Democrats caused recession in 2007

[IcebergSlim]

Can you provide a measure by which currency has been "devalued" in recent years?

I'm not proving the field of economics to you. If you google the subject, you'll get a plethora of sources.

And this is an answer to your question in the last post. One source you are ignoring? The field of economics

Allow me to be blunt for a moment....

You are bluffing......you have no idea what you are yammering about....

You can measure the value of the dollar against other currencies, financial or real assets....

In none of those categories can you find evidence of the "devaluation" of the dollar over the past 7 years.

So it actually makes sense to you that printing money creates economic value? You sit there and say yeah, of course it does?

Explain in the context of the field of economics how you know the field of economics is wrong

Try to focus......the assertion under review is yours claiming that post Great Recession monetary and fiscal policy has "devalued" the dollar....

If you are prepared to concede that no evidence supports you, I would be pleased to explain to you where your model has gone wrong...

I said that printing money devalues the dollar, the rest was from the voices in your head. And I said it started way before that. The Great Recession was the culmination of a policy that started in earnest under Clinton and was continued under Bush. The Great Recession wasn't just a currency devaluation, a lot of bad things happened.

I know you're a Democrat hack, but did you notice the part I said both parties did it hand in hand? I am arguing with HealthMyths in fact that it's the Republicans as well while I argue with you that you think Democrats had nothing to do with it. You have to see those posts between ours, no?

Uh.....I'm nominally a Republican.....but thanks for playing.

 

[westwall]

Whenever democrats want to say that it was the economic policies of the repubican party that led to the recession of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 then someone should just point out this video


There are plenty of other videos of democrats preventing people from addressing the issues that led to the housing bubble and collapse.

The Democrats didn't cause the collapse, but they had a chance to head it off and did nothing. In fact they were warned by Bush and he asked them to act 5 times. Each time they said no. They wanted it to happen so they could blame Bush and win elections.

You are clearly entirely unfamiliar with the FCIC report.....

Clearly so are you. The facts are that Congress WAS warned. And they did nothing. That is an unarguable fact.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

In the aftermath of the US Treasury’s decision to seize control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, critics have hit at lax oversight of the mortgage companies.


The dominant theme has been that Congress let the two government-sponsored enterprises morph into a creature that eventually threatened the US financial system. Mike Oxley will have none of it.

Instead, the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.


The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of
Nasdaq.


He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

Oxley hits back at ideologues - FT.com

Public record accounts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as they occurred, and the concerns that were shared.


September 1999

With pressure from the Clinton Administration, Fannie Mae eased credit requirements on loans it would purchase from lenders, making it easier for banks to lend to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans. Raines explained that "there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market," reported the New York Times.

With this action, Fannie Mae put itself at substantial risk in the event of an economic downturn. "From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," warned Peter Wallison. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry." The danger was known.


March 2000

Rep. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana) proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight in a House Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

Rep. Frank (D-Massachusetts) dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."


June 2000

Rep. Marge Roukema (R-New Jersey): "very few banks or S&Ls could, even in this day and age, even now, meet the stress-testing requirements which Fannie and Freddie are required to meet."

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) regarding the Treasury Department line of credit: "It is really symbolic, it is obsolete, it has never been used." "Would you explain why it would be important to repeal something that seems to be of little use?"

Smith: "as long as the pipeline is there, it is like it is very expandable. . . . It is only $2 billion today. It could be $200 billion tomorrow."

Because of Democrat obfuscation, Smith's "tomorrow" arrived in 2008 when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship.


February 2003

OFHEO reports that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations . . . the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them," warning that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market, according to a White House release.


June 2003

Freddie Mac reported it had understated its profits by $6.9 billion. OFHEO director Armando Falcon Jr. requested that the White House audit Fannie Mae.


July 2003

Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina) and John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) introduced legislation to address Regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill was blocked by Democrats.


September 2003

In an interview with Ron Insana for CNN Money, Rep. Baker warned, "I have concerns that if appropriate resources aren't allocated for internal risk management, the consequences will be far more severe than just a real estate slowdown. The losses would fall quickly through the capital these companies have and down to shareholders and taxpayers. These companies have some of the lowest capital margins of any financial institution in the nation, yet, at the same time, they are two of the largest. The concern is that if something doesn't work out the way they predict, the American taxpayer could be called on to pay off the debt in some sort of bailout."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."


October 2003

Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.


November 2003

Council of the Economic Advisers Chairman Greg Mankiw warned, "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole. This risk is a systemic issue also because the debt obligations of the housing GSEs are widely held by other financial institutions. The importance of GSE debt in the portfolios of other financial entities means that even a small mistake in GSE risk management could have ripple effects throughout the financial system," from a White House release.


