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

[Wyatt earp]

Lmao, the only one who even bothers to read your propaganda is me. Hey if it keeps you happy and alive keep it up

 

[Dad2three]

The reader should know and for the most part probably already does... that Banks do 'broker mortgages'.

It is true that banks were the very last financial party to get on board the sub-prime train to death... and that is because Banks live and die on their financial security... they are not only subject to stringent regulation in terms of their financial integrity, but their reputations is their stock on trade. Making foolish loans is indicative of foolishness, thus the presence of fools.

In financial circles; which is to say in communities of serious people, fools are usually that which is 'For Dinner'.

Thus, those whose interests are not well served by being consumed... foolishness is AVOIDED AT ALL COST.

The biggest fools in the financial market was Fannie and Freddie and the Socialists in the US Federal Government which sustained them.

This was readily demonstrated by the DECADES of coercion by the aforementioned fools, to supply SOUND: ACTUARIAL LENDING PRINCIPLE, for the Left's perverted notions of FAIRNESS... wherein it was said that "It is only 'fair' that everyone should own their own home."

That would-be Leftist Axiom is of course NONSENSE. Because what is FAIR is that those who are capable of servicing the requirements to PURCHASE A HOME, are fairly entitled to own their own home. And THAT is simply an immutable principle in nature... .

Banks therefore, being FULLY AWARE of that principle fought the Left back for DECADES... until inevitably the Left set the law up in such a way that the Banks simply had no more legal basis to reject the idiocy.

Once the Federal Government began to guarantee sub-prime loans, the legal argument was lost... and they had little choice but to participate. And even THEN... they set their exposure to the lowest possible levels, thus they suffered the lowest possible losses.

YOU KNOW WHAT A GOV'T GUARANTEE MEANS RIGHT? IT MEANT IF GOV'T BACKED THEM UP, THOSE BANKSTERS WOULDN'T HAD LOST A DIME!!! lol



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

OR THIS ONE:


The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.



Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.

Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress


OR

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

 

[Dad2three]

Fannie And Freddie were the world PREMIERE FUNDING MEANS OF SUB-PRIME LOANS!

You are a nit wit whursmykeys. Look up mortgage backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations.
(CDO) Try and educate yourself. See what kind of appetite Wall Street had for those mortgage backed securities.

So you think Fannie and Freddie cooked up all those NINA low teaser rate ARMS eh? And then forced the borrower into default. Then gladly took those homes in a foreclosure action. Is that what you think? Because those socialists wanted to give those foreclosed houses to who? Black people. Right? Black people were given nice homes taken from white people under the Community Reinvestment Act that Fannie and Freddie oversaw.
That's what the CRA was all about. Giving houses to black people. Right?


So why did lending standards decline? At least one study has suggested that the decline in standards was driven by a shift of mortgage securitization from a tightly controlled duopoly to a competitive market in which mortgage originators held the most sway.[6] The worst mortgage vintage years coincided with the periods during which Government Sponsored Enterprises (specifically Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) were at their weakest, and mortgage originators and private label securitizers were at their strongest.[6]

No one has suggested that Fannie and Freddie were in any way affiliated with the sale of securitized mortgages... no one claimed that either had any responsibility for the development or marketing of such.

Those securities were essential however to spreading the risk intrinsic those mortgages Fannie and Freddie to continue to guaranteeing the doomed mortgages... .

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.

Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

FROM THE LINK:


The massive growth of nonconventional mortgage securitization had spread at least $3.8 trillion of assets directly linked to these mortgages to financial institutions around the world by the beginning of 2007. Nonetheless it is clear that the markets, the credit ratings agencies, regulators,and most of the large banks all registered comparatively little response when housing prices started to stall out and mortgage default rates began to rise in late 2006.


Several large banks such as Merrill Lynch and Citibank continued expanding their non-prime businesses aggressively during the first two quarters of 2007.



In March of 2007 Fed chairman Ben Bernanke stated in congressional testimony that “at this juncture, the impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained.” The credit ratings agencies also continued to maintain an implausibly upbeat outlook through the first two quarters of 2007.

 

[Dad2three]

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!!

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.



And they were making what % of the payments before the cuts? What % of the payments after the cuts?

Too bad conservatives get their economic education from Rush and Fox who parrot Heritage Foundation talking points.


Top 1% had 6%-9% of the PIE from 1945-1980 but TOOK 23% by 2007. Down to about 20% today




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 !!!

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

In 2007, what percent of total income taxes did they pay?

You mean when Dubya took US to the lowest level of fed tax revenues since the Korean war, and income tax share of it was a post WW2 low as a share of revenues? And the tax bite on those increased shares the 1%ers TOOK, shrunk by about 40% since 1980?

 

[Dad2three]

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.

You do realize MOST of current US debt (public) can be traced back to Reagan, Bush and Bush POLICIES right? You know what a policy is? Like starve the beast tax cuts or ignoring regulator warnings (Reagan/bush)?

 

[Dad2three]

220 billion a Year last I read

Find out the last time it was that low???

