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

[Dad2three]

I find it rather embarrassing to have to educate someone on who and what Hugo Chavez was, Dad. If you're going to go through life being THAT ignorant...you might want to avoid chat rooms like this where your ignorance will be exposed!

Stop projecting dummy. Get out of the right wing bubble and grow a brain

 

[Oldstyle]

The "stupid" in Dad is rather profound. He's steeped in progressive theology and no amount of pointing out what nonsense he's spouting is going to change his view.

He's one of the morons who thinks wealth is a finite thing and if one person has it...it means someone else doesn't!

More ad homs from the low informed. Shocking

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 !!!

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

What's amusing about your rants, Dad...is how they ignore the fact that income disparity has been worse under Barack Obama than it ever was under Bush or Reagan. If the problem is conservatives then why didn't your Progressives make things better when you controlled the Oval Office, the Senate and the House?

People like Barack Obama and Peter Gruber laugh at people like you because you actually BUY the line of bullshit that they put out. When Gruber talks about Americans not being smart enough to understand economics he's talking about YOU!

Yes, oh low info one, we ALL know the economy turns on a dime, and the consequences felt 2009-2011 were blamed on Obama *shaking head*

'Progressives' controlled the Congress? Obama, the second best conservative Prez since Ike (only BJ Bill was better) is a progressive? lol

BTW, Dems had a super majority 24 days TOTAL in 2009, AS the GOP put defeating Obama as their #1 priority.

It's simply an economic FACT...Barack Obama has overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. Historically the economy rebounds rather dramatically from recessions...however this time due to the agenda pushed by Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi there hasn't been a rebound. As a matter of fact if you factored out the growth in the economy due to the low price of oil and gas (something Obama did his best to prevent) and the creation of jobs in States governed by Republican Governors promoting a pro-jobs agenda...the numbers for this Administration on both the economy and on job creation would go from poor to absolutely pathetic.

OK, So 'new metrics' get used, lol

Go away wing nutter. THE DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR POLICIES HAD 8 YEARS. WHAT HAPPENED? Yes, those states with NATURAL RESOURCES are doing well. AND? lol.

I THOUGHT AFTER 8 YEARS OF THE DUBYA, JOBS WOULD'VE BEEN EVERYWHERE? WHAT HAPPENED? Now you ***** that Obama and comp haven't fixed the mess the GOP handed him fast enough, AS they worked against EVERYTHING he presented???

I keep hearing the same refrain from you Obama enthusiasts, Dad and it always makes me smile. I mean I guess you could make a case for the whole "give Barry some time to fix things" mantra at year two of his first term...but when you were four years into that term and the economy was still languishing and people simply weren't finding the jobs they so desperately wanted...don't you think that excuse starts to become a bit weak? When you pass year two of Barry's SECOND term that excuse begins to border on farce!

Tell me this, Dad...what plan has Barack Obama put forward to create jobs in the past four years? I bet you can't even tell me who Barack Obama's Chief Economic Adviser is at this point. You know why that is? Because this Administration hasn't had a viable plan to grow the economy in so long that NOBODY knows who took over after Larry Summers and Christina Romer both tucked tail and ran back to their tenured jobs in academia.

 

[Dad2three]

More ad homs from the low informed. Shocking

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 !!!

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

What's amusing about your rants, Dad...is how they ignore the fact that income disparity has been worse under Barack Obama than it ever was under Bush or Reagan. If the problem is conservatives then why didn't your Progressives make things better when you controlled the Oval Office, the Senate and the House?

People like Barack Obama and Peter Gruber laugh at people like you because you actually BUY the line of bullshit that they put out. When Gruber talks about Americans not being smart enough to understand economics he's talking about YOU!

Yes, oh low info one, we ALL know the economy turns on a dime, and the consequences felt 2009-2011 were blamed on Obama *shaking head*

'Progressives' controlled the Congress? Obama, the second best conservative Prez since Ike (only BJ Bill was better) is a progressive? lol

BTW, Dems had a super majority 24 days TOTAL in 2009, AS the GOP put defeating Obama as their #1 priority.

It's simply an economic FACT...Barack Obama has overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. Historically the economy rebounds rather dramatically from recessions...however this time due to the agenda pushed by Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi there hasn't been a rebound. As a matter of fact if you factored out the growth in the economy due to the low price of oil and gas (something Obama did his best to prevent) and the creation of jobs in States governed by Republican Governors promoting a pro-jobs agenda...the numbers for this Administration on both the economy and on job creation would go from poor to absolutely pathetic.

OK, So 'new metrics' get used, lol

Go away wing nutter. THE DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR POLICIES HAD 8 YEARS. WHAT HAPPENED? Yes, those states with NATURAL RESOURCES are doing well. AND? lol.

I THOUGHT AFTER 8 YEARS OF THE DUBYA, JOBS WOULD'VE BEEN EVERYWHERE? WHAT HAPPENED? Now you ***** that Obama and comp haven't fixed the mess the GOP handed him fast enough, AS they worked against EVERYTHING he presented???

I keep hearing the same refrain from you Obama enthusiasts, Dad and it always makes me smile. I mean I guess you could make a case for the whole "give Barry some time to fix things" mantra at year two of his first term...but when you were four years into that term and the economy was still languishing and people simply weren't finding the jobs they so desperately wanted...don't you think that excuse starts to become a bit weak? When you pass year two of Barry's SECOND term that excuse begins to border on farce!

Tell me this, Dad...what plan has Barack Obama put forward to create jobs in the past four years? I bet you can't even tell me who Barack Obama's Chief Economic Adviser is at this point. You know why that is? Because this Administration hasn't had a viable plan to grow the economy in so long that NOBODY knows who took over after Larry Summers and Christina Romer both tucked tail and ran back to their tenured jobs in academia.

So AGAIN, you can't explain why after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies, why the US went into the biggest recession since the first GOP great depression. Instead you want to know why Obama/Dems haven't fixed it faster, AS the conservatives/GOP has refused to help US out of the hole they dug. Got it!

 

[Spare_change]

So no, the usual right wing crap, you can't defend conservative policy either!