February 2004

Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator," says a White House release.

OFHEO reported that Fannie Mae and CEO Raines had manipulated its accounting to overstate its profits.Congress and the Bush administration sought strong new regulation and authority to put the GSEs under conservatorship if necessary. As the Washington Post reports, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac responded by orchestrating a major campaign "by traditional allies including real estate agents, home builders and mortgage lenders. Fannie Mae ran radio and television ads ahead of a key Senate committee meeting, depicting a Latino couple who fretted that if the bill passed, mortgage rates would go up." Again, GSE pressure prevailed.


October 2004

In a subcommittee testimony, Democrats vehemently reject regulation of Fannie Mae in the face of dire warning of a Fannie Mae oversight report. A few of them, Black Caucus members in particular, are very angry at the OFHEO Director as they attempt to defend Fannie Mae and protect their CRA extortion racket.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines."

Rep. Ed Royce (R-California): "In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks."

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Missouri): "This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines."

Rep. Ed Royce (R-California): "There is a very simple solution. Congress must create a new regulator with powers at least equal to those of other financial regulators, such as the OCC or Federal Reserve."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "Uh, I, this, you, you, you seem to me saying, ‘Well, these are in areas which could raise safety and soundness problems.' I don't see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 Act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100% loans."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "Mr. Raines, 1.1 million bonus and a $526,000 salary. Jamie Gorelick, $779,000 bonus on a salary of 567,000. This is, what you state on page eleven is nothing less than staggering."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "The 1998 earnings per share number turned out to be $3.23 and 9 mills, a result that Fannie Mae met the EPS maximum payout goal right down to the penny."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "Fannie Mae understood the rules and simply chose not to follow them that if Fannie Mae had followed the practices, there wouldn't have been a bonus that year."

"The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006," reports the Wall Street Journal.

Greenspan testified that the size of GSE portfolios "poses a risk to the global financial system. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to bail out the lenders [GSEs] . . . should one get into financial trouble." He added, "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis . . . We put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership."

Greenspan warned that if the GSEs "continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road . . . We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."

Bloomberg writes, "If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. . . . But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then."



April 2007

In "A Nightmare Grows Darker," the New York Times writes that the "democratization of credit" is "turning the American dream of homeownership into a nightmare for many borrowers." The "newfangled mortgage loans" called "affordability loans" "represent 60 percent of foreclosures."


2007-2008

The housing bubble began to burst, bad mortgages began to default, and finally the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac portfolios were revealed to be what they were, in collapse. And the testimony is evident as to why. As Wallison noted, "Fannie and Freddie were, I would say, the poster children for corporate welfare."


Archived-Articles: Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened

 

[AntonToo]

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."


October 2003

Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

The red is correct, GSE's problems were not of accounting sort that Republicans were investigating.

GSE's were always highly leveraged on real estate and it's collapse wasn't caused by any accounting problems in those organizations, but rather market-wide pricing and demand collapse when the bubble popped.

 

[kaz]

So it actually makes sense to you that printing money creates economic value? You sit there and say yeah, of course it does?

Explain in the context of the field of economics how you know the field of economics is wrong

It makes sense that currency valuation is based on many, many factors. Not simply the quantity of currency. Which is why your explanation doesn't work to explain actual currency valuations. As the reality of currency valuations is far more complex than your cartoon simple understanding of it.

When you are talking about a single variable, you analyze it according to the principle "all else held equal."

Laughing.....no, what YOU are talking about is a single variable, insisting that if we increase our debt supply, we devalue our currency.

I'm talking about the actual currency valuations and the actual forces that drive currency value. Which is far more complex than your cartoon simple assumptions.......which the actual history of currency valuation contradicts.

Which is why when we apply your theory to the real world.......your theory doesn't work. Our debt increases significantly....while the value of the dollar increases. Exactly opposite of what you insist 'should' happen.

You don't know how to have a logical discussion.

Says the poor soul that attributed currency valuation on a single factor. Which it obviously isn't.

Saying "all else held equal" does not mean that's the only variable, it means that's the effect that one variable has on the equation.

Laughing.....so half a day of posting, and you've finally arrived at my second post on the topic:

The value of the dollar didn't go down in proportion to new dollars entering the market. No currency does. As the value of currency is based on multiple factors, the quantity of them only being one.

Which is why when we've increased the debt......the currency value has actually gone up. Not down.

Save yourself time and just adopt my argument early.

