You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd's answer to the cause of the 2008 recession is "The government did it", ignoring all of the following:

• In its January 2011 report, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC, a committee of U.S. congressmen) concluded that the financial crisis was avoidable and was caused by:[234][235][236][237][238]
  
  • "widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision", including the Federal Reserve's failure to stem the tide of toxic assets.
  • "dramatic failures of corporate governance and risk management at many systemically important financial institutions" including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk.
  • "a combination of excessive borrowing, risky investments, and lack of transparency" by financial institutions and by households that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis.
  • ill preparation and inconsistent action by government and key policy makers lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw that "added to the uncertainty and panic".
  • a "systemic breakdown in accountability and ethics" at all levels.
  • "collapsing mortgage-lending standards and the mortgage securitization pipeline".
  • deregulation of 'over-the-counter' derivatives, especially credit default swaps.
  • "the failures of credit rating agencies" to correctly price risk.
• "Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse" (known as the Levin–Coburn Report) by the United States Senate concluded that the crisis was the result of "high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street".[239]
• The high delinquency and default rates by homeowners, particularly those with subprime credit, led to a rapid devaluation of mortgage-backed securities including bundled loan portfolios, derivatives and credit default swaps. As the value of these assets plummeted, buyers for these securities evaporated and banks who were heavily invested in these assets began to experience a liquidity crisis.
• Securitization, a process in which many mortgages were bundled together and formed into new financial instruments called mortgage-backed securities, allowed for shifting of risk and lax underwriting standards. These bundles could be sold as (ostensibly) low-risk securities partly because they were often backed by credit default swap insurance.[240] Because mortgage lenders could pass these mortgages (and the associated risks) on in this way, they could and did adopt loose underwriting criteria.
• Lax regulation allowed predatory lending in the private sector,[241][242] especially after the federal government overrode anti-predatory state laws in 2004.[243]
• The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA),[244] a 1977 U.S. federal law designed to help low- and moderate-income Americans get mortgage loans required banks to grant mortgages to higher risk families.[245][246][247][248] Granted, in 2009, Federal Reserve economists found that, "only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations [related] to the CRA", and that "CRA-related loans appear[ed] to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans". These findings "run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the [mortgage crisis]."[249]
• Reckless lending by lenders such as Bank of America's Countrywide Financial unit was increasingly incentivized and even mandated by government regulation.[250][251][252] This may have caused Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lose market share and to respond by lowering their own standards.[253]
• Mortgage guarantees by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, quasi-government agencies, which purchased many subprime loan securitizations.[254] The implicit guarantee by the U.S. federal government created a moral hazard and contributed to a glut of risky lending.
• Government policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for subprime borrowers; overvaluation of bundled subprime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate; questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers; compensation structures by banks and mortgage originators that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation; and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making.[255][256]
• The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which partially repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, effectively removed the separation between investment banks and depository banks in the United States and increased speculation on the part of depository banks.[257]
• Credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the financial risk involved with mortgage loan-related financial products, and governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address changes in financial markets.[258][259][260]
• Variations in the cost of borrowing.[261]
• Fair value accounting was issued as U.S. accounting standard SFAS 157 in 2006 by the privately run Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)—delegated by the SEC with the task of establishing financial reporting standards.[262] This required that tradable assets such as mortgage securities be valued according to their current market value rather than their historic cost or some future expected value. When the market for such securities became volatile and collapsed, the resulting loss of value had a major financial effect upon the institutions holding them even if they had no immediate plans to sell them.[263]
• Easy availability of credit in the US, fueled by large inflows of foreign funds after the 1998 Russian financial crisis and 1997 Asian financial crisis of the 1997–1998 period, led to a housing construction boom and facilitated debt-financed consumer spending. As banks began to give out more loans to potential home owners, housing prices began to rise. Lax lending standards and rising real estate prices also contributed to the real estate bubble. Loans of various types (e.g., mortgage, credit card, and auto) were easy to obtain and consumers assumed an unprecedented debt load.[264][233][265]
• As part of the housing and credit booms, the number of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO), which derived their value from mortgage payments and housing prices, greatly increased. Such financial innovation enabled institutions and investors to invest in the U.S. housing market. As housing prices declined, these investors reported significant losses.[266]
• Falling prices also resulted in homes worth less than the mortgage loans, providing borrowers with a financial incentive to enter foreclosure. Foreclosure levels were elevated until early 2014.[267] drained significant wealth from consumers, losing up to $4.2 trillion[268] Defaults and losses on other loan types also increased significantly as the crisis expanded from the housing market to other parts of the economy. Total losses were estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars globally.[266]
• Financialization – the increased use of leverage in the financial system.
• Financial institutions such as investment banks and hedge funds, as well as certain, differently regulated banks, assumed significant debt burdens while providing the loans described above and did not have a financial cushion sufficient to absorb large loan defaults or losses.[269] These losses affected the ability of financial institutions to lend, slowing economic activity.
• Some critics contend that government mandates forced banks to extend loans to borrowers previously considered uncreditworthy, leading to increasingly lax underwriting standards and high mortgage approval rates.[270][250][271][251] These, in turn, led to an increase in the number of homebuyers, which drove up housing prices. This appreciation in value led many homeowners to borrow against the equity in their homes as an apparent windfall, leading to over-leveraging.