Let me help you --- it's time for your US economy tutorial. If you could, ask Dragonlady to sit in, because both of you have demonstrated a very shallow understanding.

It is your pronouncement that the way out of our current economic malaise is to "increase demand". Of course, you haven't talked about HOW you are going to "increase demand", but that's okay. Frankly, you gave yourself away when you said "increase demand", since that is a microeconomic concept that has no place in macroeconomic management. You are thinking of the classic 'supply and demand' model popular in microeconomics, rather than the aggregate demand-aggregate supply model of macroeconomics. Most assuredly, they are two completely different theories and bear little or no relationship to each other.

For purposes of this discussion, we are going to use Real GDP as a measure of economic health. We know Real GDP is defined as today's GDP when measured in some past year's dollars. GDP is made up of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G), and net exports (NX), so the formula is Y=C+I+G+NX. Increasing any one of those will drive up the GDP. I'm going to assume that you are following the classic Keynesian model and proposing to increase consumption by increasing government spending.

Here's the problem - increasing consumption by pouring more money into the economy is self-defeating. It has a short-term positive impact that is quickly overridden by the consequences of such a move, as you shall see. First, while the left claims to believe in the Keynesian model, they, in fact, don't follow it. The classic Keynesian model proposes to 1) increase in-pocket money for the citizens by cutting taxes, and 2) further increase money availability by spending tax money on government projects. So, one at a time ...

Increase in-pocket money for the citizens by cutting taxes - given that 47% of the citizenry doesn't pay any taxes, this obviously won't work. You end up giving tax breaks to only those who actually pay taxes (thus, the hue and cry about tax cuts for the rich --- hell, they are the only ones who pay taxes, so, logically, any tax cut is for them!).

Increase money availability by spending tax money on government projects. Logic says - lower taxes, increased spending - makes no sense. There's less money to spend. I will agree that increased government spending can have a short term positive impact, if it is held under control. When the economy starts to heat back up, the spending has to stopped (or funded by revenue only). However, when is the last time you saw our government slow down spending? Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are able to rein in spending - they have too many votes to buy! They don't - so, this has to, necessarily, be a non-starter. If it doesn't, you end up with an $18 trillion national debt.

So, if that model doesn't work - and we have plenty of historical proof to say it doesn't (the most classic example is LBJ's sabotage of an effective and working economy, though Bush, aided by Democratic congressional interference with the market methodologies did a pretty damn good job, too) - what can we do? We need to kick start it somehow.

The GDP is driven by aggregate prices. Simply, the lower the price of an item, the more that will be bought, thus, the more that will need to be produced. Since we know price controls don't work (Nixon tried it), the answer is to incentivize the producer. Create more shirts, the price of shirts go down. The price of shirts go down, the more money in the pocket of the consumer. the more money in the consumer's pocket, the more he is likely to buy something else (this is called the wealth effect - the consumer feels 'wealthier). The more money the consumer has, the more he will invest. The money he invests, the cheaper it is to borrow money and increase production (this is called the Interest effect). The more money there is to invest, the cheaper the interest rates. The cheaper the interest rates, the great potential for us to have foreign investment, where the return on investment is higher (called the Foreign Exchange effect) You increase C (go back to the formula - consumption). Increased consumption puts more people to work, and drives up the GDP.

The RIGHT answer is a carefully orchestrated combination of the two --- with the ABSOLUTE caveat that government spending has to be funded by revenue whenever possible. Keynesian economics, when applied during a time of recession, can be very effective. Supply side management of a recovering and boisterous economy is equally effective. The government borrowing money is ALWAYS bad - but a necessary evil sometimes to stimulate a moribund economy.

Now, the first thing I'm going to hear is "You didn't give a reference!!!" You're right, I didn't - this is simple level one hundred macroeconomic theory. This is already longer than War and Peace - references would have made it harder to follow. There are probably a thousand books out there that will tell you all this. I'm particularly fond of the Khan Academy course on macroeconomics - it's short, concise, and covers all the salient points. Failing that, simply go to the local library and pick up any macroeconomics 101 textbook. If you think I said something wrong, find a reference, and we'll discuss it.

Oh ... BTW -- there ARE Republicans who do understand economics.

A FUKKING LIAR. SHOCKING. $18 TRILLION DEBT? Oh I guess starve the beast policies like UNFUNDED tax cuts and UNFUNDED wars and Medicare expansions do that?


RECORD CORP PROFITS? ARE THE 1%ERS HURTING? IS THE US ECONOMY TO SMALL OR SHRINKING? OR IS THE MONEY IN THE WRONG FUKKING HANDS?



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 !!!

"So, if that model doesn't work - and we have plenty of historical proof to say it doesn't (the most classic example is LBJ's sabotage of an effective and working economy, though Bush, aided by Democratic congressional interference with the market methodologies did a pretty damn good job, too) - what can we do? We need to kick start it somehow."



PLEASE LIST THESE THINGS YOU SPEAK OF, ESPECIALLY DEMS 'CONGRESSIONAL INTERFERENCE'? LOL

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.



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


June 16, 2005

The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops

The global housing boom In come the waves The Economist

BUT YES, DUBYA DID CHEER-LEAD FOR THE BANKSTERS AND PULL REGULATORS OFF THE BEAT AS HE FOUGHT ALL 50 STATES WHO WANTED TO REIGN THE BANKSTERS

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

Absolute nonsense ... accompanied by the expected name calling, vulgarities, and BIG PRINT.

Get a grip ....

 

[Spare_change]

Spare change assumes that those of us on the left want government spending and lots of it. That is what we call a "false premise". There were a lot of them in his post.

What is needed is government investment in infrastructure and education. And not education that views science as witchery and teaches that the Earth is 6000 years old. U.S. Education starting lagging behind other countries when parents starting deciding what they wanted their children to learn.

It's long past the time for this experimental patchwork quilt of education with public, charter and religious schools competing for students, to end. It's been an unmitigated disaster, creating one of the most expensive education systems in the world, but with the result that U.S. students are falling behind Europe and Asia in terms of quality of education. And they fall further behind each year.