I always said currency wasn't a single factor you stupid fucking moron. I'm done with this discussion, you're a lying hack

 

[PredFan]

The Democrats didn't cause the collapse, but they had a chance to head it off and did nothing. In fact they were warned by Bush and he asked them to act 5 times. Each time they said no. They wanted it to happen so they could blame Bush and win elections.

You mean while Republicans controlled the House and the Senate, right?

Jesus Christ, you people were never too bright to begin with but your intelligence level has taken an epic nosedive. Read a book or something, if you can still read.

By your refusal to answer the question, I'll conclude you meant, yes, during Republican-led Congresses.

Hey retard, ever heard of Nancy Pelosi? Speaker of the House? Harry Reid? Leader of the Senate? What year did they take over eh genius? Who was POTUS when they took over, any idea, moron?

Just how fucking stupid ARE you?

Smarter than you, that's for sure. Had you read the link healthmyths posted which you agreed with, you would have read where it claimed Bush was warning Congress since 2003. Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress in 2003, 2004. 2005, and 2006. You seem to think there was no problem with the housing markets during those key years.

Democrats took over in 2007, after the damage was done and after some states were already recording a record number of foreclosures. By then, Republican-led Congress had already fucked America. Then in 2008, the Democrat-led Congress did what the Republican-led Congress failed to do during the 4 years they were in charge -- they delivered a GSE reform bill to the president's desk.

Idiot, what was this discussion about? Did you not read the post by me that started it? Can you read you illiterate dumbass? Go back and read the post that started this line of discussion, maybe you are smart enough to see where you fucked up. Meanwhile you are too fucking dishonest, stupid and illiterate for me to waste time with. Dismissed.

 

[kaz]

I didn't say it did, I said it contributed to the 2007 collapse, I didn't say it caused real estate to collapse.

WTF?

The collapse was of real estate and finance that leveraged it. To say it contributed to 2007 collapse IS to say it caused real estate collapse or leveraging, neither of which are caused by Feds monetary and fiscal policy.

I don't know what you're trying to word parse, but I keep saying that yes, the subprime was the first domino, but the overall collapse was a lot wider than that. Subprime went first, then a whole lot of other shit happened. What is confusing about that to you?

 

[PredFan]

You are a moron, the recession is still
on-going, you believe what you are spoon fed.

No dumbass, there are actual facts in the world that words describe.

According to those facts we haven't had two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth since the middle of 2009, which is the same thing as saying we haven't been in recession since middle of 2009.

You don't have to like facts, you don't have to like definitions of words but that IS what they are and when you deny that you look like a fucking moron.

Get an education, then get back to us.

 

[AntonToo]

I didn't say it did, I said it contributed to the 2007 collapse, I didn't say it caused real estate to collapse.

WTF?

The collapse was of real estate and finance that leveraged it. To say it contributed to 2007 collapse IS to say it caused real estate collapse or leveraging, neither of which are caused by Feds monetary and fiscal policy.

I don't know what you're trying to word parse, but I keep saying that yes, the subprime was the first domino, but the overall collapse was a lot wider than that. Subprime went first, then a whole lot of other shit happened. What is confusing about that to you?

"other shit" is financial leveraging and you haven't been able to connect that problem to Debt (fiscal policy) or Money Printing (monetary policy).

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure how analyzing deficits contradicts he was engaged in a spending orgy, but OK, just a few:

1) Continuing Slick's sub prime program where government loaned printed money to people who weren't going to repay the loans if the economy went bad

That's not how any of that works. You are severely misinformed.

GSEs are NOT Federal entities,

They do NOT "lend federal money"

They CANNOT by law originate subprime mortgages.

Stop making things up and go spend some time reading up on these institutions and issues.

The Fed loaned the money to the banks at virtually zero interest and the banks made the loans. So yeah, it was federal money

 

[AntonToo]

Get an education, then get back to us.

What kind of education convinced you that this is an acceptable counter-argument?

You need to go get your money back, because you don't sound educated, you sound like an idiot.

 

[kaz]

So it actually makes sense to you that printing money creates economic value? You sit there and say yeah, of course it does?

Explain in the context of the field of economics how you know the field of economics is wrong

It makes sense that currency valuation is based on many, many factors. Not simply the quantity of currency. Which is why your explanation doesn't work to explain actual currency valuations. As the reality of currency valuations is far more complex than your cartoon simple understanding of it.

When you are talking about a single variable, you analyze it according to the principle "all else held equal."

Laughing.....no, what YOU are talking about is a single variable, insisting that if we increase our debt supply, we devalue our currency.

