing that employer needs is a tax cut.

Without that demand from customers, no business can stay open. Businesses aren't the only consumers in our economy and they certainly aren't enough to keep other businesses profitable.

Sure a farmer can buy all the equipment he wants but without customers to buy his crop, he goes bankrupt. Sure a store can be fully stocked with the latest goods and services but if they don't have customers to buy their goods and services that business closes.

Capitalism needs the free flow of money throughout the economy to work. The only way to make sure that happens is with living wages, taxes and regulations. Without it, all you end up with is monopolies and a destroyed economy.

Lemme guess: you have never started or run a business before. Amiright?

 

[Listening]

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.

Demand is all-important right? Guess who the "demand" is for my employer? Businesses. My employer is, in its turn, a "demand" for a massive number of other businesses. I guess you forgot that businesses are customers too. I guess in your oversimplified "economic reality" businesses are only ever suppliers, and never consume anything.

Stimulating businesses does stimulate both supply and demand every time.

So go ahead and tell me why stimulating demand without stimulating supply is a better solution?

If there's no one to buy the product supply is worthless.

Giving tax cuts to businesses doesn't create jobs. That's not how capitalism works.

No employer is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing. No matter how many tax cuts that employer gets. That employer is only going to pocket the extra money. The only reason why an employer would hire new employees is that there's more work to do than the existing staff can handle in a regular work week. If that's happening that means the company is having more sales which means they're making more money and the last thing that employer needs is a tax cut.

Without that demand from customers, no business can stay open. Businesses aren't the only consumers in our economy and they certainly aren't enough to keep other businesses profitable.

Sure a farmer can buy all the equipment he wants but without customers to buy his crop, he goes bankrupt. Sure a store can be fully stocked with the latest goods and services but if they don't have customers to buy their goods and services that business closes.

Capitalism needs the free flow of money throughout the economy to work. The only way to make sure that happens is with living wages, taxes and regulations. Without it, all you end up with is monopolies and a destroyed economy.

Lemme guess: you have never started or run a business before. Amiright?

I would guess the same thing......

But that is more a micro type of things......

It does appear that Dana has a very basic economics book she can quote from.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

Lol dude do you realize how much of a tool you come across as using Heritage as a source? It, Fox News, and Forbes.com are all partisan non sense. Again there is NO PROOF tax cuts for the wealthy had anything to do with the job growth under him. I'm sure other policies of his helped the job growth but NOT TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY.

Why was job growth under Bush so pathetic? Don't you think it's kind of sad Reagan is the only politician republicans have to be proud of?

reagan's tax cuts sent our nation into the worst economic recession since the last republican great depression. The economy got worse in the first years of the reagan presidency. He took a bad situation and made it many times worse.

While he did cut taxes for the rich, he raised taxes on the middle class and the poor. I personally never got a tax cut from reagan. All reagan did was raise my taxes.

The main reason there was job growth in the later reagan years is because reagan took out the national credit card and went on a spending spree. He spent trillions on the military and useless crap like "star wars." When reagan took office the national debt was around 800 billion dollars. When reagan left office the national debt was around 3 trillion dollars.

When the cold war ended and all those government jobs were cut we saw high unemployment and near economic crash.

reagan used credit to create millions of unnecessary government jobs that did nothing for our nation but leave us heavily in debt. In fact, reagan took spending, deficits and debt to new historic heights. Just like bush and the bush boy.

None of them wrote a balanced budget and all 3 of them left us with trillions in debt. In fact around 90% the national debt we face today was forced on us by those three republican presidents.

reagan's so called great economy was nothing but a lie. Once all that spending was cut, we had to live the consequences of conservative economics.

 

[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.

Demand is all-important right? Guess who the "demand" is for my employer? Businesses. My employer is, in its turn, a "demand" for a massive number of other businesses. I guess you forgot that businesses are customers too. I guess in your oversimplified "economic reality" businesses are only ever suppliers, and never consume anything.

Stimulating businesses does stimulate both supply and demand every time.

So go ahead and tell me why stimulating demand without stimulating supply is a better solution?

If there's no one to buy the product supply is worthless.

Giving tax cuts to businesses doesn't create jobs. That's not how capitalism works.

No employer is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing. No matter how many tax cuts that employer gets. That employer is only going to pocket the extra money. The only reason why an employer would hire new employees is that there's more work to do than the existing staff can handle in a regular work week. If that's happening that means the company is having more sales which means they're making more money and the last thing that employer needs is a tax cut.