.

You have your own fallacies.
Government does not "invest" in anything. Government spends money. Your call for a federal takeowver of the education system is a call for spending more money. So SpareChange was right on that count.
The Founders set up a system of a limited federal government, with most functions properly left to the states. They wanted the states to be laboratories of policy. And it works. Vermont just demonstrated that single payer won't work. At least that's out of the way.

Really? Why not keep the Articles of Confederation IF that's what the Founders wanted? lol

Vermont? lol YOU MEAN WHEN THE POOR AND SENIORS ARE ALREADY COVERED? AND A SMALL STATE WITH MANY ISSUES FACING IT? WELL THAT DOOMS IT IN THE US, RIGHT? THE MOST EXPENSIVE H/C NATION IN THE WORLD, BY A LOT!!!



Care to point to ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C? ANY POLL? EVER?

Okay .... you're allowed your own opinion, but not your own facts.

You brought up healthcare .... how much did the US spend on health care? Not on medical research, on healthcare. Now factor that against the standard of living in any two countries you wish ... let me know what you find out.

 

[Spare_change]

What's amusing about your rants, Dad...is how they ignore the fact that income disparity has been worse under Barack Obama than it ever was under Bush or Reagan. If the problem is conservatives then why didn't your Progressives make things better when you controlled the Oval Office, the Senate and the House?

People like Barack Obama and Peter Gruber laugh at people like you because you actually BUY the line of bullshit that they put out. When Gruber talks about Americans not being smart enough to understand economics he's talking about YOU!

Yes, oh low info one, we ALL know the economy turns on a dime, and the consequences felt 2009-2011 were blamed on Obama *shaking head*

'Progressives' controlled the Congress? Obama, the second best conservative Prez since Ike (only BJ Bill was better) is a progressive? lol

BTW, Dems had a super majority 24 days TOTAL in 2009, AS the GOP put defeating Obama as their #1 priority.

It's simply an economic FACT...Barack Obama has overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. Historically the economy rebounds rather dramatically from recessions...however this time due to the agenda pushed by Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi there hasn't been a rebound. As a matter of fact if you factored out the growth in the economy due to the low price of oil and gas (something Obama did his best to prevent) and the creation of jobs in States governed by Republican Governors promoting a pro-jobs agenda...the numbers for this Administration on both the economy and on job creation would go from poor to absolutely pathetic.

OK, So 'new metrics' get used, lol

Go away wing nutter. THE DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR POLICIES HAD 8 YEARS. WHAT HAPPENED? Yes, those states with NATURAL RESOURCES are doing well. AND? lol.

I THOUGHT AFTER 8 YEARS OF THE DUBYA, JOBS WOULD'VE BEEN EVERYWHERE? WHAT HAPPENED? Now you ***** that Obama and comp haven't fixed the mess the GOP handed him fast enough, AS they worked against EVERYTHING he presented???

I keep hearing the same refrain from you Obama enthusiasts, Dad and it always makes me smile. I mean I guess you could make a case for the whole "give Barry some time to fix things" mantra at year two of his first term...but when you were four years into that term and the economy was still languishing and people simply weren't finding the jobs they so desperately wanted...don't you think that excuse starts to become a bit weak? When you pass year two of Barry's SECOND term that excuse begins to border on farce!

Tell me this, Dad...what plan has Barack Obama put forward to create jobs in the past four years? I bet you can't even tell me who Barack Obama's Chief Economic Adviser is at this point. You know why that is? Because this Administration hasn't had a viable plan to grow the economy in so long that NOBODY knows who took over after Larry Summers and Christina Romer both tucked tail and ran back to their tenured jobs in academia.

So AGAIN, you can't explain why after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies, why the US went into the biggest recession since the first GOP great depression. Instead you want to know why Obama/Dems haven't fixed it faster, AS the conservatives/GOP has refused to help US out of the hole they dug. Got it!

Actually, I can explain it ... you just don't want to hear it.

 

[Spare_change]

When government spends money on infrastructure, that's an investment to improve conditions for both the people and for business.

When government invests one education, that helps prepare the next generation for the jobs they will hold. If the current generation doesn't have the skills needed the that's a direct result of 30 years of cost cutting by Republican administrations both at the federal and state level. Cuts to public education are shortsighted at best, and a total abdication of a basic government responsibility.

The income gap has widened under Obama because the overhaul of the tax system begun under Reagan had never been reversed, and since Congress has been controlled by Republicans since 2 years into Obama's administration, there was no opportunity to do it. The party of "No" wouldn't hear of a tax restructuring which would result in reversing the transfer of wealth to their richest constituents.

Obviously, you didn't do your lessons today .... could you, perchance, tell us how that invest in education thing is working out for us? No one proposes cuts to public education - they propose a more effective use of the funds currently wasted trying to fix a broken education system.

Face it --- you had your chance, you fucked it up --- now, let the adults fix it for you.

 

[Spare_change]

When government spends money on infrastructure, that's an investment to improve conditions for both the people and for business.

When government invests one education, that helps prepare the next generation for the jobs they will hold. If the current generation doesn't have the skills needed the that's a direct result of 30 years of cost cutting by Republican administrations both at the federal and state level. Cuts to public education are shortsighted at best, and a total abdication of a basic government responsibility.

The income gap has widened under Obama because the overhaul of the tax system begun under Reagan had never been reversed, and since Congress has been controlled by Republicans since 2 years into Obama's administration, there was no opportunity to do it. The party of "No" wouldn't hear of a tax restructuring which would result in reversing the transfer of wealth to their richest constituents.

Let me get this straight, Dragonlady...over the past 30 years the American education system has been taken over by progressives...yet you want to blame the lack of "skills" on Republicans? We spend more per student than any of the countries we compete against yet you want to put the blame on Republicans not giving enough money to the educational system?

Is that REALLY what you want to go with?

TAKEN OVER BY PROGRESSIVES???/ lmaorog


I wish I could live in fantasyland like the GOP. Sadly, I have to live with facts and reality.


The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.