 

[Dad2three]

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

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.

Sure, blow $800 billion plus, you'll create some jobs.
Obozo could recommend $400 billion for digging holes with shovels and $400 billion for filling them in.
You'd create lots of jobs, and at the end you'd have nothing.
The question is, what did we produce for that $800 billion?

You mean thanks to fiscal responsibility of Prez Obama

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!

despite listening to right wingers who wanted austerity (which other nations used

What is austerity and why do you think other nations are using it?

How many jobs did Dubya's tax cuts create again? lol

According to economists, the $787 billion was to stop US from going back into ANOTHER conservative (GOP) depression. It worked. How about tax cuts? lol

How many jobs did Dubya's tax cuts create again?

More than Obama's tax hikes.

the $787 billion was to stop US from going back into ANOTHER conservative (GOP) depression

Yeah, bailing out government employee unions was just what we needed to save our economy. LOL!

So no, in FACT Dubya lost 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, even stopping Dec 31 2007, Dubya had the slowest growing economy Post WW2. Weird there have been 9+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created since Obamacares was passed in Feb 2009? Isn't that the tax increases? lol

Everything you posit is right wing crap. Period

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Is that what he said? Weird, my right wing mythology fails me on it. Being he was minority member of the GOP majority House where simple majority ruled, what does it matter what Barney said?

BTW (Barney signed onto several GSE regulatory bills, the ONLY one passing EITHER GOP majority House 1997-2007, WAS ONE DUBYA THREATENED A VETO ON, HR 1461 IN 2005

I KNOW, IT'S THE DEMS WHO HATE REGULATORS BUT THE GOPers love them right?

 

[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

only a liberal, likes to spout propaganda


The bean counters changed how unemployment is counted now


Quit blowing smoke

Got it, you can't defend Reagan's record either!

 

[Dad2three]

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?

Weird, why lower the 'job creator' tax rates again? Think they use the money to create jobs in the US or park offshore to create jobs in China?

 

[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

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

True, Obama ONLY had the worst economic crash left to him since the first GOP great depression, where Dubya got to ignore MANY,. MANY warnings on 9/11 and Katrina so he gets a pass from righties!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what you call demand-side economics.

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

Stimulating businesses does stimulate both supply and demand every time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT HAPPENED AGAIN?

Ireland s Road To Ruin ... and Ours

What happened? Lots of new business and jobs in Ireland.
The big government EU is still whining about it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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!!

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.



And they were making what % of the payments before the cuts? What % of the payments after the cuts?

Too bad conservatives get their economic education from Rush and Fox who parrot Heritage Foundation talking points.


Top 1% had 6%-9% of the PIE from 1945-1980 but TOOK 23% by 2007. Down to about 20% today




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 !!!

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

In 2007, what percent of total income taxes did they pay?

You mean when Dubya took US to the lowest level of fed tax revenues since the Korean war, and income tax share of it was a post WW2 low as a share of revenues? And the tax bite on those increased shares the 1%ers TOOK, shrunk by about 40% since 1980?

And the tax bite on those increased shares the 1%ers TOOK, shrunk by about 40% since 1980?

OMG! That's horrible. The unfairness of it all will probably keep me awake tonight.

In 2007, what percent of total income taxes did the top 1% pay?

 

[Dad2three]

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!!

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.



And they were making what % of the payments before the cuts? What % of the payments after the cuts?

Too bad conservatives get their economic education from Rush and Fox who parrot Heritage Foundation talking points.


Top 1% had 6%-9% of the PIE from 1945-1980 but TOOK 23% by 2007. Down to about 20% today




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 !!!

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

In 2007, what percent of total income taxes did they pay?

You mean when Dubya took US to the lowest level of fed tax revenues since the Korean war, and income tax share of it was a post WW2 low as a share of revenues? And the tax bite on those increased shares the 1%ers TOOK, shrunk by about 40% since 1980?

And the tax bite on those increased shares the 1%ers TOOK, shrunk by about 40% since 1980?

OMG! That's horrible. The unfairness of it all will probably keep me awake tonight.

In 2007, what percent of total income taxes did the top 1% pay?

So as usual, you want to use the right wingers fav tools, false premises, distorions or lies. Shocking you can't actually refuter TRUTH AND FACTS

 

[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

What happened? Lots of new business and jobs in Ireland.
The big government EU is still whining about it.

loll Sure, that's why they crashed HARD. I guess with 20% of your GDP being ONLY based on money flowing through your nation and right wing economics ALWAYS failing, You wouldn't understand what happened with their bubble and bust either!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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.

Sure, blow $800 billion plus, you'll create some jobs.
Obozo could recommend $400 billion for digging holes with shovels and $400 billion for filling them in.
You'd create lots of jobs, and at the end you'd have nothing.
The question is, what did we produce for that $800 billion?

You mean thanks to fiscal responsibility of Prez Obama

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!

despite listening to right wingers who wanted austerity (which other nations used

What is austerity and why do you think other nations are using it?