Without that demand from customers, no business can stay open. Businesses aren't the only consumers in our economy and they certainly aren't enough to keep other businesses profitable.

Sure a farmer can buy all the equipment he wants but without customers to buy his crop, he goes bankrupt. Sure a store can be fully stocked with the latest goods and services but if they don't have customers to buy their goods and services that business closes.

Capitalism needs the free flow of money throughout the economy to work. The only way to make sure that happens is with living wages, taxes and regulations. Without it, all you end up with is monopolies and a destroyed economy.

Giving tax cuts to businesses doesn't create jobs. That's not how capitalism works.

Right, no businesses started up in Ireland, after they cut their corporate tax to 12.5%.

 

[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.

Lol dude do you realize how much of a tool you come across as using Heritage as a source? It, Fox News, and Forbes.com are all partisan non sense. Again there is NO PROOF tax cuts for the wealthy had anything to do with the job growth under him. I'm sure other policies of his helped the job growth but NOT TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY.

Why was job growth under Bush so pathetic? Don't you think it's kind of sad Reagan is the only politician republicans have to be proud of?

reagan's tax cuts sent our nation into the worst economic recession since the last republican great depression. The economy got worse in the first years of the reagan presidency. He took a bad situation and made it many times worse.

While he did cut taxes for the rich, he raised taxes on the middle class and the poor. I personally never got a tax cut from reagan. All reagan did was raise my taxes.

The main reason there was job growth in the later reagan years is because reagan took out the national credit card and went on a spending spree. He spent trillions on the military and useless crap like "star wars." When reagan took office the national debt was around 800 billion dollars. When reagan left office the national debt was around 3 trillion dollars.

When the cold war ended and all those government jobs were cut we saw high unemployment and near economic crash.

reagan used credit to create millions of unnecessary government jobs that did nothing for our nation but leave us heavily in debt. In fact, reagan took spending, deficits and debt to new historic heights. Just like bush and the bush boy.

None of them wrote a balanced budget and all 3 of them left us with trillions in debt. In fact around 90% the national debt we face today was forced on us by those three republican presidents.

reagan's so called great economy was nothing but a lie. Once all that spending was cut, we had to live the consequences of conservative economics.

reagan's tax cuts sent our nation into the worst economic recession since the last republican great depression.

Holy misinformation, Batman!!!

 

[zeke]

I have read right wing bullshit and left wing bullshit and researched the situation for years. My conclusion is subprime mortgages are what caused the melt down. If you want to lay blame, you can start with James Earl Carter and the (HR 6655) CRA signed into law 10/12/77

One more time there ernie. Sub primes were the culprit. Sub prime mortgages were originated primarily by mortgage brokers. Not banks.

And the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was designed to apply to Federally insured BANKS.

Banks did not originate sub prime loans.

The exposure some banks had to sub prime junk loans was usually through a mortgage broker relationship or they bought sub prime loans already closed thinking they were purchasing better quality paper than they were.

That's what happened to Fannie and Freddie. Sure, late in the game even they lowered mortgage standards. But they got burnt the same way other secondary market players got burnt. They bought portfolios of loans that were misrepresented as to loan quality.

You have to remember, lots of regional and mid size banks NEVER GOT into any lending trouble. And they still complied with CRA requirements and never made or bought any junk sub prime loans. And they did originate conforming loans written to Fannie/Freddie guidelines.

If the CRA was the culprit and all Federally insured banks have to follow CRA requirements (which they do) then they all should have failed. But they didn't.

 

[Listening]

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.

Lol dude do you realize how much of a tool you come across as using Heritage as a source? It, Fox News, and Forbes.com are all partisan non sense. Again there is NO PROOF tax cuts for the wealthy had anything to do with the job growth under him. I'm sure other policies of his helped the job growth but NOT TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY.

Why was job growth under Bush so pathetic? Don't you think it's kind of sad Reagan is the only politician republicans have to be proud of?

reagan's tax cuts sent our nation into the worst economic recession since the last republican great depression. The economy got worse in the first years of the reagan presidency. He took a bad situation and made it many times worse.

While he did cut taxes for the rich, he raised taxes on the middle class and the poor. I personally never got a tax cut from reagan. All reagan did was raise my taxes.