Is THIS the best you got? IS this it???

This isn't a contribution to an adult discussion ... this is a childish little temper tantrum just because you didn't picked to play dodgeball.

Grow the hell up ....

 

[Spare_change]

I find it rather embarrassing to have to educate someone on who and what Hugo Chavez was, Dad. If you're going to go through life being THAT ignorant...you might want to avoid chat rooms like this where your ignorance will be exposed!

Stop projecting dummy. Get out of the right wing bubble and grow a brain

Quality input ..... very low quality, but at least it's quality. You must be ever so proud ...

 

[Ernie S.]

We spend more per student than any of the countries we compete against yet you want to put the blame on Republicans not giving enough money to the educational system?

People want to blame the teachers and their unions for poor student performance. Some claim we are not spending enough money on students and that's why they perform poorly.

The fact is, until the students putting their asses in a chair, come to school ready, willing and able to learn, there is no solution to our education problem.

But rather than politicians telling parents that they are sending an inferior product (poorly prepared students) to the school system, we will throw money at it and blame the teachers and whoever else can be blamed.

But we won't be fixing the problem any time soon You better hope YOUR kids and grand-kids are in the prepared and willing to learn group. No education or skills in this world today and you are screwed. But there is really no one who should be blamed but the kids parents.

What's the biggest difference between a super successful school system and a poor performing one? The importance given kids about being educated and the preparation and willingness of the kid to be educated.

Quality education starts at home.

AND conservatives HATE the poor. Help create a living wage so we don't have to subsidize McD's or Walmarts? How dare we do that. HALF OF US MAKE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY. Those making enough to even file income taxes!!!

We don't hate the poor at all. We just detest fulfilling their responsibilities for them.
We got an education. We didn't have multiple babies by multiple mates. We went to work every day with the purpose of becoming good at what we do so our labor would be worth more. We saved money and bought homes. We raised our kids to be responsible adults. We didn't let drugs rule our lives. we didn't steal to get what we wanted or felt we deserved.
WE played the games by the rules and are sick and tired of being penalized in order to support those that didn't

We would much rather you played by the same rules and enjoyed the same success because frankly, there's no profit to be made off poor people.
I have a product to sell. If you're poor, you can't afford it and some of those that should be able to, can't because they are paying exorbitant taxes to support those that think they are entitled to the fruits of the labor of others while they sit on their asses and collect checks.

A "living wage" is bullshit. You have no right to expect to support a family by asking people if they want fries with that. If you're making 9 bucks an hour flipping burgers, you're overpaid. Get yourself marketable skills, make yourself worth more to an employer than a burger flipper.

 

[Oldstyle]

What's amusing about your rants, Dad...is how they ignore the fact that income disparity has been worse under Barack Obama than it ever was under Bush or Reagan. If the problem is conservatives then why didn't your Progressives make things better when you controlled the Oval Office, the Senate and the House?

People like Barack Obama and Peter Gruber laugh at people like you because you actually BUY the line of bullshit that they put out. When Gruber talks about Americans not being smart enough to understand economics he's talking about YOU!

Yes, oh low info one, we ALL know the economy turns on a dime, and the consequences felt 2009-2011 were blamed on Obama *shaking head*

'Progressives' controlled the Congress? Obama, the second best conservative Prez since Ike (only BJ Bill was better) is a progressive? lol

BTW, Dems had a super majority 24 days TOTAL in 2009, AS the GOP put defeating Obama as their #1 priority.

It's simply an economic FACT...Barack Obama has overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. Historically the economy rebounds rather dramatically from recessions...however this time due to the agenda pushed by Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi there hasn't been a rebound. As a matter of fact if you factored out the growth in the economy due to the low price of oil and gas (something Obama did his best to prevent) and the creation of jobs in States governed by Republican Governors promoting a pro-jobs agenda...the numbers for this Administration on both the economy and on job creation would go from poor to absolutely pathetic.

OK, So 'new metrics' get used, lol

Go away wing nutter. THE DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR POLICIES HAD 8 YEARS. WHAT HAPPENED? Yes, those states with NATURAL RESOURCES are doing well. AND? lol.

I THOUGHT AFTER 8 YEARS OF THE DUBYA, JOBS WOULD'VE BEEN EVERYWHERE? WHAT HAPPENED? Now you ***** that Obama and comp haven't fixed the mess the GOP handed him fast enough, AS they worked against EVERYTHING he presented???

I keep hearing the same refrain from you Obama enthusiasts, Dad and it always makes me smile. I mean I guess you could make a case for the whole "give Barry some time to fix things" mantra at year two of his first term...but when you were four years into that term and the economy was still languishing and people simply weren't finding the jobs they so desperately wanted...don't you think that excuse starts to become a bit weak? When you pass year two of Barry's SECOND term that excuse begins to border on farce!

Tell me this, Dad...what plan has Barack Obama put forward to create jobs in the past four years? I bet you can't even tell me who Barack Obama's Chief Economic Adviser is at this point. You know why that is? Because this Administration hasn't had a viable plan to grow the economy in so long that NOBODY knows who took over after Larry Summers and Christina Romer both tucked tail and ran back to their tenured jobs in academia.

So AGAIN, you can't explain why after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies, why the US went into the biggest recession since the first GOP great depression. Instead you want to know why Obama/Dems haven't fixed it faster, AS the conservatives/GOP has refused to help US out of the hole they dug. Got it!

I know exactly why we when into the recession...we had a massive real estate "bubble" with millions of people who should never have qualified for mortgages owning property through liar loans driving home prices to ridiculous levels. We had lending institutions that were bundling all those bad loans and selling them to other banks as "secure" investments. The combination of the two led to a real estate "crash" and subsequent defaults by millions of people who were underwater on loans they had taken out which threatened to bankrupt a large number of our largest financial institutions.

THAT was something George W. Bush addressed with TARP.

