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

[The Rabbi]

I really don't expect him or Zeke to understand cause and effect either.

Really ernie? So far as I can tell, you don't know what the **** you are talking about. I wrote mortgage loans for 18 years. Before and all during the collapse. I got some understanding as to what happened. Seeing as how I watched and participated in the growing mess.

How about you? How many mortgage loans have you originated and closed? I averaged about 120 a year for 18 years. Do the math. And that does not count the loans I wrote that never closed for whatever reason.

Fannie/Freddie A paper loans. FHA loans. VA loans. Alt A loans. Construction/perm loans. Non conforming loans. Sub prime loans. ARM loans. Interest only loans. HELOC's.

I worked with human underwriters and computerized under writing. I worked with appraisers and title companies.
Real estate agents and real estate investors. Builders and rehabbers.

Now tell me ernie. How many of those loans have you written? And what is your experience in the mortgage world?

The only thing you ever wrote, Zeke, was an IOU for more Blatz. Hell you couldn't tell Reg Z from your left nut.

 

[Ernie S.]

ong?

You do realize that without bad mortgages there would be no need for mortgage based derivatives, don't you?

WTF Ernie? Try and explain just what it is you mean. You have gone from not knowing what "derivatives" are to wanting to know about "mortgage based derivatives".

Did you know that in the mortgage industry, that there is always a certain number of borrowers who will default.
Are lenders hedging against mortgage defaults by using derivatives? Sure they are. But they don't know if the mortgages are all bad or all good. That's why they are hedging. That's the function.

What was really cool during the run up to the collapse was investment banks selling off mortgage backed securities, full of shit loans (of course the buyers of these loans didn't know they were shit loans till the end) then using derivatives to bet that those portfolios of loans would go bad.

Making money selling them as good loans and making money betting that they would go bad. Good gig if you can get it.

Pre CRA, few mortgages defaulted. Damned little money was made betting loans would default.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ong?

You do realize that without bad mortgages there would be no need for mortgage based derivatives, don't you?

... Did you know that in the mortgage industry, that there is always a certain number of borrowers who will default. ...

But never more so than where the standard for Mortgage creation is a perverted notion of "Fairness", which literally stands in diametric opposition to fairness.

And where that standard is set, there is NEVER a BETTER TIME to spread the risk, because there is literally nothing but risk to be had unless you're betting that the risk will crash the system. Those who bet on THAT... made FORTUNES.

Again... your purpose here is to obscure the facts: The catastrophic failure of socialist policy caused the collapse of the financial markets... by supplanting sound lending principle with foolishness than guaranteeing the inevitable losses with taxpayer's money.

Other than capital being present, there was nothing 'Capitalist' about that... it was the natural consequences of rejecting the nature of economics.

 

[Dragonlady]

This was all a result of the Left having LONG AGO coerced sound principle from the lending business.

You want to focus upon the effect, treating it is the cause... which is typical of the relativist. But in truth, by the time the Securitized mortgages came along, the damage was done, the industry was operating on the new rules with nearly non-existence standards and there is only one organism which sees every standard as 'discrimination' and that organism is the Ideological Left.

Bullshit! Greed on the part of those selling mortgage derrivatives caused the collapse, aided and abetted by Bush's lower than low interest rates post 9/11.

With interest rates in the neighbourhood of 1%, millions of Americans who couldn't previously have qualified for a mortgage, suddenly met the income servicing criteria. They flooded the market, driving up prices at a record rate. When the banks and mortgage companies saw how much money they could make on sub-prime mortgages, the pressured brokers to stop writing well-secured mortgages and write more sub-prime deals. They were being packaged and sold quickly so it wasn't like the mortgage companies would be on the hook if they went bad.

Brokers were encouraging their agents to accept any proof of income or assets, and many agents told their applicants to lie to get the mortgages. No one was checking the applications, and there was just too much money to be made in the sub-prime market. Everyone assumed that rapidly rising prices were the insurance in case the loans went bad. By the time the property went into foreclosure, it would be worth so much money, they'd actually make a profit on the foreclosure.

But when the cheap interest rate mortgages matured, and the real interest rates kicked in, people who were marginally able to service their debts at 1% and who had put nothing down, now had no way of making payments, and with nothing to lose, walked away in large enough numbers that the bubble burst and prices dropped, and the crash was on.