2007–2008 financial crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anyone with half a brain can see the situation is a bit more complex than Todd's version.

Todd's answer to the cause of the 2008 recession is "The government did it", ignoring all of the following:

I didn't ignore any of that. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is plenty of blame to go around. Only idiots blame it all on capitalist greed while ignoring governmental idiocy and incompetence.

"widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision", including the Federal Reserve's failure

ill preparation and inconsistent action by government and key policy makers

the failure of regulators

Because mortgage lenders could pass these mortgages (and the associated risks) on in this way, they could and did adopt loose underwriting criteria.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA),[244] a 1977 U.S. federal law designed to help low- and moderate-income Americans get mortgage loans required banks to grant mortgages to higher risk families.

Reckless lending by lenders such as Bank of America's Countrywide Financial unit was increasingly incentivized and even mandated by government regulation.

This may have caused Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lose market share and to respond by lowering their own standards.[253]

Mortgage guarantees by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, quasi-government agencies, which purchased many subprime loan securitizations.[254] The implicit guarantee by the U.S. federal government created a moral hazard and contributed to a glut of risky lending.

Government policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for subprime borrowers;

Easy availability of credit in the US, fueled by large inflows of foreign funds

Some critics contend that government mandates forced banks to extend loans to borrowers previously considered uncreditworthy,

Those are some excellent points in your link.
Private greed, fear of missing out, crowd following, easy money from the Fed, investors looking for higher yields by buying "safe" MBS.

By themselves, was that enough to cause a big bubble? Maybe.

Add to that all the government incentives, mandates, failures etc.
and we all see what happened.

 

[jc456]

Several policies implemented during the Trump administration can be seen as having failed the American working class, either by not delivering on their promises or by exacerbating existing economic and social issues:

1. 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)​

• Benefits to the Wealthy: The TCJA significantly reduced corporate tax rates and offered substantial tax cuts for the wealthy, under the premise that these benefits would trickle down to the working class through job creation and wage increases.

Explain how the wealthy got more than the middle class? The tax brackets are the same for both?

• However, the primary beneficiaries were corporations and the wealthy, who used the tax cuts largely for stock buybacks and executive bonuses, with minimal impact on wages or job creation for the working class.

2. Unprepared Trade War with China​

• Tariffs on Imported Goods: The Trump administration's trade war, particularly the imposition of tariffs on Chinese goods, led to higher prices for many consumer goods.

Those goods put Americans out of work! Is that what you are for?

 

[TruthNotBS]

No one is running from you Todd,

You are running away, rather than admitting that the huge number and dollar amount of government held subprime mortgages, well over 50% of all subprime mortgages, can't be dismissed as a minor, unimportant factor in the bubble and crash.

Capitalism, especially in its deregulated form, allows corporate greed to corrupt every aspect of government and finance. The 2008 crisis was a stark example of how corporations, particularly in the financial sector, manipulate the system for profit while leaving the public to bear the consequences. The fact that so many subprime mortgages ended up with government agencies doesn't absolve the private sector; it underscores how deeply corporations have embedded themselves in our government, turning America into a plutocracy where the wealthy dictate policy to serve their interests.

Your argument conveniently overlooks that the private banking sector was the primary engine driving the creation and securitization of subprime loans, which led to the 2008 financial crisis. Even if a large percentage of subprime mortgages ended up on the books of government-backed agencies like Fannie and Freddie, this doesn’t absolve private banks of responsibility. These banks originated and profited massively from selling these risky loans, knowing they were offloading them onto others, including government agencies.