So tell me what Barack Obama has done over the last six years to address the economy? You keep making vague references about it being the GOP's fault that things aren't better with the economy...yet it was the GOP that kept Barry from passing Cap & Trade legislation that would have crippled what little economic growth we have had in the past six years. It's nonstop quantitative easing by the Fed that's created another massive stock market bubble that will at some point correct causing yet another recession. Obama can't claim the present boom due to cheap oil and gas as his...God knows he did everything that he could to prevent that from happening! Oil and gas production on Federally controlled lands went down...it's only on land controlled privately or by the States that production went up dramatically. He can't even claim the deficit reductions as "his" because those came about not because of spending cuts Obama wanted but because of sequestration that he didn't want and has been trying to get free from ever since it kicked in.

So what HAS Barry done in six plus years, Dad?

 

[Dragonlady]

Ernie, you are so out of touch with the current economic realities, you might as well be living on another planet. In this day and age, it is possible live your life exactly have you did and still be financially screwed by the current economy.

Ronald Reagan completely restructured the US economy using many, but not all of the free market ideas touted by the Chicago School of economics, and until the worst of the damage he did is undone, nothing will change. The rich will continue to get richer, the poor will get poorer, and the middle class will continue to lose ground.

Everyone should read the Forbes article that Dad posted upthread. The bipartisan Congressional Report, which the GOP tried to bury, concludes that cutting taxes does not create jobs. All is does is facilitate the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class, to the wealthy. This isn't the Huffington Post or MSNBC telling you this, this is Forbes, one of the most right wing, business friendly publications out there.

Prior to Reagan's economic re-structuring, every strata benefitted from growth of the GNP, and economic boom. Since the re-structuring, only the wealthy have benefitted. In addition to the tax cuts, Reagan's administration went on a spending spree the likes of which had not previously been seen, all of it on borrowed money. It gave the country the appearance of prosperity, but it was an illusion. It's like your neighbor buying a new car, new furniture and a designer wardrobe. Your think he's doing really well to be able to afford all of this stuff, but he bought everything on credit. Supposedly, the increase in tax revenues from the increased income from all of this spending, would pay for the tax cuts, but it never happened.

The next thing that Reagan did, which was straight out of the Chicago School playbook, was to declare war on the unions. His 1983 attack on the air traffic controllers union was just the opening salvo. His administratin stopped prosecuting union busting activities, and cut the Department of Labour's budget by 10%.

I'm not a huge fan of unions, personally, and I've never been a union member, but I have come to understand and appreciate that without unions, employers are free to run roughshod over their employees and there's little individuals can do to protect themselves, if the company they work for choses to ignor labour laws or even treat employees with a modicum of decency. Unions helped build a strong and resilient middle class (which is a necessity for a healthy, bibrant economy). Without them, wages, have stagnated, and the gains won through hard fought negotiations have withered away. The PR job the right has done on unions has convinced the general public that unions are the tools of Satan, and should be destroyed. They're not and they should be thanked, not vilified.

The last point I will raise in this post is that Reagan gutted the Anti-Trust Legislation. Conservatives will remind me that Reagan used anti-trust legislate to breakup AT&T early in his first administration but from that time forward, he introduced legislation which authorized the president to order an exemption for industries determined to be hurt by foreign competition. Reagan used Chicago School principles that "bigger is better" to undermine the Sherman Act, and other anti-trust laws. This set off a wave of mergers and acquisitions, which continue unabated.

With each big merger, there are job losses. Not low income job losses, but good middle class jobs. When Pfizer and Wyeth merged, and then merged with Astro-Zeneca, over 30,000 people lost their jobs among these three firms. With corporations awash with cash, they're not hiring or expanding, they're merging. Large mergers and acquisitions are slowing the recovery of jobs lost in the recession, and help to explain why there are fewer and fewer middle class jobs.

Walmart has become so large, that it can dictate wages and employment practices across the entire retail sector. And not just the retail sector, but amongst their suppliers as well. Many American companies have been forced to move manufacturing offshore to meet Walmart's price demands. Walmart's use of food stamps and Medicaid to subsidize wages are now costing every US taxpayer $2500 per year, whether you shop there or not.

It's time to break up the mega-corporations, re-write the tax code, and undo the economic damage visited upon the US economy by Saint Ronnie and the Chicago School of business, before the middle class is completely destroyed.

Who Broke America rsquo s Jobs Machine - Barry C. Lynn and Phillip Longman

 

[Oldstyle]

Ernie, you are so out of touch with the current economic realities, you might as well be living on another planet. In this day and age, it is possible live your life exactly have you did and still be financially screwed by the current economy.

Ronald Reagan completely restructured the US economy using many, but not all of the free market ideas touted by the Chicago School of economics, and until the worst of the damage he did is undone, nothing will change. The rich will continue to get richer, the poor will get poorer, and the middle class will continue to lose ground.

Everyone should read the Forbes article that Dad posted upthread. The bipartisan Congressional Report, which the GOP tried to bury, concludes that cutting taxes does not create jobs. All is does is facilitate the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class, to the wealthy. This isn't the Huffington Post or MSNBC telling you this, this is Forbes, one of the most right wing, business friendly publications out there.

Prior to Reagan's economic re-structuring, every strata benefitted from growth of the GNP, and economic boom. Since the re-structuring, only the wealthy have benefitted. In addition to the tax cuts, Reagan's administration went on a spending spree the likes of which had not previously been seen, all of it on borrowed money. It gave the country the appearance of prosperity, but it was an illusion. It's like your neighbor buying a new car, new furniture and a designer wardrobe. Your think he's doing really well to be able to afford all of this stuff, but he bought everything on credit. Supposedly, the increase in tax revenues from the increased income from all of this spending, would pay for the tax cuts, but it never happened.

The next thing that Reagan did, which was straight out of the Chicago School playbook, was to declare war on the unions. His 1983 attack on the air traffic controllers union was just the opening salvo. His administratin stopped prosecuting union busting activities, and cut the Department of Labour's budget by 10%.