I'm talking about the actual currency valuations and the actual forces that drive currency value. Which is far more complex than your cartoon simple assumptions.......which the actual history of currency valuation contradicts.

Which is why when we apply your theory to the real world.......your theory doesn't work. Our debt increases significantly....while the value of the dollar increases. Exactly opposite of what you insist 'should' happen.

You don't know how to have a logical discussion. Saying "all else held equal" does not mean that's the only variable, it means that's the effect that one variable has on the equation. I'll give you one more chance to have an actual discussion, then I'm going to just to back and mock you for not having ever taken an academic class. Let's say arbitrarily for three years there are only three variables that affect currency.

Year 1
Economic growth: +2%
Productivity: +1%
Printing money: -2%

Year 2
Economic growth: -2%
Productivity: -1%
Printing money: -2%

Year 1
Economic growth: +3%
Productivity: +5%
Printing money: -2%

Note that printing money in this example devalued the currency 2% each year. Let's assume that the inflation numbers are additive and not cumulative just to make the math easier, doesn't change the point

You're saying, the value of money in this case grew by 2%! Printing money didn't devalue the currency! Yes, it did.

Why? Economic growth and productivity had a net +8% increase while printing money was net -6%.

All else held equal means we only focus on the printing money part of that equation, it doesn't mean the rest of it doesn't exist. But the fact remains, had we not printed money in this example, the value of a dollar would have grown by 8%, not 2%.

Do you understand?

WTF?

You realize that you are demonstrating the validity of your premise by assuming that your premise is valid....

He doesn't even understand the discussion because he's a dumb ass. I was explaining the principle. He keeps thinking when I say "all else held equal" that it means there are no other variables. That isn't what it means. It means we are analyzing the effect of one variable, not that there are no other variables.

I said the example itself was completely made up, but I was explaining that to him

 

[kaz]

I'm not proving the field of economics to you. If you google the subject, you'll get a plethora of sources.

And this is an answer to your question in the last post. One source you are ignoring? The field of economics

Allow me to be blunt for a moment....

You are bluffing......you have no idea what you are yammering about....

You can measure the value of the dollar against other currencies, financial or real assets....

In none of those categories can you find evidence of the "devaluation" of the dollar over the past 7 years.

So it actually makes sense to you that printing money creates economic value? You sit there and say yeah, of course it does?

Explain in the context of the field of economics how you know the field of economics is wrong

Try to focus......the assertion under review is yours claiming that post Great Recession monetary and fiscal policy has "devalued" the dollar....

If you are prepared to concede that no evidence supports you, I would be pleased to explain to you where your model has gone wrong...

I said that printing money devalues the dollar, the rest was from the voices in your head. And I said it started way before that. The Great Recession was the culmination of a policy that started in earnest under Clinton and was continued under Bush. The Great Recession wasn't just a currency devaluation, a lot of bad things happened.

I know you're a Democrat hack, but did you notice the part I said both parties did it hand in hand? I am arguing with HealthMyths in fact that it's the Republicans as well while I argue with you that you think Democrats had nothing to do with it. You have to see those posts between ours, no?

Uh.....I'm nominally a Republican.....but thanks for playing.

Yeah, all of you are. There in fact was no Democrat party before 2000 when the SC made the Florida Court follow law and suddenly half the Republican party broke off and created the Democrat party.

Why do you people like that lie? It's OK that I'm pounding socialism, I'm actually

a) A Republican

b) Was a Republican until 2000

Which are you again? A or B?

 

[PredFan]

Whenever democrats want to say that it was the economic policies of the repubican party that led to the recession of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 then someone should just point out this video


There are plenty of other videos of democrats preventing people from addressing the issues that led to the housing bubble and collapse.

You are a moron......Take a gander at the conclusions of the FCIC........the GSEs were not among the primary causes of the Great Recession......

and the recession ended near the end of Q2, 2009.....

You are a moron, the recession is still
on-going, you believe what you are spoon fed.

Idiota. We are not in a recession now.

That said no one forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. Banks were prohibited from redlining neighborhoods not from abiding by their own financial standards.

You people live in a fact-free universe.

Lol, as always, reality disagrees with you and you will never ever admit it. Stay stupid, I don't care.

its adorable how uninformed you are.

you live in opposite world. you wouldn't know fact if it bit you. get educated. learn something. read something aside from the rightwingnut blogosphere.

You are a proven liar who votes for and idolizes liars. Speaking of opposite world, the opposite of anything you say is true. Now, go play in the street, idiot.

 

[kaz]

I didn't say it did, I said it contributed to the 2007 collapse, I didn't say it caused real estate to collapse.

WTF?