The main reason there was job growth in the later reagan years is because reagan took out the national credit card and went on a spending spree. He spent trillions on the military and useless crap like "star wars." When reagan took office the national debt was around 800 billion dollars. When reagan left office the national debt was around 3 trillion dollars.

When the cold war ended and all those government jobs were cut we saw high unemployment and near economic crash.

reagan used credit to create millions of unnecessary government jobs that did nothing for our nation but leave us heavily in debt. In fact, reagan took spending, deficits and debt to new historic heights. Just like bush and the bush boy.

None of them wrote a balanced budget and all 3 of them left us with trillions in debt. In fact around 90% the national debt we face today was forced on us by those three republican presidents.

reagan's so called great economy was nothing but a lie. Once all that spending was cut, we had to live the consequences of conservative economics.

Is this supposed to be serious ?

Reagan inherited very high interest rates which were necessary to bring inflation under control. All this, complements of Jimmy Carter (does anyone except the most strident of liberals even come close to thinking Carter was half the President Carter was....). Things got worse and he said they would. But by 1984 things had turned the corner....or would you like to explain how the democratic superstars didn't have the balls to challenge him and he "breezed" to re-election in 1984 if things were so bad ?

My mother was a middle class working single mom and she got a nice tax break for Reagan (hint: you didn't get one if you were not employed).

PRIVATE CONSUMPTION under Reagan increased dramatically over Carters. Consumer confidence was sky high and things got much much better.

90% of debt. Let's see...Obama has taken us from 10 Trillion to 17 Trillion. Can't get 90% out of that. Sorry.

 

[Listening]

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.

Lol dude do you realize how much of a tool you come across as using Heritage as a source? It, Fox News, and Forbes.com are all partisan non sense. Again there is NO PROOF tax cuts for the wealthy had anything to do with the job growth under him. I'm sure other policies of his helped the job growth but NOT TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY.

Why was job growth under Bush so pathetic? Don't you think it's kind of sad Reagan is the only politician republicans have to be proud of?

reagan's tax cuts sent our nation into the worst economic recession since the last republican great depression. The economy got worse in the first years of the reagan presidency. He took a bad situation and made it many times worse.

While he did cut taxes for the rich, he raised taxes on the middle class and the poor. I personally never got a tax cut from reagan. All reagan did was raise my taxes.

The main reason there was job growth in the later reagan years is because reagan took out the national credit card and went on a spending spree. He spent trillions on the military and useless crap like "star wars." When reagan took office the national debt was around 800 billion dollars. When reagan left office the national debt was around 3 trillion dollars.

When the cold war ended and all those government jobs were cut we saw high unemployment and near economic crash.

reagan used credit to create millions of unnecessary government jobs that did nothing for our nation but leave us heavily in debt. In fact, reagan took spending, deficits and debt to new historic heights. Just like bush and the bush boy.

None of them wrote a balanced budget and all 3 of them left us with trillions in debt. In fact around 90% the national debt we face today was forced on us by those three republican presidents.

reagan's so called great economy was nothing but a lie. Once all that spending was cut, we had to live the consequences of conservative economics.

reagan's tax cuts sent our nation into the worst economic recession since the last republican great depression.

Holy misinformation, Batman!!!

No, this is total ignorance.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Clinton left us with a recession, that you guys blamed Bush for.

Why do you even bother? You spew such non sense. Clinton is responsible for the recession of Bush's early presidency yet dems are to blame for the crash of 2008.

You are disengenous filth.

I tell the truth. Bush inherited a recession. Obama inherited a recovery. The deficit is higher now than when the recession started. Dem policies have produced poverty. GOP policies have produced prosperity. The facts are undeniable.

You are actually that much of a moron to think Obama inherited a recovery? My god even you can't be that dumb. You actually believe that? My god. May the Creator have mercy on your pitiful soul.

The US Economy was, in point of fact, recovering from the Catastrophic Failure of Socialist Policy, which caused the collapse of the International Financial Markets, when the Peasantpimp of the Union States took power.

That's not even a debatable point.

All the Peasantpimp of the Union States merely exacerbated the problem, setting policy which turned a recession into a depression then doubled down on that foolishness, prolonging the depression.

Are you ******* kidding me? It absolutely blows my mind the things you people say. I am astounded.