I'm not a huge fan of unions, personally, and I've never been a union member, but I have come to understand and appreciate that without unions, employers are free to run roughshod over their employees and there's little individuals can do to protect themselves, if the company they work for choses to ignor labour laws or even treat employees with a modicum of decency. Unions helped build a strong and resilient middle class (which is a necessity for a healthy, bibrant economy). Without them, wages, have stagnated, and the gains won through hard fought negotiations have withered away. The PR job the right has done on unions has convinced the general public that unions are the tools of Satan, and should be destroyed. They're not and they should be thanked, not vilified.

The last point I will raise in this post is that Reagan gutted the Anti-Trust Legislation. Conservatives will remind me that Reagan used anti-trust legislate to breakup AT&T early in his first administration but from that time forward, he introduced legislation which authorized the president to order an exemption for industries determined to be hurt by foreign competition. Reagan used Chicago School principles that "bigger is better" to undermine the Sherman Act, and other anti-trust laws. This set off a wave of mergers and acquisitions, which continue unabated.

With each big merger, there are job losses. Not low income job losses, but good middle class jobs. When Pfizer and Wyeth merged, and then merged with Astro-Zeneca, over 30,000 people lost their jobs among these three firms. With corporations awash with cash, they're not hiring or expanding, they're merging. Large mergers and acquisitions are slowing the recovery of jobs lost in the recession, and help to explain why there are fewer and fewer middle class jobs.

Walmart has become so large, that it can dictate wages and employment practices across the entire retail sector. And not just the retail sector, but amongst their suppliers as well. Many American companies have been forced to move manufacturing offshore to meet Walmart's price demands. Walmart's use of food stamps and Medicaid to subsidize wages are now costing every US taxpayer $2500 per year, whether you shop there or not.

It's time to break up the mega-corporations, re-write the tax code, and undo the economic damage visited upon the US economy by Saint Ronnie and the Chicago School of business, before the middle class is completely destroyed.

Who Broke America rsquo s Jobs Machine - Barry C. Lynn and Phillip Longman

Who's more responsible for losing American jobs...Reagan with his supply side economics or Clinton with NAFTA?

 

[Oldstyle]

And I studied the Chicago School in college, Dragonlady...I don't recall it espousing a "bigger is better" philosophy as you've claimed. Care to refresh my memory as to that tenet of the Chicago School? Perhaps I dozed off in class and "missed" it!

 

[Dragonlady]

The Chicago School advocates a Free Market, completely unfettered by regulations, unions, or government interference, the nationalization of all government assets - to improve efficiency, and the gutting of the social safety net. Take a good look at what they did in Chile after the overthrow of Pinochet. Now they didn't advocate the murder of leftists, which is how the Chileans dealt with opposition to their policies, but Milton Friedman didn't condemn it either.

The Chicago School felt that lack of regulation would allow wages and prices to find their "natural levels". In every country which followed the Chicago School, wages have fallen, prices have risen, there are extreme boom and bust cycles, the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have become much poorer, exacerbated by a lack of a social safety net. And every country where the Chicago School policies were tried in the 1970's, has repudiated these reforms.

Friedman was disappointed with Reagan. Although Ronnie put many of the Chicago School policies into place, he failed to gut the social safety net, or to sufficiently de-regulate US business. Friedman felt these were the reasons the economy didn't fare well under Reagan.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ernie, you are so out of touch with the current economic realities, you might as well be living on another planet. In this day and age, it is possible live your life exactly have you did and still be financially screwed by the current economy.

Ronald Reagan completely restructured the US economy using many, but not all of the free market ideas touted by the Chicago School of economics, and until the worst of the damage he did is undone, nothing will change. The rich will continue to get richer, the poor will get poorer, and the middle class will continue to lose ground.

Everyone should read the Forbes article that Dad posted upthread. The bipartisan Congressional Report, which the GOP tried to bury, concludes that cutting taxes does not create jobs. All is does is facilitate the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class, to the wealthy. This isn't the Huffington Post or MSNBC telling you this, this is Forbes, one of the most right wing, business friendly publications out there.

Prior to Reagan's economic re-structuring, every strata benefitted from growth of the GNP, and economic boom. Since the re-structuring, only the wealthy have benefitted. In addition to the tax cuts, Reagan's administration went on a spending spree the likes of which had not previously been seen, all of it on borrowed money. It gave the country the appearance of prosperity, but it was an illusion. It's like your neighbor buying a new car, new furniture and a designer wardrobe. Your think he's doing really well to be able to afford all of this stuff, but he bought everything on credit. Supposedly, the increase in tax revenues from the increased income from all of this spending, would pay for the tax cuts, but it never happened.

The next thing that Reagan did, which was straight out of the Chicago School playbook, was to declare war on the unions. His 1983 attack on the air traffic controllers union was just the opening salvo. His administratin stopped prosecuting union busting activities, and cut the Department of Labour's budget by 10%.

I'm not a huge fan of unions, personally, and I've never been a union member, but I have come to understand and appreciate that without unions, employers are free to run roughshod over their employees and there's little individuals can do to protect themselves, if the company they work for choses to ignor labour laws or even treat employees with a modicum of decency. Unions helped build a strong and resilient middle class (which is a necessity for a healthy, bibrant economy). Without them, wages, have stagnated, and the gains won through hard fought negotiations have withered away. The PR job the right has done on unions has convinced the general public that unions are the tools of Satan, and should be destroyed. They're not and they should be thanked, not vilified.

The last point I will raise in this post is that Reagan gutted the Anti-Trust Legislation. Conservatives will remind me that Reagan used anti-trust legislate to breakup AT&T early in his first administration but from that time forward, he introduced legislation which authorized the president to order an exemption for industries determined to be hurt by foreign competition. Reagan used Chicago School principles that "bigger is better" to undermine the Sherman Act, and other anti-trust laws. This set off a wave of mergers and acquisitions, which continue unabated.

With each big merger, there are job losses. Not low income job losses, but good middle class jobs. When Pfizer and Wyeth merged, and then merged with Astro-Zeneca, over 30,000 people lost their jobs among these three firms. With corporations awash with cash, they're not hiring or expanding, they're merging. Large mergers and acquisitions are slowing the recovery of jobs lost in the recession, and help to explain why there are fewer and fewer middle class jobs.