It wasn't Fanny & Freddie, it wasn't just de-regulation, it was de-regulation, Bush's low interest rates, and old-fashioned greed that caused the housing bubble and its subsequent collapse. And both the de-regulation and the low interest rates can be laid directly at the feet of the Republican party. Clinton may have signed the law, but it originated in the Republican House and was passed by the Republican Senate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't see any info in your post showing that any of those banks got in trouble from derivatives.

Todd, you know the name "Bear Stearnes"? Failed investment bank. Playing in the derivatives market.

What "vehicle" was the banks using during the financial collapse that caused the TARP program Todd? You seem pretty well obsessed with WHY the banks were in danger of failing. Do you understand how the mortgage markets and the derivative markets all got twisted up?

Why can't you use Google to find this stuff out. It is all over the 'Net.

Educate yourself dude and quit asking others to explain it to you. The info is out there.

Todd, you know the name "Bear Stearnes"? Failed investment bank.

I'm not familiar with that one. Is it related to Bear Stearns, the investment bank that collapsed because they held too many bonds, especially mortgage related bonds? You know, the investment bank that didn't collapse because of derivatives.

What "vehicle" was the banks using during the financial collapse that caused the TARP program Todd?

Well, they were investing in lots of mortgage bonds using overnight funding.

Do you understand how the mortgage markets and the derivative markets all got twisted up?

Why don't you try to explain it to me?

Educate yourself dude and quit asking others to explain it to you.

I only ask, to demonstrate your ignorance on the topic, dude.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yet you post nonstop idiocy.

So let me ask, how would you sum your 'feelings', with regard to the point you're trying to make here?

I ask, because you seem to be claiming that adherents to the natural order of economics are idiots... and those who reject the principles in nature which govern mathematics, cause and effect, and other fundamental axioms in nature... are brilliant.

Which, as noted above, would be indicative of idiocy.

... just trying to clear this up.

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure during periods low consumer spending.

Do you have any sense of how foolish that is? The very nature of economics is that such ebbs and flows. You're claiming that half of that cycle is illegitimate and needs 'correcting'.

Even when consumer spending is at a decent level, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense to boost demand. If needed, supply will increase as it naturally would.

LOL! What is the purpose for artificial demand? To increase artificial supply? Do you not possess the means to understand that by artificially increasing supply, you axiomatically reduce the value of that supply? And what of the inevitable reductions in demand which must come as a result of artificially high supply? What happens when the value of the artificial supply levels tank... and the means to reproduce those supplies is likewise tanked, by the insufficient margins between the cost to produce such and the newly established artificially adjusted values?

You're screwing with forces that you have no means to even understand, let alone 'control'.

Had the US NOT subsidized the losses that the Left caused by replacing sound principle with perverted notions of 'fairness'; had we simply allowed those who had succumbed to the coercion of the Left, to make poor choices, and left those businesses to suffer the consequences of their decisions, the US would have recovered and returned a wiser, more competent financial market and done so within the typical cyclical recovery period of 22-28 months.

Instead, you idiots have managed to set up more economic time-bombs, causing the recovery to be postponed... the pain of which has been stored, thus the potential for greater damage increased exponentially. The US Economy, HAS NOT 'recovered'... and it will NOT do so until the policies which CAUSED the failure are stripped from the system, the process which provides for the means to rebuild and for the CONFIDENCE of the consumer, which is ESSENTIAL TO THAT DEMAND you keep harping about.

As I said: You're an idiot. But if it helps, you're not alone. Many infamous people of great temporal wealth are equally as stupid. They're just not as equally foolish... .

Lol what? As long as you are using real money in real business transactions by consumers to businesses, the boost is very much real. You boost demand by cutting taxes for the middle class and giving unemployment benefits to people who really need them.

When you subsidize unemployment, you promote UN-EMPLOYMENT... reducing DEMAND for EMPLOYMENT, robbing from the RECOVERY, the incentive TO RECOVER.

When you CUT liabilities associated to economic GAINS you promote ECONOMIC GAIN. When you reduce liabilities associated with the acquisition of REVENUE... you promote the acquisition of REVENUE.

Anything getting through here?

11 million new jobs? ROFLMNAO!

So what? How many people came into the labor force? 11 Million? Who were these people? Were the Citizens coming of age to enter the work force? Or were the people who entered the US Illegally, who are likely to have no allegiance to the United States, no allegiance to the Principles that sustain the United States... and no intentions to assimilate into the US Culture... who send the bulk of the monies earned in the US to individuals who do not LIVE IN THE US?

Tell me oh great and wise Keynesian... what US Economic value is served, where US production is immediately exported FROM the US?