Moreover, the government's involvement in holding these mortgages does not erase the fact that it was private banks and financial institutions that aggressively pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, enabling them to engage in the very practices that fueled the crisis. The fact that these mortgages were later acquired by government agencies does not vindicate the private sector's reckless behavior; it only highlights how the crisis spread through a deeply interconnected financial system. Your attempt to shift blame entirely onto public entities ignores the root causes driven by private sector greed and deregulation.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Explain how the wealthy got more than the middle class? The tax brackets are the same for both?



Those goods put Americans out of work! Is that what you are for?

If Trump were truly interested in "MAGA", i.e. Making America Great Again, he would've done whatever it took, to restore our manufacturing base and lift the working class from hardship. He would be pro-labor unions, and for making sure every full-time worker in America is earning a living wage. He would ensure everyone had affordable housing, Medicaid or Medicare, child daycare..etc. America's infrastructure would be modernized and he would lay the groundwork for more public transit. He would move away from fossil fuels and towards safe, clean nuclear energy. It's 2024 and we're still burning coal to generate electricity. That's insane.

The Biden administration, through the Inflation Reduction Act, capped the cost of insulin for Medicare recipients at $35 per month, which significantly lowered out-of-pocket expenses for millions of Americans. While Trump took steps to address insulin prices, including an executive order to reduce costs for certain patients, the widespread implementation of the $35 cap was a major policy achievement under Biden's administration. This cap ensures more affordable access to life-saving medication for those on Medicare. We need to extend those price caps to everyone who is on insulin, regardless of their age or whether they're on Medicare or not. We need these reforms and Trump isn't going to do it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capitalism, especially in its deregulated form, allows corporate greed to corrupt every aspect of government and finance. The 2008 crisis was a stark example of how corporations, particularly in the financial sector, manipulate the system for profit while leaving the public to bear the consequences. The fact that so many subprime mortgages ended up with government agencies doesn't absolve the private sector; it underscores how deeply corporations have embedded themselves in our government, turning America into a plutocracy where the wealthy dictate policy to serve their interests.

Your argument conveniently overlooks that the private banking sector was the primary engine driving the creation and securitization of subprime loans, which led to the 2008 financial crisis. Even if a large percentage of subprime mortgages ended up on the books of government-backed agencies like Fannie and Freddie, this doesn’t absolve private banks of responsibility. These banks originated and profited massively from selling these risky loans, knowing they were offloading them onto others, including government agencies.

Moreover, the government's involvement in holding these mortgages does not erase the fact that it was private banks and financial institutions that aggressively pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, enabling them to engage in the very practices that fueled the crisis. The fact that these mortgages were later acquired by government agencies does not vindicate the private sector's reckless behavior; it only highlights how the crisis spread through a deeply interconnected financial system. Your attempt to shift blame entirely onto public entities ignores the root causes driven by private sector greed and deregulation.

The fact that so many subprime mortgages ended up with government agencies doesn't absolve the private sector;

How much did the taxpayer end up losing because of HUD's moronic subprime mandate?


Your argument conveniently overlooks that the private banking sector was the primary engine driving the creation and securitization of subprime loans, which led to the 2008 financial crisis.

If the government owned 70% of the subprime mortgages, the government was the primary engine.


Moreover, the government's involvement in holding these mortgages does not erase the fact that it was private banks and financial institutions that aggressively pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall,


Banks were allowed to write subprime mortgages under Glass-Steagall.
Fannie and Freddie, before the HUD mandate, only bought high quality, "conforming" mortgages. It was government stupidity that changed that, not private banks.

Your attempt to shift blame entirely onto public entities

Stop lying, you stupid commie twat. I never entirely blamed anything.

 

[jc456]

If Trump were truly interested in "MAGA", i.e. Making America Great Again, he would've done whatever it took, to restore our manufacturing base and lift the working class from hardship. He would be pro-labor unions, and for making sure every full-time worker in America is earning a living wage. He would ensure everyone had affordable housing, Medicaid or Medicare, child daycare..etc. America's infrastructure would be modernized and he would lay the groundwork for more public transit. He would move away from fossil fuels and towards safe, clean nuclear energy. It's 2024 and we're still burning coal to generate electricity. That's insane.

The Biden administration, through the Inflation Reduction Act, capped the cost of insulin for Medicare recipients at $35 per month, which significantly lowered out-of-pocket expenses for millions of Americans. While Trump took steps to address insulin prices, including an executive order to reduce costs for certain patients, the widespread implementation of the $35 cap was a major policy achievement under Biden's administration. This cap ensures more affordable access to life-saving medication for those on Medicare. We need to extend those price caps to everyone who is on insulin, regardless of their age or whether they're on Medicare or not. We need these reforms and Trump isn't going to do it.

