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

[Dad2three]

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

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

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

the "liberals" who created America created a nation with a limited government so people would govern themselves. The progressives coopted the term in the 1930s when people saw them foe the totalitarians they were.

conservatives fight to restore the limited government of the nation. We fight to conserve the constitution and the republic our Founders established because we love liberty and understand the need for checks on human nature

Right wing noise devoid of knowledge of history or FACTS

Conservatives prefer US going back to that thing the Founders got rid of, the Articles of Confederation, the thing that limited Fed powers




(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.




Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.

It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

Republicans only econonic solutions are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

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

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs

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


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

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

Here's my question for you...

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

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

CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

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

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

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





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

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

God but you're an idiot! 80% of economists agree that spending almost 800 billion dollars created more jobs than NOT spending 800 billion? Well...DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't believe Elmendorf made that statement! Seriously...if he's THAT stupid why is he in charge of the Congressional Budget Office?

You know why those Republicans were "skeptical"? Because the Obama Administration's "stimulus" had created so few jobs that they had to invent a new economic statistic "jobs created or saved" to obscure just how few jobs they actually created with the billions and billions that they spent.

Weird. How many jobs did Dubya's UNFUNDED (cutting spending) create? lol

 

[Dad2three]

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

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

You lose again.

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

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


The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

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


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

Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan

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


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


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

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

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

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


EVEN WITH HIS 11 TAX REVENUES INCREASES?

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

Ronnie took US to 17.8%

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


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


Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

And you morons bash Heritage, with all those left wing biased LIES.

Good MORE ad homs from you. Shocking

 

[Dad2three]

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

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

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

the "liberals" who created America created a nation with a limited government so people would govern themselves. The progressives coopted the term in the 1930s when people saw them foe the totalitarians they were.

conservatives fight to restore the limited government of the nation. We fight to conserve the constitution and the republic our Founders established because we love liberty and understand the need for checks on human nature

You lie! Conservatives want a police state, military industrial complex for the elite to use against us depriving us of our wealth.

what wealth does the 99% have? I've been hearing progressives say for years that the 1% have all of it

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!



80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.


Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Riddle me this how are childrens childrens pay off The massive interest that Obama and the feds created in the past 6 years? It is massive.

 

[Dad2three]

Extending uemployment benefits is an emergency measure.

No... "Emergency" was the rationalization used to implement the measures which amount to debilitating subsidies.

They reduce DEMAND for JOBS. Thus the reason for sustained high unemployment... accompanied with record low labor-participation.

Here is what you cons are too dense to understand. The economy lost 8 million jobs in that recession.

That was no recession scamp. That was a catastrophic failure of socialist policy which resulted in the crippling of the financial markets. That was an absolute certainty... the moment that sound lending principle was supplanted with that twisted notion of fairness, and the accountability of 'losses' was transferred to the Federal Government, the crash was inevitable. There was literally no way that it was NOT going to happen. The same is true for the looming explosion of hyper-inflation and the total destruction of the US Dollar as a result of the Federal reserve printing trillions of dollars, sustaining the equity and debt markets, artificially tabling interest rates. The rates must go up and when they begin to do so, they will shift slowly then explode, beyond the means of the market to sustain... and what you saw in 2008 will look like an economic boom.

Those jobs were GONE. They didn't go to anyone else.

Of course, that is what is reasonably expected when a culture rejects sound actuarial lending principle for perverse notions of 'fairness', which in practice discouraged fairness, thus creating the imbalance that crippled the system which was formerly sustained by the principles that the Relativists rejected.

That means most of those people were hopelessly unemployed...

Nonsense... those people had been hysterically over-employed. And when the market could no longer sustain those jobs, those jobs did indeed vanish.

But that is nothing new... nor is it fatal. It's what contractors all over the world go through every time a big project is completed and another big job does not replace it. What do ya do? Pray someone sends you a check or go find another job?


Guess what happens to those who sit around praying for someone to send them a check? They lose their edge and fade into bankruptcy. No one bails them out. Happens every single day, has forever and will continue forever.

Buy subsidizing those people, they robbed the market of their skills... their knowledge, their means to produce. And guess that that does? It reduced production. Now all that has to have happened to prove my point is that US Production had to be stagnate for an extended period. I'd say that 6 years of economic stagnation proves the thesis. But hey... in fairness, there's no other way it can work. So... it's not magic... it's just 54 years of watching it happen. Eventually, ya figure it out.

There's nothing complex about any of this. The world operates on fundamental principles. There are those who embrace them consistently and as a consequence profit consistently and there's those who do not... and consequently do not.

Yeah, it was 'fairness' that created ANOTHER Bankster bubble WORLD WIDE *shaking head*


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

•Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.

These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.


Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture

 

[Dad2three]

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.
Barney Frank said, “These two entities … are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” and, “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.”

lol


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

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

 

[Dad2three]

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.

That's like the complete opposite of what happened.
If debt fueling an economy made it work Obama's economy would be in the stratosphere, as he's piled on more debt than any other president.
As for your contention of soaring unemployment under Reagan, I guess the BLS just didnt get that memo. Her'es the actual graph:

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


Reagan created the recession began under HIM after his disastrous tax cuts.


