The Bush Tax Cuts and the Republican Cult of Economic Failure

[Soggy in NOLA]

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power


It amazes me to see these people defending a tax cut for the people who benifited from this latest raping of the American economy.

The notion of personal property rights always amazes parasites like you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There's no such thing as a free lunch, and there's no such thing as an honest case for extending the Bush tax cuts. Ten years of hard data prove they were a complete failure. They did not work while Bush was in office and they did not work during the first two years of the Obama administration. No wonder the Congressional Budget Office says that the GOP's proposed extension of tax cuts to the rich will reduce future economic growth.

I guess the second longest expansion in GDP post-war constitutes "failure" to the Left.

Are you totally unhinged by the election, Flail-Loser, that you console yourself with drivel from the HuffPooPoo?

You're in favor of economic expansion fueled by massive infusions of borrowed money in the form of massive deficits?

Why?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There's no such thing as a free lunch, and there's no such thing as an honest case for extending the Bush tax cuts. Ten years of hard data prove they were a complete failure. They did not work while Bush was in office and they did not work during the first two years of the Obama administration. No wonder the Congressional Budget Office says that the GOP's proposed extension of tax cuts to the rich will reduce future economic growth.

I guess the second longest expansion in GDP post-war constitutes "failure" to the Left.

Are you totally unhinged by the election, Flail-Loser, that you console yourself with drivel from the HuffPooPoo?

You're in favor of economic expansion fueled by massive infusions of borrowed money in the form of massive deficits?

Why?

As opposed to massive economic stagnation fueled by massive entitlement expansion and printing of money?

 

[The Rabbi]

There's no such thing as a free lunch, and there's no such thing as an honest case for extending the Bush tax cuts. Ten years of hard data prove they were a complete failure. They did not work while Bush was in office and they did not work during the first two years of the Obama administration. No wonder the Congressional Budget Office says that the GOP's proposed extension of tax cuts to the rich will reduce future economic growth.

I guess the second longest expansion in GDP post-war constitutes "failure" to the Left.

Are you totally unhinged by the election, Flail-Loser, that you console yourself with drivel from the HuffPooPoo?

You're in favor of economic expansion fueled by massive infusions of borrowed money in the form of massive deficits?

Why?

How does borrowed money come in the form of massive deficits??

I'll bet you've never started a business. If you did, you would understand that start up capital has to come from somewhere. When you do that you technically have a "massive deficit" in your net worth.
Of course if you then take that money and give it to your brother in law so he can save his Porsche from being repo'd then you have a good idea of how Obama's latest stimulus program worked.

 

[NYcarbineer]

David Fiderer: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Republican Cult of Economic Failure

The rightwing failmongers still insist on putting a square peg in a round hole.

Ya' mean like idiotic dems of the Barney Frank mold who insisted that those who couldn't afford homes must be given loans to buy homes they obvioulsy couldn't afford, and then stood before the american people and told us everything was just fine weeks before the housing bubble collapsed, thereby becoming the root cause of our current financial disaster?

You know, the financial disaster that was primarily caused by dem's who were too stupid to understand that people who can't afford to make a house payment shouldn't be given the means to buy said houses in the first place because it will undoubtedly cause a financial disaster in the end.

Christ, liberals are fuckin' idiots, and dem's are mired in a forest of abject denial of their role in this mess.

Stop believing everything you hear on rightwing talk radio.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I studied more than you know son on the CRA, so go **** yourself!

So you knew that the CRA didn't force banks to make bad loans, or you didn't know that?

How much time did you waste "studying" and still fail to see that basic fact?

You're up against an immovable object when you try to reason with these morons about the myths the right has attached to CRA. You are correct. CRA never forced banks to make loans to unqualified borrowers, in fact,

it was written into the law itself that no such thing could occur.

BUT, when people become emotionally invested in believing a lie, usually because believing it has so much appeal and makes them feel good, it is a Herculean task to get them to believe otherwise, even when armed with a mountain of evidence.

 

[Bfgrn]

David Fiderer: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Republican Cult of Economic Failure

The rightwing failmongers still insist on putting a square peg in a round hole.

Ya' mean like idiotic dems of the Barney Frank mold who insisted that those who couldn't afford homes must be given loans to buy homes they obvioulsy couldn't afford, and then stood before the american people and told us everything was just fine weeks before the housing bubble collapsed, thereby becoming the root cause of our current financial disaster?

You know, the financial disaster that was primarily caused by dem's who were too stupid to understand that people who can't afford to make a house payment shouldn't be given the means to buy said houses in the first place because it will undoubtedly cause a financial disaster in the end.