Nothing addressed tax question I asked. Word salads about nothing are so boring

 

[jc456]

Explain how the wealthy got more than the middle class? The tax brackets are the same for both?



Those goods put Americans out of work! Is that what you are for?

beagle9 , notice he couldn’t address the question generated from his own post.

Turrets is all they ever have

 

[beagle9]

beagle9 , notice he couldn’t address the question generated from his own post.

Turrets is all they ever have

Noticed..

 

[jc456]

Noticed..

I bet he’s busy working on another word salad to say absolutely nothing again. I only want to know how he feels the wealth got more money back out of the very same brackets! Other than, they made more and paid more

 

[beagle9]

I bet he’s busy working on another word salad to say absolutely nothing again. I only want to know how he feels the wealth got more money back out of the very same brackets! Other than, they made more and paid more

You got that right.. These knuckleheads think that they have no equals when they pull their confoolery and stupidity around here, but they are sadly mistaken. It's so easy to see what they do, but they think that they can fool us.

 

[jc456]

You got that right.. These knuckleheads think that they have no equals when they pull their confoolery and stupidity around here, but they are sadly mistaken. It's so easy to see what they do, but they think that they can fool us.

That dude has serious turrets problems. Word salad books

 

[beagle9]

That dude has serious turrets problems. Word salad books

One things for sure, is that more don't always equal better... He must not have attended that class.

 

[jc456]

Capitalism, especially in its deregulated form, allows corporate greed to corrupt every aspect of government and finance.

How does corporate greed corrupt government? Better yet, explain what you call corporate greed?

The 2008 crisis was a stark example of how corporations, particularly in the financial sector, manipulate the system for profit while leaving the public to bear the consequences.

Except it didn’t

The fact that so many subprime mortgages ended up with government agencies doesn't absolve the private sector;

Why did they end up there?

 

[TruthNotBS]

How does corporate greed corrupt government? Better yet, explain what you call corporate greed?

Except it didn’t

Why did they end up there?

1. Corporate Greed and Government Corruption: Corporate greed corrupts government when powerful corporations use their wealth to influence legislation and policy decisions that benefit them, often at the expense of the public. This is evident when lobbyists push for deregulation, leading to financial instability. Corporate greed, in this context, refers to prioritizing profit over ethical responsibility and public welfare.
2. The 2008 Financial Crisis: The crisis was not simply the result of government actions but a direct consequence of corporate behavior in a deregulated environment. Private sector entities, including banks, pursued aggressive lending practices and securitization strategies to maximize profits, knowing that government entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would absorb much of the risk. These subprime mortgages ended up with government agencies because the financial industry created, bundled, and sold them as secure investments, exploiting the system they had lobbied to weaken.

The private sector's manipulation of the financial system for short-term gain was the core issue, not just the involvement of government agencies. Blaming the government alone ignores the extensive lobbying and exploitation by the financial sector.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Nothing addressed tax question I asked. Word salads about nothing are so boring

1. Effective Tax Rate vs. Marginal Tax Rate: While the tax brackets are the same, the effective tax rate (the percentage of income actually paid in taxes) often favors the wealthy. They can take advantage of various deductions, credits, and loopholes that significantly reduce their tax burden compared to the middle class.
2. Capital Gains and Income Sources: The wealthy often earn a large portion of their income from capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. This means that while middle-class workers pay higher rates on their wages, the wealthy pay less on investment income. Additionally, the use of offshore accounts, tax havens, and sophisticated tax planning allows the wealthy to further minimize their tax obligations, exacerbating income inequality.

The tax system's complexity and the benefits it offers to those with access to high-quality tax advice and planning are key to understanding why the wealthy often pay a lower effective tax rate than the middle class, despite nominally identical tax brackets.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The fact that so many subprime mortgages ended up with government agencies doesn't absolve the private sector;

How much did the taxpayer end up losing because of HUD's moronic subprime mandate?


Your argument conveniently overlooks that the private banking sector was the primary engine driving the creation and securitization of subprime loans, which led to the 2008 financial crisis.

If the government owned 70% of the subprime mortgages, the government was the primary engine.


Moreover, the government's involvement in holding these mortgages does not erase the fact that it was private banks and financial institutions that aggressively pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall,


Banks were allowed to write subprime mortgages under Glass-Steagall.
Fannie and Freddie, before the HUD mandate, only bought high quality, "conforming" mortgages. It was government stupidity that changed that, not private banks.