Walmart has become so large, that it can dictate wages and employment practices across the entire retail sector. And not just the retail sector, but amongst their suppliers as well. Many American companies have been forced to move manufacturing offshore to meet Walmart's price demands. Walmart's use of food stamps and Medicaid to subsidize wages are now costing every US taxpayer $2500 per year, whether you shop there or not.

It's time to break up the mega-corporations, re-write the tax code, and undo the economic damage visited upon the US economy by Saint Ronnie and the Chicago School of business, before the middle class is completely destroyed.

Who Broke America rsquo s Jobs Machine - Barry C. Lynn and Phillip Longman

Ronald Reagan completely restructured the US economy using many, but not all of the free market ideas touted by the Chicago School of economics, and until the worst of the damage he did is undone, nothing will change.

I wish he had totally restructured the economy, but despite your colorful imagination, he did not.

What do you feel we have to do to "fix the damage"?
Raise the top rate back to 70%?

The next thing that Reagan did, which was straight out of the Chicago School playbook, was to declare war on the unions. His 1983 attack on the air traffic controllers union was just the opening salvo.

His attack? LOL!
They broke the law in 1981 when they went on strike.
He fired their asses and rightly so.

I'm not a huge fan of unions, personally, and I've never been a union member, but I have come to understand and appreciate that without unions, employers are free to run roughshod over their employees and there's little individuals can do to protect themselves,

Exactly, I mean just look at what the Steel Workers union has done. I mean besides drive US steel makes into bankruptcy.

there's little individuals can do to protect themselves, if the company they work for choses to ignor labour laws or even treat employees with a modicum of decency.

BS. DOL lawyers would crawl up their asses, especially under this president.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ernie, you are so out of touch with the current economic realities, you might as well be living on another planet. In this day and age, it is possible live your life exactly have you did and still be financially screwed by the current economy.

Ronald Reagan completely restructured the US economy using many, but not all of the free market ideas touted by the Chicago School of economics, and until the worst of the damage he did is undone, nothing will change. The rich will continue to get richer, the poor will get poorer, and the middle class will continue to lose ground.

Everyone should read the Forbes article that Dad posted upthread. The bipartisan Congressional Report, which the GOP tried to bury, concludes that cutting taxes does not create jobs. All is does is facilitate the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class, to the wealthy. This isn't the Huffington Post or MSNBC telling you this, this is Forbes, one of the most right wing, business friendly publications out there.

Prior to Reagan's economic re-structuring, every strata benefitted from growth of the GNP, and economic boom. Since the re-structuring, only the wealthy have benefitted. In addition to the tax cuts, Reagan's administration went on a spending spree the likes of which had not previously been seen, all of it on borrowed money. It gave the country the appearance of prosperity, but it was an illusion. It's like your neighbor buying a new car, new furniture and a designer wardrobe. Your think he's doing really well to be able to afford all of this stuff, but he bought everything on credit. Supposedly, the increase in tax revenues from the increased income from all of this spending, would pay for the tax cuts, but it never happened.

The next thing that Reagan did, which was straight out of the Chicago School playbook, was to declare war on the unions. His 1983 attack on the air traffic controllers union was just the opening salvo. His administratin stopped prosecuting union busting activities, and cut the Department of Labour's budget by 10%.

I'm not a huge fan of unions, personally, and I've never been a union member, but I have come to understand and appreciate that without unions, employers are free to run roughshod over their employees and there's little individuals can do to protect themselves, if the company they work for choses to ignor labour laws or even treat employees with a modicum of decency. Unions helped build a strong and resilient middle class (which is a necessity for a healthy, bibrant economy). Without them, wages, have stagnated, and the gains won through hard fought negotiations have withered away. The PR job the right has done on unions has convinced the general public that unions are the tools of Satan, and should be destroyed. They're not and they should be thanked, not vilified.

The last point I will raise in this post is that Reagan gutted the Anti-Trust Legislation. Conservatives will remind me that Reagan used anti-trust legislate to breakup AT&T early in his first administration but from that time forward, he introduced legislation which authorized the president to order an exemption for industries determined to be hurt by foreign competition. Reagan used Chicago School principles that "bigger is better" to undermine the Sherman Act, and other anti-trust laws. This set off a wave of mergers and acquisitions, which continue unabated.

With each big merger, there are job losses. Not low income job losses, but good middle class jobs. When Pfizer and Wyeth merged, and then merged with Astro-Zeneca, over 30,000 people lost their jobs among these three firms. With corporations awash with cash, they're not hiring or expanding, they're merging. Large mergers and acquisitions are slowing the recovery of jobs lost in the recession, and help to explain why there are fewer and fewer middle class jobs.

Walmart has become so large, that it can dictate wages and employment practices across the entire retail sector. And not just the retail sector, but amongst their suppliers as well. Many American companies have been forced to move manufacturing offshore to meet Walmart's price demands. Walmart's use of food stamps and Medicaid to subsidize wages are now costing every US taxpayer $2500 per year, whether you shop there or not.

It's time to break up the mega-corporations, re-write the tax code, and undo the economic damage visited upon the US economy by Saint Ronnie and the Chicago School of business, before the middle class is completely destroyed.

Who Broke America rsquo s Jobs Machine - Barry C. Lynn and Phillip Longman

Walmart's use of food stamps and Medicaid to subsidize wages are now costing every US taxpayer $2500 per year, whether you shop there or not.

If WalMart fired every employee, would food stamps and Medicaid spend more or less?

 

[zeke]

Walmart's use of food stamps and Medicaid to subsidize wages are now costing every US taxpayer $2500 per year, whether you shop there or not.

If WalMart fired every employee, would food stamps and Medicaid spend more or less?

If Walmart hired every unemployed person, would food stamps and Medicaid spend more or less?

What's with the weird questions todd? In answer to your question; I say they spend more, you say they spend less. Or vice versa. There's no right answer to a nonsensical question. SO which is it, IYO?

 

[zeke]

Exactly, I mean just look at what the Steel Workers union has done. I mean besides drive US steel makes into bankruptcy.