Extending uemployment benefits is an emergency measure. Here is what you cons are too dense to understand. The economy lost 8 million jobs in that recession. Those jobs were GONE. They didn't go to anyone else. That means most of those people were hopelessly unemployed for a long time until more jobs were created. Oh and unemployment benefts are 60% of the wage you made from the job you lost. There is little incentive to remain on those benefits.

lol how much of this exportation is even going on?

you realize people can create jobs right? If you care so much about the poor as you claim, create some jobs and hire them

 

[Dragonlady]

Someone upthread said that the real estate market collapse was global. It wasn't. It was strictly "Made in America".

The worldwide banking system was brought down by the collapse of the US real estate market.

Canada's banks were spared from the collapse because our liberal government refused to deregulate Canadian banks.

It should also be pointed out that Carter was the guy who passed the Community Re-investment Act, which functioned without any crisis in foreclosures, or even major losses by the lenders, until it was used by greed Wall Street bankers to excuse poor lending practices in the sub-prime market.

Conservatives has been using the CRA as an excuse for the excesses of greed and poor lending brought about by Bush's low lending rates and a Republican Congress and Senate de-regulating Wall Street.

I have noted that conservatives busily re-write history to suit their politics and to find a way to blame Democrats when anything goes wrong, but the bald fact is that Republicans are fiscal idiots, who haven't the vaguest notion of how to manage the US budget.

Democrats are demonized as the "tax and spend" party, but those taxes are to pay for their spending, and they have the good sense to fund their programs. Notice how "tax" comes before spend.

Republicans cut taxes and think that increased revenues will cover the cuts. It didn't work under Reagan, and it sure as hell didn't work under Bush II. To add insult to injury, Bush II added Medicaid Part D without any corresponding tax to fund it. Lunacy!

Bush was so economically challenged, he crashed the US economy and nearly took the rest of the world down with it. That is some spectacular stupidity, and yet the current bunch are Republicans are talking about doing the same dumb things that Bush did.

 

[Bush92]

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.

This thread is so stupid its not worth the time it would take to educate the idiot who wrote.

 

[Bush92]

Democratic Allegiance Hits a Low Can the GOP Seize the Opportunity - ABC News
ABC News Poll 12-17-14 Nuff said.

 

[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.

This thread is so stupid its not worth the time it would take to educate the idiot who wrote.

Or you simply don't know how to address it.

 

[Bush92]

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.

This thread is so stupid its not worth the time it would take to educate the idiot who wrote.

Or you simply don't know how to address it.

Sure: #1.) Eliminate all food stamps and public housing.
#2.) Eliminate all programs designed to help a specific race or ethnicity such as federal subsidies for ACORN.
#3.) Stop importing ALL Chinese goods.
#4.) Shut down border with Mexico, allow US military to use deadly force to enforce.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yet you post nonstop idiocy.

So let me ask, how would you sum your 'feelings', with regard to the point you're trying to make here?

I ask, because you seem to be claiming that adherents to the natural order of economics are idiots... and those who reject the principles in nature which govern mathematics, cause and effect, and other fundamental axioms in nature... are brilliant.

Which, as noted above, would be indicative of idiocy.

... just trying to clear this up.

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure during periods low consumer spending.

Do you have any sense of how foolish that is? The very nature of economics is that such ebbs and flows. You're claiming that half of that cycle is illegitimate and needs 'correcting'.

Even when consumer spending is at a decent level, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense to boost demand. If needed, supply will increase as it naturally would.

LOL! What is the purpose for artificial demand? To increase artificial supply? Do you not possess the means to understand that by artificially increasing supply, you axiomatically reduce the value of that supply? And what of the inevitable reductions in demand which must come as a result of artificially high supply? What happens when the value of the artificial supply levels tank... and the means to reproduce those supplies is likewise tanked, by the insufficient margins between the cost to produce such and the newly established artificially adjusted values?

You're screwing with forces that you have no means to even understand, let alone 'control'.

Had the US NOT subsidized the losses that the Left caused by replacing sound principle with perverted notions of 'fairness'; had we simply allowed those who had succumbed to the coercion of the Left, to make poor choices, and left those businesses to suffer the consequences of their decisions, the US would have recovered and returned a wiser, more competent financial market and done so within the typical cyclical recovery period of 22-28 months.

Instead, you idiots have managed to set up more economic time-bombs, causing the recovery to be postponed... the pain of which has been stored, thus the potential for greater damage increased exponentially. The US Economy, HAS NOT 'recovered'... and it will NOT do so until the policies which CAUSED the failure are stripped from the system, the process which provides for the means to rebuild and for the CONFIDENCE of the consumer, which is ESSENTIAL TO THAT DEMAND you keep harping about.