Your attempt to shift blame entirely onto public entities

Stop lying, you stupid commie twat. I never entirely blamed anything.

You're twisting the facts to suit your narrative. The fact that government agencies held a large share of subprime mortgages doesn’t absolve the private sector of its leading role in creating and pushing these risky loans. Private banks were the primary engine behind the subprime mortgage machine, aggressively marketing these loans and securitizing them into toxic assets.

You keep citing the HUD mandate as if it forced banks to engage in reckless behavior, but where’s your evidence? The banks lobbied hard to repeal Glass-Steagall to deregulate the industry, which allowed them to maximize profits at the public’s expense. How much money did these private banks pour into lobbying efforts to ensure that they could exploit the financial system without sufficient oversight? Where’s your evidence that this was purely a government failure and not driven by corporate greed?

Furthermore, your claim that Glass-Steagall is irrelevant because banks were allowed to write subprime mortgages under it is a misdirection. Glass-Steagall's repeal enabled the merging of commercial and investment banking, which amplified the risk by allowing banks to speculate with depositor funds, leading to the systemic collapse we saw in 2008. Can you provide evidence that Glass-Steagall’s repeal had no significant impact on the financial crisis? Or are you just deflecting from the real issue? All you have presented so far are right-wing opinions. Not a shred of evidence.

 

[beagle9]

1. Corporate Greed and Government Corruption: Corporate greed corrupts government when powerful corporations use their wealth to influence legislation and policy decisions that benefit them, often at the expense of the public. This is evident when lobbyists push for deregulation, leading to financial instability. Corporate greed, in this context, refers to prioritizing profit over ethical responsibility and public welfare.
2. The 2008 Financial Crisis: The crisis was not simply the result of government actions but a direct consequence of corporate behavior in a deregulated environment. Private sector entities, including banks, pursued aggressive lending practices and securitization strategies to maximize profits, knowing that government entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would absorb much of the risk. These subprime mortgages ended up with government agencies because the financial industry created, bundled, and sold them as secure investments, exploiting the system they had lobbied to weaken.

The private sector's manipulation of the financial system for short-term gain was the core issue, not just the involvement of government agencies. Blaming the government alone ignores the extensive lobbying and exploitation by the financial sector.

Well you are trying your best to separate government from your premise, and there is a political motive behind it.

So what is your motive ?

Is it because it implicates Democrat government more so than Republican government when the government aspect of it is added ?

Corporations have no power or influence over government unless those who are in government want it too.

It all starts with breaking down government from the inside, and then the outside can get it's way with it. Yes, in some ways you hit on truths here and there, but your overall reasoning is being seen through easily.

 

[struth]

Protectionist, your attempt to dismiss my arguments with a condescending tone doesn’t change the fact that your claims are riddled with inaccuracies and half-truths. Let’s address them point by point.

1. Trump's Tax Cuts:

You claim that Trump cut taxes more for the lower income groups than for the rich. While it’s true that Trump's tax cuts included reductions for all income brackets, the reality is that the wealthiest Americans received a much larger absolute benefit from these cuts. The top 1% saw their after-tax income increase significantly more than any other group. Additionally, the corporate tax rate was slashed from 35% to 21%, overwhelmingly benefiting the wealthy and large corporations. These tax cuts also contributed to ballooning the deficit, which Republicans conveniently ignore when they benefit the rich but use as a pretext to cut social programs that help the working class.

Despite the tax cuts under the Trump administration, other expenses for the working class have increased, effectively negating any benefits that the tax cuts might have provided. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Healthcare Costs:
   
   • Under the Trump administration, there were efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which led to uncertainty and rising healthcare costs for many Americans. Premiums for health insurance, prescription drug prices, and out-of-pocket healthcare expenses continued to rise, putting a strain on working-class families despite the tax cuts.
2. Housing Costs:
   
   • The cost of housing has continued to rise, particularly in urban areas. Rent and home prices have increased significantly, outpacing wage growth. The tax cuts did nothing to address the housing affordability crisis, and in some cases, the reduction in federal revenue contributed to cuts in programs that could have helped alleviate these issues.
3. Education Costs:
   
   • College tuition and student loan debt have continued to skyrocket, placing an increasing burden on working-class families. The Trump administration rolled back some consumer protections for student borrowers, which further exacerbated the financial challenges related to education.
4. State and Local Taxes:
   