You think the unions ruined the steel industry I take it. Wasn't what happened. But I'm sure you believe it.

Had something to do with steel manufacturers here using old technology and the Japanese using new and better technology. And it had to do with the Japanese government subsidizing the steel industry so they could sell steel below cost for American manufactures. And the US government gave no help to the American steel industry.

So with a hands off government and steel company management being stuck in the past, the American steel industry took a big hit.

Now what was it the unions did to cause all that?

 

[Dad2three]

So no, the usual right wing crap, you can't defend conservative policy either!

Let me help you --- it's time for your US economy tutorial. If you could, ask Dragonlady to sit in, because both of you have demonstrated a very shallow understanding.

It is your pronouncement that the way out of our current economic malaise is to "increase demand". Of course, you haven't talked about HOW you are going to "increase demand", but that's okay. Frankly, you gave yourself away when you said "increase demand", since that is a microeconomic concept that has no place in macroeconomic management. You are thinking of the classic 'supply and demand' model popular in microeconomics, rather than the aggregate demand-aggregate supply model of macroeconomics. Most assuredly, they are two completely different theories and bear little or no relationship to each other.

For purposes of this discussion, we are going to use Real GDP as a measure of economic health. We know Real GDP is defined as today's GDP when measured in some past year's dollars. GDP is made up of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G), and net exports (NX), so the formula is Y=C+I+G+NX. Increasing any one of those will drive up the GDP. I'm going to assume that you are following the classic Keynesian model and proposing to increase consumption by increasing government spending.

Here's the problem - increasing consumption by pouring more money into the economy is self-defeating. It has a short-term positive impact that is quickly overridden by the consequences of such a move, as you shall see. First, while the left claims to believe in the Keynesian model, they, in fact, don't follow it. The classic Keynesian model proposes to 1) increase in-pocket money for the citizens by cutting taxes, and 2) further increase money availability by spending tax money on government projects. So, one at a time ...

Increase in-pocket money for the citizens by cutting taxes - given that 47% of the citizenry doesn't pay any taxes, this obviously won't work. You end up giving tax breaks to only those who actually pay taxes (thus, the hue and cry about tax cuts for the rich --- hell, they are the only ones who pay taxes, so, logically, any tax cut is for them!).

Increase money availability by spending tax money on government projects. Logic says - lower taxes, increased spending - makes no sense. There's less money to spend. I will agree that increased government spending can have a short term positive impact, if it is held under control. When the economy starts to heat back up, the spending has to stopped (or funded by revenue only). However, when is the last time you saw our government slow down spending? Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are able to rein in spending - they have too many votes to buy! They don't - so, this has to, necessarily, be a non-starter. If it doesn't, you end up with an $18 trillion national debt.

So, if that model doesn't work - and we have plenty of historical proof to say it doesn't (the most classic example is LBJ's sabotage of an effective and working economy, though Bush, aided by Democratic congressional interference with the market methodologies did a pretty damn good job, too) - what can we do? We need to kick start it somehow.

The GDP is driven by aggregate prices. Simply, the lower the price of an item, the more that will be bought, thus, the more that will need to be produced. Since we know price controls don't work (Nixon tried it), the answer is to incentivize the producer. Create more shirts, the price of shirts go down. The price of shirts go down, the more money in the pocket of the consumer. the more money in the consumer's pocket, the more he is likely to buy something else (this is called the wealth effect - the consumer feels 'wealthier). The more money the consumer has, the more he will invest. The money he invests, the cheaper it is to borrow money and increase production (this is called the Interest effect). The more money there is to invest, the cheaper the interest rates. The cheaper the interest rates, the great potential for us to have foreign investment, where the return on investment is higher (called the Foreign Exchange effect) You increase C (go back to the formula - consumption). Increased consumption puts more people to work, and drives up the GDP.

The RIGHT answer is a carefully orchestrated combination of the two --- with the ABSOLUTE caveat that government spending has to be funded by revenue whenever possible. Keynesian economics, when applied during a time of recession, can be very effective. Supply side management of a recovering and boisterous economy is equally effective. The government borrowing money is ALWAYS bad - but a necessary evil sometimes to stimulate a moribund economy.

Now, the first thing I'm going to hear is "You didn't give a reference!!!" You're right, I didn't - this is simple level one hundred macroeconomic theory. This is already longer than War and Peace - references would have made it harder to follow. There are probably a thousand books out there that will tell you all this. I'm particularly fond of the Khan Academy course on macroeconomics - it's short, concise, and covers all the salient points. Failing that, simply go to the local library and pick up any macroeconomics 101 textbook. If you think I said something wrong, find a reference, and we'll discuss it.

Oh ... BTW -- there ARE Republicans who do understand economics.

A FUKKING LIAR. SHOCKING. $18 TRILLION DEBT? Oh I guess starve the beast policies like UNFUNDED tax cuts and UNFUNDED wars and Medicare expansions do that?


RECORD CORP PROFITS? ARE THE 1%ERS HURTING? IS THE US ECONOMY TO SMALL OR SHRINKING? OR IS THE MONEY IN THE WRONG FUKKING HANDS?



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 !!!

"So, if that model doesn't work - and we have plenty of historical proof to say it doesn't (the most classic example is LBJ's sabotage of an effective and working economy, though Bush, aided by Democratic congressional interference with the market methodologies did a pretty damn good job, too) - what can we do? We need to kick start it somehow."



PLEASE LIST THESE THINGS YOU SPEAK OF, ESPECIALLY DEMS 'CONGRESSIONAL INTERFERENCE'? LOL

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.



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


June 16, 2005

The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops

The global housing boom In come the waves The Economist

BUT YES, DUBYA DID CHEER-LEAD FOR THE BANKSTERS AND PULL REGULATORS OFF THE BEAT AS HE FOUGHT ALL 50 STATES WHO WANTED TO REIGN THE BANKSTERS

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

Absolute nonsense ... accompanied by the expected name calling, vulgarities, and BIG PRINT.

Get a grip ....

So instead of acknowledging you were full of shit, you use ad homs and whine and cry. Got it