Christ, liberals are fuckin' idiots, and dem's are mired in a forest of abject denial of their role in this mess.

You need to turn off Pravda, I mean Fox News. Wouldn't it be convenient if the whole world economy came crashing down because some black people were able to by their own home.

Here's your problem, it DIDN'T

# Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of total lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.

# Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were “significantly less likely to be in foreclosure” than those originated by independent mortgage companies that weren’t covered by CRA.

# Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were “half as likely to go into foreclosure” as those made by the independent mortgage companies.

# 28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.

# 12% of the loans made by CRA lenders in these areas were high-priced loans, a technical definition of subprime, compared with 29% of the loans made by those lenders outside their assessment areas and 52.4% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low-income areas.

Don’t Blame CRA (The Sequel) - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[NYcarbineer]

I guess the second longest expansion in GDP post-war constitutes "failure" to the Left.

Are you totally unhinged by the election, Flail-Loser, that you console yourself with drivel from the HuffPooPoo?

You're in favor of economic expansion fueled by massive infusions of borrowed money in the form of massive deficits?

Why?

As opposed to massive economic stagnation fueled by massive entitlement expansion and printing of money?

Do you want me to repeat the question?

You defended the 2001 - 2007 economic expansion, which was fueled by massive infusions of borrowed money,

I'm asking you why? Why would you want our economy growth to occur under those conditions?

 

[The Rabbi]

You're in favor of economic expansion fueled by massive infusions of borrowed money in the form of massive deficits?

Why?

As opposed to massive economic stagnation fueled by massive entitlement expansion and printing of money?

Do you want me to repeat the question?

You defended the 2001 - 2007 economic expansion, which was fueled by massive infusions of borrowed money,

I'm asking you why? Why would you want our economy growth to occur under those conditions?

I've already explained this to your stupid ass.

 

[Saikron]

I studied more than you know son on the CRA, so go **** yourself!

So you knew that the CRA didn't force banks to make bad loans, or you didn't know that?

How much time did you waste "studying" and still fail to see that basic fact?

The same way the FedGov doesn't force states to make 21 the legal drinking age, right?

This is Section 802 (b) of the CRA:

It is the purpose of this title to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.

It would take an exceptionally stupid person to think that the CRA would force bank to make bad loans. Are you one of those?

 

[Toro]

There's no such thing as a free lunch, and there's no such thing as an honest case for extending the Bush tax cuts. Ten years of hard data prove they were a complete failure. They did not work while Bush was in office and they did not work during the first two years of the Obama administration. No wonder the Congressional Budget Office says that the GOP's proposed extension of tax cuts to the rich will reduce future economic growth.

I guess the second longest expansion in GDP post-war constitutes "failure" to the Left.

Are you totally unhinged by the election, Flail-Loser, that you console yourself with drivel from the HuffPooPoo?

The last expansion was not the second longest. There have been 11 post-war expansions since WWII, excluding the current one. The last expansion occurred for 73 months. This, in fact, is the fourth longest. The longest was 1991-2001 at 120 months, 1961-1669 was 104 months, and 1982-1989 was 87 months.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

It was, however, one of the weakest, if not the weakest expansion since WWII.

 

[Wicked Jester]

So, the dem's have had power for 2 years now......Where's the jobs and improved economy?

Yeah, they've got the answers alright.

Once AGAIN, the dems haven proven to be the cult of economic failure. They've held the presidency, the senate, and the house, they've been driving the bus, and drove it straight off the ******* cliff.

Deal with it!

 

[Toro]

What really should be said is there is no GOOD REASON why the Bush Tax Cuts Shouldn't BE EXTENDED!!!

It is a bad idea to raise taxes during this weak recovery, but the Bush tax cuts added $1.5 trillion to the debt. Had the tax cuts not occurred, the debt would be lower. That is a good reason to, eventually, allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.

 

[DiamondDave]

What really should be said is there is no GOOD REASON why the Bush Tax Cuts Shouldn't BE EXTENDED!!!

It is a bad idea to raise taxes during this weak recovery, but the Bush tax cuts added $1.5 trillion to the debt. Had the tax cuts not occurred, the debt would be lower. That is a good reason to, eventually, allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.

But wouldn't it also be as good or better to simply spend less and/or bring in the 'missing' revenue via taxation of those paying zero in income taxes? Or are you saying that it must come from a disproportionate rate on only a select few persons within the citizenry?

 

[Saikron]

So, the dem's have had power for 2 years now......Where's the jobs and improved economy?

Yeah, they've got the answers alright.

Once AGAIN, the dems haven proven to be the cult of economic failure. They've held the presidency, the senate, and the house, they've been driving the bus, and drove it straight off the ******* cliff.

Deal with it!

GDP growth has returned to normal-ish rates, the recession ended, numbers on all of the jobs created so far are available everywhere and amount to more than Bush created in 4 years IIRC, and while the Democrats did hold the house and senate, the Republicans were filibustering basically every bill including ones related to job creation so it wasn't all that easy.

On one hand I agree, the Democrats didn't do enough, but something is better than nothing. On the other hand, when you think about why so little was done, it was because of Republican obstructionism and Obama catering to ill informed people.

 

[Toro]

What really should be said is there is no GOOD REASON why the Bush Tax Cuts Shouldn't BE EXTENDED!!!

It is a bad idea to raise taxes during this weak recovery, but the Bush tax cuts added $1.5 trillion to the debt. Had the tax cuts not occurred, the debt would be lower. That is a good reason to, eventually, allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.

But wouldn't it also be as good or better to simply spend less and/or bring in the 'missing' revenue via taxation of those paying zero in income taxes? Or are you saying that it must come from a disproportionate rate on only a select few persons within the citizenry?

All I'm saying is that had the Bush tax cuts not be in effect, the US government would have $1.5 trillion less debt. Ergo, there is at least one good reason to allow the cuts to expire.

 

[topspin]

Democrats always seem to shoot themselves in the foot. The facts are on thier side. GDP and Stock marktet returns are both a good bit better under dems.
It's the ******* massively unpopular give aways that piss off middle America enough to ignore facts.

 

[Toro]

So, the dem's have had power for 2 years now......Where's the jobs and improved economy?

Yeah, they've got the answers alright.

Once AGAIN, the dems haven proven to be the cult of economic failure. They've held the presidency, the senate, and the house, they've been driving the bus, and drove it straight off the ******* cliff.

Deal with it!

GDP growth has returned to normal-ish rates, the recession ended, numbers on all of the jobs created so far are available everywhere and amount to more than Bush created in 4 years IIRC, and while the Democrats did hold the house and senate, the Republicans were filibustering basically every bill including ones related to job creation so it wasn't all that easy.

On one hand I agree, the Democrats didn't do enough, but something is better than nothing. On the other hand, when you think about why so little was done, it was because of Republican obstructionism and Obama catering to ill informed people.

It should be noted that, though it is fair to criticize the stimulus on several levels, total government spending, including spending by states, cities, counties, etc., did not rise during the recession, even though federal government spending rose appreciably.

Cisco reported earnings last night and it's stock is getting hammered today because they lowered guidance, saying that government's have been cutting back spending. They are doing so because they have to.

 

[DiamondDave]

It is a bad idea to raise taxes during this weak recovery, but the Bush tax cuts added $1.5 trillion to the debt. Had the tax cuts not occurred, the debt would be lower. That is a good reason to, eventually, allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.

But wouldn't it also be as good or better to simply spend less and/or bring in the 'missing' revenue via taxation of those paying zero in income taxes? Or are you saying that it must come from a disproportionate rate on only a select few persons within the citizenry?

All I'm saying is that had the Bush tax cuts not be in effect, the US government would have $1.5 trillion less debt. Ergo, there is at least one good reason to allow the cuts to expire.

Does not really answer what I asked

 

[sangha]

David Fiderer: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Republican Cult of Economic Failure

The rightwing failmongers still insist on putting a square peg in a round hole.

Ya' mean like idiotic dems of the Barney Frank mold who insisted that those who couldn't afford homes must be given loans to buy homes they obvioulsy couldn't afford, and then stood before the american people and told us everything was just fine weeks before the housing bubble collapsed, thereby becoming the root cause of our current financial disaster?

You know, the financial disaster that was primarily caused by dem's who were too stupid to understand that people who can't afford to make a house payment shouldn't be given the means to buy said houses in the first place because it will undoubtedly cause a financial disaster in the end.

Christ, liberals are fuckin' idiots, and dem's are mired in a forest of abject denial of their role in this mess.

umm, that was bush* who encouraged banks to give loans to minorities with bad credit

Bush's Plan Brings FHA To Mortgage Front Line - washingtonpost.com

Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market, but, in general, they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.

...FHA loans carry higher risks of delinquency and foreclosure than do private mortgages, and the proposed change presumably will lead to greater losses to the government than the current program does.