Democrats caused recession in 2007

[IcebergSlim]

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

At what rate (as % of GDP) is the Federal Government taxing?

How does that compare to the long run average?

 

[IcebergSlim]

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

Tax cuts don't grow deficits


Please stop.....

 

[kaz]

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.

You need to stop guessing what I'm saying because you're a simpleton and you always take everything on the shallow surface.

Your fallacy here is the fixed pie theory. You assume that the economy is the economy and actions don't have consequences. We're just dividing the pie. So when government takes a bigger slice, it has more money.

Actually, when government takes a bigger slice, it shrinks the pie. And when government takes a smaller slice, it grows the pie.

The optimal tax is 10%. That is rooted in human nature. When taxes are 10% or less, people are happy to pay taxes. Very few avoid them. The higher they get, the more people work to evade taxes and not grow the economy. And unfortunately it overwhelms the money coming in from the higher tax rate.

If you're actually interested in, this was a great book

For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization: Charles Adams: 9781568332352: Amazon.com: Books

 

[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

Tax cuts don't grow deficits


Please stop.....

Actually, you cut the part "not at the rate we're taxing."

Same book I just recommended

For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization: Charles Adams: 9781568332352: Amazon.com: Books

 

[IcebergSlim]

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

Did you see any reference to the 2005 proposals in that purge?

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.

I never did see the "evidence" supporting your Bold Assertion that the country remains in recession....

 

[IcebergSlim]

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

Tax cuts don't grow deficits


Please stop.....

Actually, you cut the part "not at the rate we're taxing."

Same book I just recommended

For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization: Charles Adams: 9781568332352: Amazon.com: Books

Because absent some frame of reference, the comment is meaningless...

 

[AntonToo]

You need to stop guessing what I'm saying because you're a simpleton and you always take everything on the shallow surface.

Your fallacy here is the fixed pie theory. You assume that the economy is the economy and actions don't have consequences. We're just dividing the pie. So when government takes a bigger slice, it has more money.

Actually, when government takes a bigger slice, it shrinks the pie. And when government takes a smaller slice, it grows the pie.

The optimal tax is 10%. That is rooted in human nature. When taxes are 10% or less, people are happy to pay taxes. Very few avoid them. The higher they get, the more people work to evade taxes and not grow the economy. And unfortunately it overwhelms the money coming in from the higher tax rate.

If you're actually interested in, this was a great book

For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization: Charles Adams: 9781568332352: Amazon.com: Books

Kaz I suggest you read up on what respected CONSERVATIVE economists have to say on this matter, so when you talk you don't sound like unhinged lunatic:

Greg Mankiw's Blog: On Charlatans and Cranks

Dynamic effects are real, tax-cuts do increase economic activity that is then re-taxed, but generally it's only a small fraction of the fist order effect of the tax cut revenue loss.

When I pay less taxes government ACTUALLY collects less revenues. Yea, buddy, it fundamentally is that simple, there is no free lunch here.

 

[kaz]

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

Did you see any reference to the 2005 proposals in that purge?

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.

I never did see the "evidence" supporting your Bold Assertion that the country remains in recession....

It doesn't meet the technical definition of a "recession" for sure. But we've had nothing but sluggish economic growth throughout the reign of Obama. Considering that follows a deep recession, we are in reality in the same recession.

This is a big reason Hillary is going to lose. Trump is going to take the blue collar rust belt States because when you say we are not in a recession, you are never going to convince them of that.

And really, a recession is in the end a state of mind. A state of mind currently gripping the country

 

[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

Tax cuts don't grow deficits


Please stop.....

Actually, you cut the part "not at the rate we're taxing."

Same book I just recommended

For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization: Charles Adams: 9781568332352: Amazon.com: Books

Because absent some frame of reference, the comment is meaningless...

What about my post is unclear to you?

 

[AntonToo]

It doesn't meet the technical definition of a "recession" for sure. But we've had nothing but sluggish economic growth throughout the reign of Obama. Considering that follows a deep recession, we are in reality in the same recession.

The word RECESSION means economic contraction, slow growth is...wait for it....GROWTH.