The collapse was of real estate and finance that leveraged it. To say it contributed to 2007 collapse IS to say it caused real estate collapse or leveraging, neither of which are caused by Feds monetary and fiscal policy.

I don't know what you're trying to word parse, but I keep saying that yes, the subprime was the first domino, but the overall collapse was a lot wider than that. Subprime went first, then a whole lot of other shit happened. What is confusing about that to you?

"other shit" is financial leveraging and you haven't been able to connect that problem to Debt (fiscal policy) or Money Printing (monetary policy).

Financial leveraging was a big part of it, but no, your contention that is all there was is not correct. The biggest financial leveraging WAS the subprime market. I've explained this several times. You can disagree/build on what I said, but I'm dropping responding to you on this if you keep ignoring my point.

The leveraging has to do with particularly that when W went on a spending orgy, Federal spending never goes down. So when the economy went down and the government kept spending money at the rate W spent it, it was unsustainable. W's spending orgy didn't trip the horse, but it was a giant weight on the horses back and when it tripped it brought it down that much harder.

Another issue was continuing Slick's subprime policy funded by printed money. I gave a list of 10 things that he spent.

But the biggest thing is that his orgy all grew government and government lives to control our lives. If you're a big government loving neocon that's fine. But W went on a spending orgy, and there were all sorts of effects of that. None of them good for the liberty or wallets of the American people.

W loved government. All the money he earned was from opportunities provided by his father. How freely he spent other people's money shows that

 

[AntonToo]

Another issue was continuing Slick's subprime policy funded by printed money.

And I explained to you exactly why what you said in this regard is pure fantasy:

I'm not sure how analyzing deficits contradicts he was engaged in a spending orgy, but OK, just a few:

1) Continuing Slick's sub prime program where government loaned printed money to people who weren't going to repay the loans if the economy went bad

That's not how any of that works. You are severely misinformed.

GSEs are NOT Federal entities,

They do NOT "lend federal money"

They CANNOT by law originate subprime mortgages.

Stop making things up and go spend some time reading up on these institutions and issues.

 

[AntonToo]

The leveraging has to do with particularly that when W went on a spending orgy, Federal spending never goes down. So when the economy went down and the government kept spending money at the rate W spent it, it was unsustainable. W's spending orgy didn't trip the horse, but it was a giant weight on the horses back and when it tripped it brought it down that much harder.

Again that's not how it works, you are making up horses and whats on their back - it's a completely false analogy that doesn't represent reality of public debt's effect on economy.

The single biggest policy contributor to our deficits have been tax-cuts - would you say that those debt increasing tax-cuts caused growth or contraction?

 

[kaz]

The leveraging has to do with particularly that when W went on a spending orgy, Federal spending never goes down. So when the economy went down and the government kept spending money at the rate W spent it, it was unsustainable. W's spending orgy didn't trip the horse, but it was a giant weight on the horses back and when it tripped it brought it down that much harder.

Again that's not how it works, you are making up horses and whats on their back - it's a completely false analogy that doesn't represent reality of public DEBT's effect on economy.

The single biggest contributor to our deficits have been tax-cutting policies - would you say that those tax-cuts caused growth or contraction?

Tax cuts don't grow deficits, not at the rate we're taxing. You're a government lover, the more the better. I get it. I'm a liberty lover. Big government is in direct conflict with that

 

[IcebergSlim]

Whenever democrats want to say that it was the economic policies of the repubican party that led to the recession of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 then someone should just point out this video


There are plenty of other videos of democrats preventing people from addressing the issues that led to the housing bubble and collapse.

The Democrats didn't cause the collapse, but they had a chance to head it off and did nothing. In fact they were warned by Bush and he asked them to act 5 times. Each time they said no. They wanted it to happen so they could blame Bush and win elections.

You are clearly entirely unfamiliar with the FCIC report.....

Clearly so are you. The facts are that Congress WAS warned. And they did nothing. That is an unarguable fact.

One step at a time....

On a scale of 1 to 10, what was the influence of the GSEs on the Financial Crisis?

 

[AntonToo]

Tax cuts don't grow deficits, not at the rate we're taxing. You're a government lover, the more the better. I get it. I'm a liberty lover. Big government is in direct conflict with that

I see, so when I pay less tax in my every paycheck government somehow gets same amount of revenue?

What an awesome idea. Can I please pay even less? It's an economic free lunch - I win by paying less, government wins by me spending more - everyone is a winner.

...Except it's just another one of your fantasies. Bush's tax cuts have not been self-financing and they did increase deficits and debt, as any economist except maybe some rare crazy wing nutter will tell you.