   • The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 capped the state and local tax (SALT) deduction at $10,000, disproportionately affecting middle-class taxpayers in states with higher taxes. This cap increased the effective tax burden for many working- and middle-class households in those states.
5. Public Services and Infrastructure:
   
   • The federal tax cuts led to reduced revenue for the government, which in turn resulted in budget cuts at the state and local levels. This has affected public services like education, transportation, and infrastructure, leading to higher costs for the working class, who often rely on these services.
6. Inflation and Cost of Living:
   
   • While the Trump tax cuts provided a short-term boost in take-home pay for some, the longer-term effects included increased deficits and national debt, which can contribute to inflationary pressures. As a result, the cost of living has continued to rise, particularly for essential goods and services, effectively diminishing the purchasing power of the tax cuts.

2. Biden and Taxation:

Your claim that there has been "no change in taxation on the rich" under Biden is misleading. The Biden administration has proposed several tax increases on the wealthiest Americans and corporations, including raising the corporate tax rate and increasing the top marginal tax rate for high earners. The challenge, however, lies in the Senate, where Republican obstruction and a few conservative Democrats have stalled these proposals. The fact remains that Biden's administration is working to increase taxes on the wealthy to fund essential social programs and infrastructure investments that benefit everyone, not just the rich.

3. Rent Control in Blue States:

You cherry-pick examples of blue states with bans on rent control or without statewide rent control laws, but this doesn’t tell the whole story. Many blue states and cities have strong tenant protections and rent control measures in place, especially in areas with significant housing affordability issues. For example, New York City and San Francisco have well-established rent control policies. Furthermore, Democrats at the federal level have consistently advocated for increased affordable housing and rental assistance programs. Republicans, on the other hand, have largely opposed these measures, favoring market-based solutions that have proven ineffective in addressing the housing crisis.

Republicans complaining about Dem rent control policies:

Democrats are more likely to be pro-rent control than Republicans. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best.
​

4. Wall Street Donations:

Yes, Hillary Clinton received significant donations from Wall Street during her campaign, which is a point of criticism from progressives and socialists alike. However, this doesn’t change the fact that Democratic policies generally favor stronger regulations on financial institutions, protections for consumers, and support for working families. In contrast, Republicans have consistently pushed for deregulation, which led to the 2008 financial crisis, and continue to advocate for policies that benefit the wealthy elite at the expense of the working class.

5. Comparing Red and Blue States:

Comparing red and blue states on rent control is a disingenuous tactic. The reality is that rent control and tenant protection policies are typically stronger in blue states and cities, where Democrats have more control. The absence of statewide rent control in some blue states doesn’t negate the fact that Democratic lawmakers and city governments in these states are actively working to address housing affordability through various means, including rent control, affordable housing initiatives, and rental assistance programs.

On the other hand, Republican-controlled states and cities often reject these measures, leading to higher rents and fewer protections for tenants.

Protectionist, your arguments rely on selective data and misleading claims. The truth is that Democratic policies are far more aligned with protecting the working class, advocating for affordable housing, and regulating the excesses of the wealthy and powerful. Republicans, including Trump, have consistently prioritized tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, and policies that exacerbate income inequality and housing insecurity. Your attempt to paint the Democratic Party as hypocritical while ignoring the blatant pro-wealthy policies of the Republican Party doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

How do corp tax cuts overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy?

 

[jc456]

1. Corporate Greed and Government Corruption: Corporate greed corrupts government when powerful corporations use their wealth to influence legislation and policy decisions that benefit them,

Explain how giving loans to people who can’t pay them back is to their advantage?

Please!

1. often at the expense of the public.

How do bad loans forced by government come at the expense of the public! Nonsense

1. This is evident when lobbyists push for deregulation,

Giving loans to people who don’t have money how?

1. leading to financial instability.

How?

1. Corporate greed, in this context, refers to prioritizing profit over ethical responsibility and public welfare.

Still waiting for what is corporate greed

1. The 2008 Financial Crisis: The crisis was not simply the result of government actions but a direct consequence of corporate behavior in a deregulated environment. Private sector entities, including banks, pursued aggressive lending practices and securitization strategies to maximize profits, knowing that government entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would absorb much of the risk. These subprime mortgages ended up with government agencies because the financial industry created, bundled, and sold them as secure investments, exploiting the system they had lobbied to weaken.

Purely bad loans

The private sector's manipulation of the financial system

How so? no money coming in

for short-term gain

What gains?

Didn’t banks go out of business?

 

[scruffy]

The government regulates the financial industry.

Not much it doesn't.