Let me help you without with basic knowledge about dates and events ok? Let's add some realism. The job crash happened in Bush's last 4 MONTHS. You're trying to tell me the crash of 2008 was reversed and in growth within 4 months without any aid of government legislation? News flash, genius: we lost 3 million jobs in Bush's final months. 3 million. The economy was in a free fall

Jobs have always fallen at the outset of recovery... The Markets had long collapsed and THAT was the direct result of socialist policy. Once that policy happened, there were no more mortgages being provided to people who could not service them.... The businesses which rested on a foolish foundation were gone... those who depended upon those businesses, likewise: GONE. Thus the problem solved itself.

There is nothing complex about it.

Had the companies that allowed that to happen been allowed to simply fail, their assets would have been bought by other investment groups, the employees who represented the highest value would have been hired by the new investor/management and new, soundly organized enterprise would have quickly emerged.

What's more, those new companies, acquiring those assets, would have LIKELY recognized that MANY of those who lost their homes, because of the socialist 'fix'... were sound concerns who got caught up into a foolish frenzy and as reason requires, those notes would likely have been adjusted to the re-adjusted values of the market... or been converted into leases, or whatever made the most sense.

Money would have been made, credit would be readily available to credit worthy borrowers and millions of people would have come away with their credit intact, albeit bruised and as a result NOT HAVE BEEN DECLARED INDIGENT WARDS OF THE STATE and set onto government subsidies.

Many of the ancillary businesses that were lost, would likely have been spared bankruptcy, thus many of those 'laid off' would likely have accepted adjustments to their compensation in favor of being fired.

Instead, we are STILL facing the worst that is yet to come from staying that collapse. And all that energy has simply been stored... adding greater and more explosive destructive force.

Now if ya need to know when that will occur, it will occur in 2017, when the GOP has control of the Federal Government. The Fed will begin to edge up interest rates... that will cause a meltdown, igniting explosive hyper-inflation, which will nearly instantaneously drive the service of the US Federal debt, beyond the means of the US Federal Government. The destruction of the US Dollar will be complete. There will be at that point, no means for the US Federal Government to pay its bills, service its obligations to the peasantry (thats you); there will be no obamacare, medicare, medicaid (states will be in roughly the same boat) and of course, no Social Security and what little it can pay will go to the Military.

Now THAT, in VERY short order, will cause you idiots to panic and the Leftist Population Zones will almost instantly be stripped of food, you people have no means to remain free outside of subsistence, so at that point, you'll be forced to do those things which force others to destroy you, by the gross, en masse... .

A fair depiction of what that will look like is "World War Z". Guess which role you idiots will play? And the UN... will not be present, as like you, the UN is THE PROBLEM! So don't get side tracked by that.

But after that hot mess cools down, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone alive that is so foolish as to admit that they ever voted for a Democrat, took a dime of government money, or ever advocated for policy which supplanted sound principle, for concepts that use the word 'fairness' but in practice, ultimately make being fair, impossible.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... reagan's tax cuts sent our nation into the worst economic recession...

You should know that such is literally: Impossible. There is LITERALLY NO MEANS for reducing federal liability to the markets to induce a receding economy. There is no means for such to occur... it cannot happen, through any potential means of application.

Understand?

Just to be clear... There is ABSOLUTELY no means that reducing the artificial obligations required by a parasitic infection set upon the market to cause the market to lower production to the point that the market begins to recede.

But it's a slow news day, so you've encouraged to provide whatever fantasy you feel might cause such... if nothing else such will be entertaining.

 

[Dana7360]

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

Now lets be fair here.

The bush boy did "reform" fannie mae and home lending practices.

He started out by declaring that all state regulations on lending to be void. All that controlled lending was federal regulations which the bush boy was removing as fast as he could.

One regulation he removed very publicly was the law that prohibited Fannie Mae from buying sub prime mortgage loans. Which was how those bad loans were dumped by banks onto investors all over the world. Their logic was that they would be "bundled with good loans." So when the bad loans failed the good ones would compensate for them. Which never happened because they were bundled with too many bad sub prime loans.

Meanwhile lending companies were investing in derivatives that
the loans would default. So some lending companies and banks made money on the loans, selling the loans and then when the loans went bad. That's when insurance companies like AIG went bankrupt.

It was irresponsible deregulation that caused the collapse. The democrats aren't the party of deregulation. That would be the republicans. And they went wild with it in the bush boy years.