We now have more GDP, more jobs, higher stock market, and nearly full employment - we are clearly past the ditch.

 

[kaz]

It doesn't meet the technical definition of a "recession" for sure. But we've had nothing but sluggish economic growth throughout the reign of Obama. Considering that follows a deep recession, we are in reality in the same recession.

The word RECESSION means economic contraction, slow growth is...wait for it....GROWTH.

We now have more GDP and more jobs, higher stock market than before recession started, we are past the ditch.

You didn't contradict what I said. Our economy dropped way down, then has inched back up.

If you fall off a cliff then walk up a hill, in recent history you may have been going up, but you're still way below when you fell off the cliff. Particularly when you factor in inflation and population growth.

You don't get the relevance of those, do you? You know so little about economics it's hard to even explain simple concepts to you.

You also don't know what you don't know and you don't care to learn.

I still would like you people to go to a doctor and tell them medicine is bunk and to explain to you why it isn't. They would just laugh at you. Yet you are perfectly willing to run into a discussion on economics when you know nothing about it and demand it be explained to you and you don't believe them, it's all wrong

 

[AntonToo]

You didn't contradict what I said. Our economy dropped way down, then has inched back up.

Well then, to keep up your analogy, we must have fallen "way down" about half an inch.

 

[kaz]

It doesn't meet the technical definition of a "recession" for sure. But we've had nothing but sluggish economic growth throughout the reign of Obama. Considering that follows a deep recession, we are in reality in the same recession.

The word RECESSION means economic contraction, slow growth is...wait for it....GROWTH.

We now have more GDP, more jobs, higher stock market, and nearly full employment - we are clearly past the ditch.

Oh, and full employment?



You mean most people who having given up and quit the labor force have a job now?

 

[kaz]

You didn't contradict what I said. Our economy dropped way down, then has inched back up.

Well then, to keep up your analogy, we must have fallen "way down" about half an inch.

You think the Great Recession was falling "about half an inch?" Really?

 

[AntonToo]

Oh, and full employment?



You mean most people who having given up and quit the labor force have a job now?

Yes we are near full employment - a point where jobs available begin to outstrip number of people looking for jobs.

If you don't look you obviously not in the market for a job, but if you are looking, the job market as many job openings as before recession.

 

[IcebergSlim]

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.

You need to stop guessing what I'm saying because you're a simpleton and you always take everything on the shallow surface.

Your fallacy here is the fixed pie theory. You assume that the economy is the economy and actions don't have consequences. We're just dividing the pie. So when government takes a bigger slice, it has more money.

Actually, when government takes a bigger slice, it shrinks the pie. And when government takes a smaller slice, it grows the pie.

The optimal tax is 10%. That is rooted in human nature. When taxes are 10% or less, people are happy to pay taxes. Very few avoid them. The higher they get, the more people work to evade taxes and not grow the economy. And unfortunately it overwhelms the money coming in from the higher tax rate.

If you're actually interested in, this was a great book

For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization: Charles Adams: 9781568332352: Amazon.com: Books

The "optimal" tax is 10%?

The Federal take has been roughly 18% of gdp historically......

 

[AntonToo]

You think the Great Recession was falling "about half an inch?" Really?

Now I'm beginning to question your intellect.

 

[IcebergSlim]

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

There is a joke about economists, the punchline of which is

"Assume we have a can opener....."

Your illustration is a perfect example...

 

[AntonToo]

The "optimal" tax is 10%?

The Federal take has been roughly 18% of gdp historically......

Totally, we can tax 10% and get 18% revenue - true story, Kaz himself said so.

 

[IcebergSlim]

It doesn't meet the technical definition of a "recession" for sure. But we've had nothing but sluggish economic growth throughout the reign of Obama. Considering that follows a deep recession, we are in reality in the same recession.

The word RECESSION means economic contraction, slow growth is...wait for it....GROWTH.

We now have more GDP, more jobs, higher stock market, and nearly full employment - we are clearly past the ditch.

Oh, and full employment?



You mean most people who having given up and quit the labor force have a job now?

You mean most people who having given up and quit the labor force have a job now?

Who are you who is so versed in the Drudge Dross Hymnal?