As I said: You're an idiot. But if it helps, you're not alone. Many infamous people of great temporal wealth are equally as stupid. They're just not as equally foolish... .

Lol what? As long as you are using real money in real business transactions by consumers to businesses, the boost is very much real. You boost demand by cutting taxes for the middle class and giving unemployment benefits to people who really need them.

And yes this does result in a loss of revenue but so do tax cuts for the wealthy. However you are generating growth through consumer spending.

Lol the recovery has gone quite well. Close to 11 million private jobs created since Obama came to office. We are averaging 200,000 new jobs per month. Why isn't that good enough?

Oh and the investment class is doing better now more than ever? Hmmmm

How is it that you clowns can scream about all this success and yet the 1% are getting all the goodies.

Which is it ?

The problem are wages that are too low.

funny. I thought we were supposed to be praising Obama because he fixed our economy. Now the wages are too low.

you need to work on making your talking points consistent

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Someone upthread said that the real estate market collapse was global. It wasn't. It was strictly "Made in America".

The worldwide banking system was brought down by the collapse of the US real estate market.

Canada's banks were spared from the collapse because our liberal government refused to deregulate Canadian banks.

It should also be pointed out that Carter was the guy who passed the Community Re-investment Act, which functioned without any crisis in foreclosures, or even major losses by the lenders, until it was used by greed Wall Street bankers to excuse poor lending practices in the sub-prime market.

Conservatives has been using the CRA as an excuse for the excesses of greed and poor lending brought about by Bush's low lending rates and a Republican Congress and Senate de-regulating Wall Street.

I have noted that conservatives busily re-write history to suit their politics and to find a way to blame Democrats when anything goes wrong, but the bald fact is that Republicans are fiscal idiots, who haven't the vaguest notion of how to manage the US budget.

Democrats are demonized as the "tax and spend" party, but those taxes are to pay for their spending, and they have the good sense to fund their programs. Notice how "tax" comes before spend.

Republicans cut taxes and think that increased revenues will cover the cuts. It didn't work under Reagan, and it sure as hell didn't work under Bush II. To add insult to injury, Bush II added Medicaid Part D without any corresponding tax to fund it. Lunacy!

Bush was so economically challenged, he crashed the US economy and nearly took the rest of the world down with it. That is some spectacular stupidity, and yet the current bunch are Republicans are talking about doing the same dumb things that Bush did.

Canada's banks were spared from the collapse because our liberal government refused to deregulate Canadian banks.

That's awesome! What are reserve requirements in the Great White North, eh?

 

[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.

This thread is so stupid its not worth the time it would take to educate the idiot who wrote.

Or you simply don't know how to address it.

Sure: #1.) Eliminate all food stamps and public housing.
#2.) Eliminate all programs designed to help a specific race or ethnicity such as federal subsidies for ACORN.
#3.) Stop importing ALL Chinese goods.
#4.) Shut down border with Mexico, allow US military to use deadly force to enforce.

1) i don't understand why you cons believe just cutting off the poor's support would help with the overall economy. I'm all for eliminating food stamps, but first we must raise the minimum wage. Either that, or strengthen income tax credits. Repubs are against both. You people have no concept of the economy we live in. Low wage jobs drastically outnumber decent paying jobs. That means millions of people HAVE NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.
2) I am not necessarily against this idea but if you think this will help the overall economy than you are dumb.
3) Like it or not we have an interdependent economic relationship with China. We rely on each other. If one falls, we both do. If you want to end that relationship, it will take years of economic reform that will likely never happen.
4) Um so no legal immigrants either?

 

[Billy000]

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure during periods low consumer spending.

Do you have any sense of how foolish that is? The very nature of economics is that such ebbs and flows. You're claiming that half of that cycle is illegitimate and needs 'correcting'.

Even when consumer spending is at a decent level, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense to boost demand. If needed, supply will increase as it naturally would.

LOL! What is the purpose for artificial demand? To increase artificial supply? Do you not possess the means to understand that by artificially increasing supply, you axiomatically reduce the value of that supply? And what of the inevitable reductions in demand which must come as a result of artificially high supply? What happens when the value of the artificial supply levels tank... and the means to reproduce those supplies is likewise tanked, by the insufficient margins between the cost to produce such and the newly established artificially adjusted values?

You're screwing with forces that you have no means to even understand, let alone 'control'.

Had the US NOT subsidized the losses that the Left caused by replacing sound principle with perverted notions of 'fairness'; had we simply allowed those who had succumbed to the coercion of the Left, to make poor choices, and left those businesses to suffer the consequences of their decisions, the US would have recovered and returned a wiser, more competent financial market and done so within the typical cyclical recovery period of 22-28 months.

Instead, you idiots have managed to set up more economic time-bombs, causing the recovery to be postponed... the pain of which has been stored, thus the potential for greater damage increased exponentially. The US Economy, HAS NOT 'recovered'... and it will NOT do so until the policies which CAUSED the failure are stripped from the system, the process which provides for the means to rebuild and for the CONFIDENCE of the consumer, which is ESSENTIAL TO THAT DEMAND you keep harping about.

As I said: You're an idiot. But if it helps, you're not alone. Many infamous people of great temporal wealth are equally as stupid. They're just not as equally foolish... .

Lol what? As long as you are using real money in real business transactions by consumers to businesses, the boost is very much real. You boost demand by cutting taxes for the middle class and giving unemployment benefits to people who really need them.

And yes this does result in a loss of revenue but so do tax cuts for the wealthy. However you are generating growth through consumer spending.

Lol the recovery has gone quite well. Close to 11 million private jobs created since Obama came to office. We are averaging 200,000 new jobs per month. Why isn't that good enough?

Oh and the investment class is doing better now more than ever? Hmmmm

How is it that you clowns can scream about all this success and yet the 1% are getting all the goodies.

Which is it ?

The problem are wages that are too low.

funny. I thought we were supposed to be praising Obama because he fixed our economy. Now the wages are too low.

you need to work on making your talking points consistent

You're a dumbass if you think I ever said Obama fixed the economy. He greatly improved it sure, but much work still needs to be done.

 

[Bush92]

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.

This thread is so stupid its not worth the time it would take to educate the idiot who wrote.

Or you simply don't know how to address it.

Sure: #1.) Eliminate all food stamps and public housing.
#2.) Eliminate all programs designed to help a specific race or ethnicity such as federal subsidies for ACORN.
#3.) Stop importing ALL Chinese goods.
#4.) Shut down border with Mexico, allow US military to use deadly force to enforce.

1) i don't understand why you cons believe just cutting off the poor's support would help with the overall economy. I'm all for eliminating food stamps, but first we must raise the minimum wage. Either that, or strengthen income tax credits. Repubs are against both. You people have no concept of the economy we live in. Low wage jobs drastically outnumber decent paying jobs. That means millions of people HAVE NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.
2) I am not necessarily against this idea but if you think this will help the overall economy than you are dumb.
3) Like it or not we have an interdependent economic relationship with China. We rely on each other. If one falls, we both do. If you want to end that relationship, it will take years of economic reform that will likely never happen.
4) Um so no legal immigrants either?

China is our greatest threat. we sure learn from history. China now is imperial Japan from about 1935. Also China spies on us and you know nothing of manufacturing blue collar jobs. Just like a typical liberal.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Do you have any sense of how foolish that is? The very nature of economics is that such ebbs and flows. You're claiming that half of that cycle is illegitimate and needs 'correcting'.

LOL! What is the purpose for artificial demand? To increase artificial supply? Do you not possess the means to understand that by artificially increasing supply, you axiomatically reduce the value of that supply? And what of the inevitable reductions in demand which must come as a result of artificially high supply? What happens when the value of the artificial supply levels tank... and the means to reproduce those supplies is likewise tanked, by the insufficient margins between the cost to produce such and the newly established artificially adjusted values?

You're screwing with forces that you have no means to even understand, let alone 'control'.

Had the US NOT subsidized the losses that the Left caused by replacing sound principle with perverted notions of 'fairness'; had we simply allowed those who had succumbed to the coercion of the Left, to make poor choices, and left those businesses to suffer the consequences of their decisions, the US would have recovered and returned a wiser, more competent financial market and done so within the typical cyclical recovery period of 22-28 months.

Instead, you idiots have managed to set up more economic time-bombs, causing the recovery to be postponed... the pain of which has been stored, thus the potential for greater damage increased exponentially. The US Economy, HAS NOT 'recovered'... and it will NOT do so until the policies which CAUSED the failure are stripped from the system, the process which provides for the means to rebuild and for the CONFIDENCE of the consumer, which is ESSENTIAL TO THAT DEMAND you keep harping about.

As I said: You're an idiot. But if it helps, you're not alone. Many infamous people of great temporal wealth are equally as stupid. They're just not as equally foolish... .

Lol what? As long as you are using real money in real business transactions by consumers to businesses, the boost is very much real. You boost demand by cutting taxes for the middle class and giving unemployment benefits to people who really need them.

And yes this does result in a loss of revenue but so do tax cuts for the wealthy. However you are generating growth through consumer spending.

Lol the recovery has gone quite well. Close to 11 million private jobs created since Obama came to office. We are averaging 200,000 new jobs per month. Why isn't that good enough?

Oh and the investment class is doing better now more than ever? Hmmmm

How is it that you clowns can scream about all this success and yet the 1% are getting all the goodies.

Which is it ?

The problem are wages that are too low.

funny. I thought we were supposed to be praising Obama because he fixed our economy. Now the wages are too low.

you need to work on making your talking points consistent

You're a dumbass if you think I ever said Obama fixed the economy. He greatly improved it sure, but much work still needs to be done.

obama 'greatly improved the economy'?

Specifically... in what way?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Someone upthread said that the real estate market collapse was global. It wasn't. It was strictly "Made in America".

The worldwide banking system was brought down by the collapse of the US real estate market.

Canada's banks were spared from the collapse because our liberal government refused to deregulate Canadian banks.

It should also be pointed out that Carter was the guy who passed the Community Re-investment Act, which functioned without any crisis in foreclosures, or even major losses by the lenders, until it was used by greed Wall Street bankers to excuse poor lending practices in the sub-prime market.

Conservatives has been using the CRA as an excuse for the excesses of greed and poor lending brought about by Bush's low lending rates and a Republican Congress and Senate de-regulating Wall Street.

I have noted that conservatives busily re-write history to suit their politics and to find a way to blame Democrats when anything goes wrong, but the bald fact is that Republicans are fiscal idiots, who haven't the vaguest notion of how to manage the US budget.

Democrats are demonized as the "tax and spend" party, but those taxes are to pay for their spending, and they have the good sense to fund their programs. Notice how "tax" comes before spend.

Republicans cut taxes and think that increased revenues will cover the cuts. It didn't work under Reagan, and it sure as hell didn't work under Bush II. To add insult to injury, Bush II added Medicaid Part D without any corresponding tax to fund it. Lunacy!

Bush was so economically challenged, he crashed the US economy and nearly took the rest of the world down with it. That is some spectacular stupidity, and yet the current bunch are Republicans are talking about doing the same dumb things that Bush did.

Canada's banks were spared from the collapse because our liberal government refused to deregulate Canadian banks.

That's awesome! What are reserve requirements in the Great White North, eh?

Canadian Banks are not subject to US law... which required banks to set aside sound, actuarial lending principle, and substitute such with a perverted notion of fairness... Also... Canadian banks were not guaranteed against losses by the US Federal Government, when sub-standard mortgagees failed to service their debt.

So.. as is nearly always the case... Canada is irrelevant.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Thankfully, the Democrats restored the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when they took control of Congress for Bush's last two years in office. They did, didn't they?

Yeah, because Dems can pass ANYTHING over a GOP Prez veto. *shaking head*

NOTE THE DATES?

Bush's working group said it "was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007". Now what would 'trigger a dramatic weakening' and prevent Bush's regulators from enforcing them? Why Bush and his policies, that's who. EXECUTIVE BRANCH REMEMBER?


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

Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown

Wall Street Not Fannie and Freddie Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast

 

[Billy000]

Lol what? As long as you are using real money in real business transactions by consumers to businesses, the boost is very much real. You boost demand by cutting taxes for the middle class and giving unemployment benefits to people who really need them.

And yes this does result in a loss of revenue but so do tax cuts for the wealthy. However you are generating growth through consumer spending.

Lol the recovery has gone quite well. Close to 11 million private jobs created since Obama came to office. We are averaging 200,000 new jobs per month. Why isn't that good enough?

Oh and the investment class is doing better now more than ever? Hmmmm

How is it that you clowns can scream about all this success and yet the 1% are getting all the goodies.

Which is it ?

The problem are wages that are too low.

funny. I thought we were supposed to be praising Obama because he fixed our economy. Now the wages are too low.

you need to work on making your talking points consistent

You're a dumbass if you think I ever said Obama fixed the economy. He greatly improved it sure, but much work still needs to be done.

obama 'greatly improved the economy'?

Specifically... in what way?

His stimulus alone created 3 million jobs.