How many jobs did Dubya's tax cuts create again? lol

According to economists, the $787 billion was to stop US from going back into ANOTHER conservative (GOP) depression. It worked. How about tax cuts? lol

How many jobs did Dubya's tax cuts create again?

More than Obama's tax hikes.

the $787 billion was to stop US from going back into ANOTHER conservative (GOP) depression

Yeah, bailing out government employee unions was just what we needed to save our economy. LOL!

So no, in FACT Dubya lost 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, even stopping Dec 31 2007, Dubya had the slowest growing economy Post WW2. Weird there have been 9+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created since Obamacares was passed in Feb 2009? Isn't that the tax increases? lol

Everything you posit is right wing crap. Period

Weird there have been 9+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created since Obamacares was passed in Feb 2009? Isn't that the tax increases? lol

Obamacare is responsible for 9 million new jobs?

Wow, your brain damage has worsened.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.



And they were making what % of the payments before the cuts? What % of the payments after the cuts?

Too bad conservatives get their economic education from Rush and Fox who parrot Heritage Foundation talking points.


Top 1% had 6%-9% of the PIE from 1945-1980 but TOOK 23% by 2007. Down to about 20% today




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 !!!

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

In 2007, what percent of total income taxes did they pay?

You mean when Dubya took US to the lowest level of fed tax revenues since the Korean war, and income tax share of it was a post WW2 low as a share of revenues? And the tax bite on those increased shares the 1%ers TOOK, shrunk by about 40% since 1980?

And the tax bite on those increased shares the 1%ers TOOK, shrunk by about 40% since 1980?

OMG! That's horrible. The unfairness of it all will probably keep me awake tonight.

In 2007, what percent of total income taxes did the top 1% pay?

So as usual, you want to use the right wingers fav tools, false premises, distorions or lies. Shocking you can't actually refuter TRUTH AND FACTS

Thanks for posting a chart that has nothing to do with my question.
Try again?
In 2007, what percent of total income taxes did the top 1% pay?

 

[Dad2three]

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

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.

Sure, blow $800 billion plus, you'll create some jobs.
Obozo could recommend $400 billion for digging holes with shovels and $400 billion for filling them in.
You'd create lots of jobs, and at the end you'd have nothing.
The question is, what did we produce for that $800 billion?

You mean thanks to fiscal responsibility of Prez Obama

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!

despite listening to right wingers who wanted austerity (which other nations used

What is austerity and why do you think other nations are using it?

How many jobs did Dubya's tax cuts create again? lol

According to economists, the $787 billion was to stop US from going back into ANOTHER conservative (GOP) depression. It worked. How about tax cuts? lol

How many jobs did Dubya's tax cuts create again?

More than Obama's tax hikes.

the $787 billion was to stop US from going back into ANOTHER conservative (GOP) depression

Yeah, bailing out government employee unions was just what we needed to save our economy. LOL!

So no, in FACT Dubya lost 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, even stopping Dec 31 2007, Dubya had the slowest growing economy Post WW2. Weird there have been 9+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created since Obamacares was passed in Feb 2009? Isn't that the tax increases? lol

Everything you posit is right wing crap. Period

Weird there have been 9+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created since Obamacares was passed in Feb 2009? Isn't that the tax increases? lol

Obamacare is responsible for 9 million new jobs?

Wow, your brain damage has worsened.

Sure, THAT was my posit *shaking head*

Finding an honest right winger is about as likely as hitting the lottery

Weird, I thought Dubya's tax cuts were SUPPOSED to create jobs though? lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

What happened? Lots of new business and jobs in Ireland.
The big government EU is still whining about it.

loll Sure, that's why they crashed HARD. I guess with 20% of your GDP being ONLY based on money flowing through your nation and right wing economics ALWAYS failing, You wouldn't understand what happened with their bubble and bust either!

Sure, that's why they crashed HARD.

They crashed hard because they lowered their tax rates and had a jobs boom years earlier?
I guess you can show the highest rate countries didn't crash hard?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Too bad conservatives get their economic education from Rush and Fox who parrot Heritage Foundation talking points.


Top 1% had 6%-9% of the PIE from 1945-1980 but TOOK 23% by 2007. Down to about 20% today




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 !!!

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

In 2007, what percent of total income taxes did they pay?

You mean when Dubya took US to the lowest level of fed tax revenues since the Korean war, and income tax share of it was a post WW2 low as a share of revenues? And the tax bite on those increased shares the 1%ers TOOK, shrunk by about 40% since 1980?

And the tax bite on those increased shares the 1%ers TOOK, shrunk by about 40% since 1980?

OMG! That's horrible. The unfairness of it all will probably keep me awake tonight.

In 2007, what percent of total income taxes did the top 1% pay?

So as usual, you want to use the right wingers fav tools, false premises, distorions or lies. Shocking you can't actually refuter TRUTH AND FACTS

Thanks for posting a chart that has nothing to do with my question.
Try again?
In 2007, what percent of total income taxes did the top 1% pay?

MOST of them... as the top 1% have, since the income tax was saddled upon the nation.