Supply Side Economics

supply side did not work under reagan nor bush.the worse recession happened under REAGAN

 

[Wyatt earp]

220 billion a Year last I read

 

[TooTall]

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

I remember Barney Frank saying everything was just fine and didn't need any changes.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

That's like the complete opposite of what happened.
If debt fueling an economy made it work Obama's economy would be in the stratosphere, as he's piled on more debt than any other president.
As for your contention of soaring unemployment under Reagan, I guess the BLS just didnt get that memo. Her'es the actual graph:

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


Reagan created the recession began under HIM after his disastrous tax cuts.


Supply Side Economics

supply side did not work under reagan nor bush.the worse recession happened under REAGAN

only a liberal, likes to spout propaganda


The bean counters changed how unemployment is counted now


Quit blowing smoke

 

[TooTall]

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

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

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

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


The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy

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


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

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy Economic Policy Institute



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

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

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

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


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

Bush gave a tax cut to the bottom 90%. Did you forget that again?

ONCE MORE:

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

The more you make the more you get if your tax rate is lowered. That is the way it has always been. What's your point?

 

[Dad2three]

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

Damn you can't critically think. A law around for 30+ years WEAKENED enforcement under Dubya caused it? lol


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008


“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards foA "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "r U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?

A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "


http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf



MORE ON DUBYA'S REGULATOR FAILURE HERE


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

 

[Dad2three]

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!

Yeah Ronnie TRIPLING all previous Prez debt wasn't bad. Nor Dubya doubling it. But Obama inheriting the worst fin crisis since the first GOP great depression AND still keeping US debt at a modest 75% growth over his 8 years (Oct 1 2009-Oct 1 2017) , THAT'S considered horrible. Forget the economy handed to Obama or the UNFUNDED wars or UNFUNDED tax cuts, lol

 

[TooTall]

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!

Yeah Ronnie TRIPLING all previous Prez debt wasn't bad. Nor Dubya doubling it. But Obama inheriting the worst fin crisis since the first GOP great depression AND still keeping US debt at a modest 75% growth over his 8 years (Oct 1 2009-Oct 1 2017) , THAT'S considered horrible. Forget the economy handed to Obama or the UNFUNDED wars or UNFUNDED tax cuts, lol

Poor Obama. Bush had Katrina and 911 to deal with in case you forgot.

 

[Dad2three]

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

Sure IF you think the economy dumping 9%+ the last quarter of 2008 was 'recovery' or losing 4+ million jobs in 2009 Bubba

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Lies from the righties. Shocking

The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 in taxes for every $3 in spending cuts


...Despite Reagan’s claim that he made a deal with the Democrats, the Senate at the time was controlled by Republicans. Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas — then chairman of the Finance Committee and later the majority leader and Republican nominee for president — was a driving force behind a big tax increase because he was concerned about soaring deficits after Reagan had boosted defense spending and slashed taxes.


The Pinocchio Test

It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.


If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.

Four Pinocchios

The historical myth that Reagan raised 1 of taxes in exchange for 3 of spending cuts - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

Republicans only econonic solutions are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

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%.

WHAT HAPPENED AGAIN?

Ireland s Road To Ruin ... and Ours

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Good post but not actually 'deregulation' that caused the problem, but REGULATOR failure of the guy in charge of SEC, FBI, HUD, etc. They called him Dubya. Like Reagan did in 1984 (ignoring Mr Gray's warnings on the S&L crisis), Dubya ignored regulator warnings as, like Reagan, he didn't 'believe in' regulator OR Gov't intrusion on stopping bad players in the markets

 

[Dad2three]

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.

What color is the sky in your world?

Fannie And Freddie were the world PREMIERE FUNDING MEANS OF SUB-PRIME LOANS! They were THE ORIGINATORS OF SUCH... they hired private mortgage BROKERS TO PRODUCE SUB-PRIME LOANS: BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT MORTGAGE BROKERS DO: THEY BROKER MORTGAGES!

ROFLMNAO! This notion that Mortgage Brokers just went out and made sub-prime deals through their Snidely Whiplash Capitalist GREED is FANTASY!

Fannie and FREDDIE were THE GUARANTORS... THEY are THE REASON THAT THOSE BROKERS >COULD< and DID broker those LOANS! Because Freddie and Fannie GUARANTEED THE LOANS! So, there was NO REASON (Beyond the obvious, which is that such is unprincipled, thus unsustainable and will inevitably lead to catastrophe and financial collapse) to NOT MAKE THE LOANS: BECAUSE THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS GUARANTEEING THAT THE LOOMING LOSSES WOULD BE PAID BY THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Which is inevitably WHY the loans HAD TO BE SECURITIZED... to spread the pending losses across the markets... because THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS INCAPABLE OF PAYING THE TAB!

It was a grand conspiracy... of monumental stupidity. And it was a WHOLESALE RESULT OF SOCIALIST POLICY!

ROFLMNAO!

Folks, it is becoming impossible to under estimate the propensity for unbridled foolishness... on the Left.

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.


•Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.



Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.


•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture