The massive tax cut like the one in the Bush years didn’t benefit workers for a very simple reason

[mikegriffith1]

LOL. Another surreal, bizzare OP about the Bush tax cuts "not helping workers but only the rich." Go look at the Bush tax cuts' tax tables and you'll see that by far the largest income tax rate cuts went to the middle class, not to the rich. I was a "worker" in the Bush years, and those tax cuts helped me and my family considerably.

 

[Billy000]

The massive tax cut like the one in the Bush years didn’t benefit workers for a very simple reason

They were never supposed to.

Yes granted.

 

[Billy000]

Corporations are already wealthier than ever before. There is no incentive for these corporations to invest in labor when it is just easier to save money on tax cuts. Meanwhile, the deficit explodes and only executives benefit.

Even if corporate profits weren’t at an all time high, there is still a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit. How, in part, do you maximize profit? By not investing in labor and accepting the economy as is. Right now, higher wage jobs are extremely competitive among workers while lower income jobs fill quite easily.

Lower wage workers are at the mercy of the economy. While it may be easy for republicans to call them lazy, it ignores the complexity of what creates poverty. Low wage workers do not have the time or money to spend on education that would make them qualified for skilled jobs. Of course, let’s pretend ALL workers did this. Who would be left behind to fill those entry level jobs that keep any business afloat?

It’s benefited me just fine so far. You do realize you actually have to have a job in order to pay lower taxes right?

Oh so you’re speaking to 4% of the population that DON’T have jobs? Why? Why does this small percentage matter to you in terms of policy differences between the left and right?

There are more than 4% of you without jobs, Billy

You don’t have any actual statistics in mind. It’s just easier to assume most people are lazy while you are a manly man who gets a paycheck every month! It’s such emotional crap that only benefits your ego. The truth of fbe matter is that welfare like SNAP mostly benefits kids, the elderly, the disabled, and veterans.

Why thank you, Billy, I am a manly man. This bicep flex is for you bruh

View attachment 201920

Gay.

 

[Billy000]

LOL. Another surreal, bizzare OP about the Bush tax cuts "not helping workers but only the rich." Go look at the Bush tax cuts' tax tables and you'll see that by far the largest income tax rate cuts went to the middle class, not to the rich. I was a "worker" in the Bush years, and those tax cuts helped me and my family considerably.

That’s complete bullshit. If those tax cuts were so helpful, why did we go through two recessions in Bush’s two terms?

 

[healthmyths]

LOL. Another surreal, bizzare OP about the Bush tax cuts "not helping workers but only the rich." Go look at the Bush tax cuts' tax tables and you'll see that by far the largest income tax rate cuts went to the middle class, not to the rich. I was a "worker" in the Bush years, and those tax cuts helped me and my family considerably.

That’s complete bullshit. If those tax cuts were so helpful, why did we go through two recessions in Bush’s two terms?

First of all DUMMY where are your FACTS? Where are your supporting documents...LINKS?
See any dummy can say what you wrote and because you don't substantiate it NO ONE believes YOU!
A) Recession 2001...
FACT it started under Clinton
The 2001 recession resulted from the Y2K scare (Y2K stands for Year 2000). It was an erroneously foretold Year 2000 software problem that had to do with the two-digit storage of year values.
In 1999, there was an economic boom in computer and software sales.
Many companies and individuals bought new computer systems to make sure their software was Y2K compliant. The operating code had to be able to understand the difference between 2000 and 1900. Many fields within that code only had two spaces, not the four needed to differentiate between the two dates.
As a result, the stock price of many high-tech companies started to increase. Investors' began buying stock in any high tech company, whether they were showing profits or not. The exuberance for dot.com companies became irrational.
The boom led to a bust in dot-com businesses. It became apparent in January 2000 that computer orders were going to decline. The shelf life of most computers is about two years. Companies had just bought all the equipment they would need. As a result, the stock market dropped in March 2000. As stock prices declined, so did the value of the dot.com companies and many went bankrupt.
The Federal Reserve ignored the markets and continued raising interest rates. The fed funds rate reached 6.5 percent by May 2000. Interest rates remained high when the economy needed low rates for cheap credit. Find out How 9/11 Impacted the Recession of 2001 and Made It Worse

The 2000 Dot.com bust ... and more facts than you can handle!!!
There has NEVER ever been any Presidency that had to fact these EVENTS in history. Never.
Depression sure but not attacks, no worst hurricanes...
Pearl Harbor.... closest event but was NOT on land and only took place in Hawaii.... then a territory and then on military bases.
9/11 was WTC/Pentagon/Anthrax attacks... you name it the fall of 2001 saw all of these!
Worst hurricane SEASONS not just worst hurricanes!
So yea Bush faced crap that NO other president has ever had to face.
And I'm shouting now because I can't believe YOU lived through those times and don't remember!

 

[Billy000]

LOL. Another surreal, bizzare OP about the Bush tax cuts "not helping workers but only the rich." Go look at the Bush tax cuts' tax tables and you'll see that by far the largest income tax rate cuts went to the middle class, not to the rich. I was a "worker" in the Bush years, and those tax cuts helped me and my family considerably.

That’s complete bullshit. If those tax cuts were so helpful, why did we go through two recessions in Bush’s two terms?

First of all DUMMY where are your FACTS? Where are your supporting documents...LINKS?
See any dummy can say what you wrote and because you don't substantiate it NO ONE believes YOU!
A) Recession 2001...
FACT it started under Clinton
The 2001 recession resulted from the Y2K scare (Y2K stands for Year 2000). It was an erroneously foretold Year 2000 software problem that had to do with the two-digit storage of year values.
In 1999, there was an economic boom in computer and software sales.
Many companies and individuals bought new computer systems to make sure their software was Y2K compliant. The operating code had to be able to understand the difference between 2000 and 1900. Many fields within that code only had two spaces, not the four needed to differentiate between the two dates.
As a result, the stock price of many high-tech companies started to increase. Investors' began buying stock in any high tech company, whether they were showing profits or not. The exuberance for dot.com companies became irrational.
The boom led to a bust in dot-com businesses. It became apparent in January 2000 that computer orders were going to decline. The shelf life of most computers is about two years. Companies had just bought all the equipment they would need. As a result, the stock market dropped in March 2000. As stock prices declined, so did the value of the dot.com companies and many went bankrupt.
The Federal Reserve ignored the markets and continued raising interest rates. The fed funds rate reached 6.5 percent by May 2000. Interest rates remained high when the economy needed low rates for cheap credit. Find out How 9/11 Impacted the Recession of 2001 and Made It Worse

The 2000 Dot.com bust ... and more facts than you can handle!!!
There has NEVER ever been any Presidency that had to fact these EVENTS in history. Never.
Depression sure but not attacks, no worst hurricanes...
Pearl Harbor.... closest event but was NOT on land and only took place in Hawaii.... then a territory and then on military bases.
9/11 was WTC/Pentagon/Anthrax attacks... you name it the fall of 2001 saw all of these!
Worst hurricane SEASONS not just worst hurricanes!
So yea Bush faced crap that NO other president has ever had to face.
And I'm shouting now because I can't believe YOU lived through those times and don't remember!

View attachment 202009

Lol how convenient you left out the second recession that happened in 2008. Why do I need links for that? Those tax cuts obviously failed because the second recession happened anyway. Don’t be a child about this.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It’s benefited me just fine so far. You do realize you actually have to have a job in order to pay lower taxes right?

Oh so you’re speaking to 4% of the population that DON’T have jobs? Why? Why does this small percentage matter to you in terms of policy differences between the left and right?

There are more than 4% of you without jobs, Billy

You don’t have any actual statistics in mind. It’s just easier to assume most people are lazy while you are a manly man who gets a paycheck every month! It’s such emotional crap that only benefits your ego. The truth of fbe matter is that welfare like SNAP mostly benefits kids, the elderly, the disabled, and veterans.

Why thank you, Billy, I am a manly man. This bicep flex is for you bruh

View attachment 201920

Gay.

Don’t be jealous

Haters gonna hate

AC Slater gonna slate

 

[healthmyths]

LOL. Another surreal, bizzare OP about the Bush tax cuts "not helping workers but only the rich." Go look at the Bush tax cuts' tax tables and you'll see that by far the largest income tax rate cuts went to the middle class, not to the rich. I was a "worker" in the Bush years, and those tax cuts helped me and my family considerably.

That’s complete bullshit. If those tax cuts were so helpful, why did we go through two recessions in Bush’s two terms?

First of all DUMMY where are your FACTS? Where are your supporting documents...LINKS?
See any dummy can say what you wrote and because you don't substantiate it NO ONE believes YOU!
A) Recession 2001...
FACT it started under Clinton
The 2001 recession resulted from the Y2K scare (Y2K stands for Year 2000). It was an erroneously foretold Year 2000 software problem that had to do with the two-digit storage of year values.
In 1999, there was an economic boom in computer and software sales.
Many companies and individuals bought new computer systems to make sure their software was Y2K compliant. The operating code had to be able to understand the difference between 2000 and 1900. Many fields within that code only had two spaces, not the four needed to differentiate between the two dates.
As a result, the stock price of many high-tech companies started to increase. Investors' began buying stock in any high tech company, whether they were showing profits or not. The exuberance for dot.com companies became irrational.
The boom led to a bust in dot-com businesses. It became apparent in January 2000 that computer orders were going to decline. The shelf life of most computers is about two years. Companies had just bought all the equipment they would need. As a result, the stock market dropped in March 2000. As stock prices declined, so did the value of the dot.com companies and many went bankrupt.
The Federal Reserve ignored the markets and continued raising interest rates. The fed funds rate reached 6.5 percent by May 2000. Interest rates remained high when the economy needed low rates for cheap credit. Find out How 9/11 Impacted the Recession of 2001 and Made It Worse

The 2000 Dot.com bust ... and more facts than you can handle!!!
There has NEVER ever been any Presidency that had to fact these EVENTS in history. Never.
Depression sure but not attacks, no worst hurricanes...
Pearl Harbor.... closest event but was NOT on land and only took place in Hawaii.... then a territory and then on military bases.
9/11 was WTC/Pentagon/Anthrax attacks... you name it the fall of 2001 saw all of these!
Worst hurricane SEASONS not just worst hurricanes!
So yea Bush faced crap that NO other president has ever had to face.
And I'm shouting now because I can't believe YOU lived through those times and don't remember!

View attachment 202009

Lol how convenient you left out the second recession that happened in 2008. Why do I need links for that? Those tax cuts obviously failed because the second recession happened anyway. Don’t be a child about this.

NO the 2nd recession as Barney Frank admitted was caused by the housing bubble!

For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession. But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said.
Remarkable. And he went on to say that:
"it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
"I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie
IT WAS A GREAT MISTAKE ACCORDING TO FRANK!

So you going to ignore Barney's admission AND THE FACT GWB warned Congress 17 times...
GWB's administration was LAUGHED AT BY Democrats Frank and Dodd after 17 times trying to get Fannie/Freddie fixed!
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

AND another factor you and most of your non-fact-based,emotional laden responsdents ignore!
Which in the attached you obviously never knew!
is the Financial attack on 9/18/08...
You totally ignored how Soros was partially responsible for this!
Add to this the move of ideological the friends of known economic terrorist, and fellow bankroller of MarxoFascists, George Soros, who are Herb and Marion Sandler.
These culprits sold their virtual loansharking mortgage business, Golden West, to Wachovia Bank.
The news on redemptions at Reserve Primary is certainly being kept low key. The only reference to it that I have seen was buried in the third paragraph of a Bloomberg story.
$550B run on money markets, 9/11 or 9/18, 2008?

So just to repeat since you don't seem to read too well!
A) The housing bubble was caused by the red-lining lawsuit Obama on behalf of ACORN filed against Citibank in 1994. Proof?
in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront.
Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.
With landmark lawsuit, Barack Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago’s African-Americans

NOW once and for all why are you persisting in responding WITH nothing to support your statements? It is so simple to use the internet.
But YOU CAN"T! Because all the below events Occurred! All contributed to the supposedly "great recession"!

YOU idiots never lived through Jimmy Carter when GAS lines existed. When prime interest was 21%! When Unemployment was 10%. When Inflation was 15%

• 
  

 

[Wry Catcher]

Corporations are already wealthier than ever before. There is no incentive for these corporations to invest in labor when it is just easier to save money on tax cuts. Meanwhile, the deficit explodes and only executives benefit.

Even if corporate profits weren’t at an all time high, there is still a feduciaery responsibility to maximize profit. How, in part. do you maximize profit? By not investing in labor and accepting the economy as is. Right now, higher wage jobs are extremely competitive among workers while lower income jobs fill quite easily.

Lower wage workers are at the mercy of the economy. While it may be easy for republicans to call them lazy, it ignores the complexity of what creates poverty. Low wage workers do not have the time or money to spend on education that would make them qualified for skilled jobs. Of course, let’s pretend ALL workers did this. Who would be left behind to fill those entry level jobs that keep any business afloat?

Well there are more jobs than "qualified" people to fill them. Fortunately dummies like you that can't even pay attention to a simple red dotted line indicating you completely misspelled
"fiduciary" (feduciaery responsibility)

Corporations are already wealthier than ever before. There is no incentive for these corporations to invest in labor when it is just easier to save money on tax cuts. Meanwhile, the deficit explodes and only executives benefit.

Even if corporate profits weren’t at an all time high, there is still a feduciaery responsibility to maximize profit. How, in part, do you maximize profit? By not investing in labor and accepting the economy as is. Right now, higher wage jobs are extremely competitive among workers while lower income jobs fill quite easily.

Lower wage workers are at the mercy of the economy. While it may be easy for republicans to call them lazy, it ignores the complexity of what creates poverty. Low wage workers do not have the time or money to spend on education that would make them qualified for skilled jobs. Of course, let’s pretend ALL workers did this. Who would be left behind to fill those entry level jobs that keep any business afloat?

View attachment 201914

View attachment 201913
won't be getting those jobs because simple following instructions i.e. LIKE A LITTLE red dotted line is trying to show you is evidently too complicated!

Pointing out a misspelled word is not a rebuttal, it's a captious diversion. The facts in his post are substantive, thoughtful and thought provoking; unlike your response.

 

[edthecynic]

You do realize you actually have to have a job in order to pay lower taxes right?

Wrong!
47% already pay no income taxes, so an income tax cut gives them ZERO benefit. A payroll tax cut would benefit ALL workers, which is why the Right never support payroll tax cuts.

 

[edthecynic]

YOU idiots never lived through Jimmy Carter when GAS lines existed. When prime interest was 21%! When Unemployment was 10%.

Prime interest was never 21% or unemployment 10% under Carter, St Ronnie owns that dubious distinction!

 

[healthmyths]

Corporations are already wealthier than ever before. There is no incentive for these corporations to invest in labor when it is just easier to save money on tax cuts. Meanwhile, the deficit explodes and only executives benefit.

Even if corporate profits weren’t at an all time high, there is still a feduciaery responsibility to maximize profit. How, in part. do you maximize profit? By not investing in labor and accepting the economy as is. Right now, higher wage jobs are extremely competitive among workers while lower income jobs fill quite easily.

Lower wage workers are at the mercy of the economy. While it may be easy for republicans to call them lazy, it ignores the complexity of what creates poverty. Low wage workers do not have the time or money to spend on education that would make them qualified for skilled jobs. Of course, let’s pretend ALL workers did this. Who would be left behind to fill those entry level jobs that keep any business afloat?

Well there are more jobs than "qualified" people to fill them. Fortunately dummies like you that can't even pay attention to a simple red dotted line indicating you completely misspelled
"fiduciary" (feduciaery responsibility)

Corporations are already wealthier than ever before. There is no incentive for these corporations to invest in labor when it is just easier to save money on tax cuts. Meanwhile, the deficit explodes and only executives benefit.

Even if corporate profits weren’t at an all time high, there is still a feduciaery responsibility to maximize profit. How, in part, do you maximize profit? By not investing in labor and accepting the economy as is. Right now, higher wage jobs are extremely competitive among workers while lower income jobs fill quite easily.

Lower wage workers are at the mercy of the economy. While it may be easy for republicans to call them lazy, it ignores the complexity of what creates poverty. Low wage workers do not have the time or money to spend on education that would make them qualified for skilled jobs. Of course, let’s pretend ALL workers did this. Who would be left behind to fill those entry level jobs that keep any business afloat?

View attachment 201914

View attachment 201913
won't be getting those jobs because simple following instructions i.e. LIKE A LITTLE red dotted line is trying to show you is evidently too complicated!

Pointing out a misspelled word is not a rebuttal, it's a captious diversion. The facts in his post are substantive, thoughtful and thought provoking; unlike your response.

Well my point is as "captious" as it might be, his comments would be more believable if HE provided LINKS to prove his unsubstantiated comments!

Also there is nothing to rebut also because he didn't provide and FACTS.

They can't be "thoughtful and thought provoking" if there is NO facts to support his wild eyed, hyperbolic comments.

And pointing out the simple following of a little red dotted line proves that if he is too lazy to pay attention to that, well all his comments are for naught!
I am of the belief that scholarly efforts prove far more accurate then seat-of-the-pants statements like he made and the simple fact he apparently is too lazy to pay attention to a simple help...i.e. the little red dotted line or he is evidently so cocky and sure of himself he doesn't need corrections.

I like everyone else is prone to type too fast as the thoughts come out faster then my fingers accurately reproduce. Hence my great appreciation for the simple red dotted line!
And it just seems to be an indication of lazy people with lazy ideas that a) don't pay attention to the help and b) don't substantiate!

 

[bripat9643]

Corporations are already wealthier than ever before. There is no incentive for these corporations to invest in labor when it is just easier to save money on tax cuts. Meanwhile, the deficit explodes and only executives benefit.

Even if corporate profits weren’t at an all time high, there is still a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit. How, in part, do you maximize profit? By not investing in labor and accepting the economy as is. Right now, higher wage jobs are extremely competitive among workers while lower income jobs fill quite easily.

Lower wage workers are at the mercy of the economy. While it may be easy for republicans to call them lazy, it ignores the complexity of what creates poverty. Low wage workers do not have the time or money to spend on education that would make them qualified for skilled jobs. Of course, let’s pretend ALL workers did this. Who would be left behind to fill those entry level jobs that keep any business afloat?

Thanks for showing everyone that you're an economic ignoramous. Idiocies like the stuff you posted in your OP should make everyone pause before they consider voting for a Democrat.

 

[bripat9643]

YOU idiots never lived through Jimmy Carter when GAS lines existed. When prime interest was 21%! When Unemployment was 10%.

Prime interest was never 21% or unemployment 10% under Carter, St Ronnie owns that dubious distinction!

Your theory that Carter wasn't responsible is why we're all laughing.

 

[bripat9643]

YOU idiots never lived through Jimmy Carter when GAS lines existed. When prime interest was 21%! When Unemployment was 10%.

Prime interest was never 21% or unemployment 10% under Carter, St Ronnie owns that dubious distinction!

Inflation was 13.5% in 1980. Short-term interest rates reached 18 percent in February and March 1980. Unemployment was 7,8%

 

[healthmyths]

YOU idiots never lived through Jimmy Carter when GAS lines existed. When prime interest was 21%! When Unemployment was 10%.

Prime interest was never 21% or unemployment 10% under Carter, St Ronnie owns that dubious distinction!

A) December 16, 1980 21.00% United States Prime Rate History Who was President??? CARTER!
B) In 1979 alone, gasoline prices increased 60%. The inflation rate went from 6.8% in 1977, to 7.6% in 1978, to 11.5% in 1979, to 12.4% in 1980. Who was President?? Carter.
Jimmy Carter's Inferior Years | Human Events

C)And I was wrong!
Reagan had 10.8% In 12/1982... that's true. Compare Today's Unemployment with the Past

This though like any knowledgeable person who BLAMED Bush for Obama's 9.9% 2009 rate will quickly have to blame the climbing unemployment rate under Carter.
You guys can't have it both ways. Either Carter and Bush were responsible for Reagan and Obama dealing with double digit (and yes Obama had the start of the 10/2009
at 10.0% Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You do realize you actually have to have a job in order to pay lower taxes right?

Wrong!
47% already pay no income taxes, so an income tax cut gives them ZERO benefit. A payroll tax cut would benefit ALL workers, which is why the Right never support payroll tax cuts.

So what you are saying is you want to kill Social Security? Ironic

 

[Billy000]

LOL. Another surreal, bizzare OP about the Bush tax cuts "not helping workers but only the rich." Go look at the Bush tax cuts' tax tables and you'll see that by far the largest income tax rate cuts went to the middle class, not to the rich. I was a "worker" in the Bush years, and those tax cuts helped me and my family considerably.

That’s complete bullshit. If those tax cuts were so helpful, why did we go through two recessions in Bush’s two terms?

First of all DUMMY where are your FACTS? Where are your supporting documents...LINKS?
See any dummy can say what you wrote and because you don't substantiate it NO ONE believes YOU!
A) Recession 2001...
FACT it started under Clinton
The 2001 recession resulted from the Y2K scare (Y2K stands for Year 2000). It was an erroneously foretold Year 2000 software problem that had to do with the two-digit storage of year values.
In 1999, there was an economic boom in computer and software sales.
Many companies and individuals bought new computer systems to make sure their software was Y2K compliant. The operating code had to be able to understand the difference between 2000 and 1900. Many fields within that code only had two spaces, not the four needed to differentiate between the two dates.
As a result, the stock price of many high-tech companies started to increase. Investors' began buying stock in any high tech company, whether they were showing profits or not. The exuberance for dot.com companies became irrational.
The boom led to a bust in dot-com businesses. It became apparent in January 2000 that computer orders were going to decline. The shelf life of most computers is about two years. Companies had just bought all the equipment they would need. As a result, the stock market dropped in March 2000. As stock prices declined, so did the value of the dot.com companies and many went bankrupt.
The Federal Reserve ignored the markets and continued raising interest rates. The fed funds rate reached 6.5 percent by May 2000. Interest rates remained high when the economy needed low rates for cheap credit. Find out How 9/11 Impacted the Recession of 2001 and Made It Worse

The 2000 Dot.com bust ... and more facts than you can handle!!!
There has NEVER ever been any Presidency that had to fact these EVENTS in history. Never.
Depression sure but not attacks, no worst hurricanes...
Pearl Harbor.... closest event but was NOT on land and only took place in Hawaii.... then a territory and then on military bases.
9/11 was WTC/Pentagon/Anthrax attacks... you name it the fall of 2001 saw all of these!
Worst hurricane SEASONS not just worst hurricanes!
So yea Bush faced crap that NO other president has ever had to face.
And I'm shouting now because I can't believe YOU lived through those times and don't remember!

View attachment 202009

Lol how convenient you left out the second recession that happened in 2008. Why do I need links for that? Those tax cuts obviously failed because the second recession happened anyway. Don’t be a child about this.

NO the 2nd recession as Barney Frank admitted was caused by the housing bubble!

For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession. But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said.
Remarkable. And he went on to say that:
"it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
"I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie
IT WAS A GREAT MISTAKE ACCORDING TO FRANK!

So you going to ignore Barney's admission AND THE FACT GWB warned Congress 17 times...
GWB's administration was LAUGHED AT BY Democrats Frank and Dodd after 17 times trying to get Fannie/Freddie fixed!
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

AND another factor you and most of your non-fact-based,emotional laden responsdents ignore!
Which in the attached you obviously never knew!
is the Financial attack on 9/18/08...
You totally ignored how Soros was partially responsible for this!
Add to this the move of ideological the friends of known economic terrorist, and fellow bankroller of MarxoFascists, George Soros, who are Herb and Marion Sandler.
These culprits sold their virtual loansharking mortgage business, Golden West, to Wachovia Bank.
The news on redemptions at Reserve Primary is certainly being kept low key. The only reference to it that I have seen was buried in the third paragraph of a Bloomberg story.
$550B run on money markets, 9/11 or 9/18, 2008?

So just to repeat since you don't seem to read too well!
A) The housing bubble was caused by the red-lining lawsuit Obama on behalf of ACORN filed against Citibank in 1994. Proof?
in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront.
Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.
With landmark lawsuit, Barack Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago’s African-Americans

NOW once and for all why are you persisting in responding WITH nothing to support your statements? It is so simple to use the internet.
But YOU CAN"T! Because all the below events Occurred! All contributed to the supposedly "great recession"!

YOU idiots never lived through Jimmy Carter when GAS lines existed. When prime interest was 21%! When Unemployment was 10%. When Inflation was 15%
View attachment 202032

View attachment 202030

Lol okay 1) Frank is not some authority on economics. 2) You quoting bullshit righting links like those is ridiculous. 3) There is no way the housing crisis would have been the actual reason for the recession. Yes, it played a role, but by itself it wouldn’t have caused a monthly job loss of 800,000 jobs per month. The recession itself was caused by a lack of broad regulation on walls street. 5) Oh and why did the recession happen anyway if the cuts were supposed to create a huge boom to the economy? Why didn’t they fix it. Hmmm.

 

[Billy000]

Corporations are already wealthier than ever before. There is no incentive for these corporations to invest in labor when it is just easier to save money on tax cuts. Meanwhile, the deficit explodes and only executives benefit.

Even if corporate profits weren’t at an all time high, there is still a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit. How, in part, do you maximize profit? By not investing in labor and accepting the economy as is. Right now, higher wage jobs are extremely competitive among workers while lower income jobs fill quite easily.

Lower wage workers are at the mercy of the economy. While it may be easy for republicans to call them lazy, it ignores the complexity of what creates poverty. Low wage workers do not have the time or money to spend on education that would make them qualified for skilled jobs. Of course, let’s pretend ALL workers did this. Who would be left behind to fill those entry level jobs that keep any business afloat?

Thanks for showing everyone that you're an economic ignoramous. Idiocies like the stuff you posted in your OP should make everyone pause before they consider voting for a Democrat.

You just can’t explain how I am wrong.

 

[edthecynic]

YOU idiots never lived through Jimmy Carter when GAS lines existed. When prime interest was 21%! When Unemployment was 10%.

Prime interest was never 21% or unemployment 10% under Carter, St Ronnie owns that dubious distinction!

Your theory that Carter wasn't responsible is why we're all laughing.

If Carter was responsible you would not have had to lie about his numbers and project Reagan's numbers on to him. DUH!