Does the GOP wish Obama left the country the way Bush left it.

[rdean]

It's done even better since then. 78 straight months of growth.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Why is it the responsibility of the Gov to use Tax Payer money to bail out people who should never have been given a loan?

Not only that but why was the fucking government in the business of putting significant pressure with the ACA on the lending institutions to give credit to people that had neither the means or inclination to pay back the money? That was a dumbass Libtard social justice idea that the Moon Bats had that almost destroyed our economy.

but why was the fucking government in the business of putting significant pressure with the ACA on the lending institutions to give credit to people that had


Shut the fuck up, Flush......you're an idiot....

 

[sealybobo]

Do Republicans remember how the country was when Obama became president. The economy, the stock market, the wars, employment and so on? The car industry, the steel industry, the rubber industry and so on?

Credit card companies? Health care?

Do they wish he had done nothing?

How would things be different?

I remember thinking bush CO pulled off the biggest bank robbery and no one even realized it.

I remember right before the bush bank bailout thinking no way bush could fuck us anymore than he already did and he was almost gone then he tarped us.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Do Republicans remember how the country was when Obama became president. The economy, the stock market, the wars, employment and so on? The car industry, the steel industry, the rubber industry and so on?

Credit card companies? Health care?

Do they wish he had done nothing?

How would things be different?

Do you remember that Pelosi and Reid ran congress ?

Can you remember that you are not supposed to reveal that you never graduated from the 5th grade ?

So tell me what you believe the 109th Congress contributed to The Wages of Supply Side Idiocy, Parte Deux....

As much as Bush.

BTW: Part 1 actually made some sense at the time.

Bush was a moron.

But blaming him for the whole mess makes rdean just as big a moron.

I asked "what", not "how much".....

You're a fraud......run along....

 

[IcebergSlim]

Not only that but why was the fucking government in the business of putting significant pressure with the ACA on the lending institutions to give credit to people that had neither the means or inclination to pay back the money? That was a dumbass Libtard social justice idea that the Moon Bats had that almost destroyed our economy.

The straw that broke the camels back was the 0% down policy with no credit checks. You had lowlifes with not a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of buying homes in the suburbs with no money down and they had no intention of paying a mortgage either. For them, it was a paid vacation from the projects.

The straw that broke the camels back was the 0% down policy with no credit checks.


Whose idea was that?

 

[IcebergSlim]

You would first have to explain why that matters? Lack of oversight allowed the GSE's to purchase & guarantee risky loans. That allowed lenders to make insanely risky loans without risk. Which they did until the housing markets collapsed. Had the GSE's not been guaranteeing those loans, lenders would have been forced to not make such risky loans.

Not really. Banks didn't lend the money--banks only made the loans and sold them off. Banks cleaned up on the processing fees associated with making such loans.

When banks sell those loans, they have to be up to the standard with Fanny and Freddy guidelines which they were. That's where the problem started.

When banks sell those loans, they have to be up to the standard with Fanny and Freddy guidelines which they were


No.....only those which Fannie and Freddie could buy.......they could be sold to any other securitizer......

 

[IcebergSlim]

[Q

It has nothing to do with it. He's flailing and talking in circles.

The indisputable truth is that up until the Democrats took over Congress in 2007 the economy was doing OK despite the trillion dollar hit caused by 911.

The stupid and uneducated greedy Moon Bats will never admit it but the trickle down economics of the Bush tax cuts prevented the economy from failing.

The real fact is the chickens from the Democrat initiated and supported ACA finally came home to roost and it did great damage to the economy and Barney Queerboy, who was the Chairman of the House Finance Committee, did nothing to stop it when he had the chance.

The Democrats made the economy fail when they took over the Congress and that incompetent affirmative action piece of shit Obama did nothing but failed at a recovery.

Last quarter we had a dismal 1.1% growth rate and this is after almost eight years of Obama's administration. He has done nothing but increase poverty, increase welfare, astronomically grow the debt, decrease family income and had dismal economic growth.

The time is long past for the shithead Libtards to blame Obama's failure on Bush or somebody else. That shit is getting old by now.

If (heaven forbid) that asshole Crooked Hillary gets elected who are the stupid Libtards going to blame her failures on? Still try to blame it on Bush?

The stupid and uneducated greedy Moon Bats will never admit it but the trickle down economics of the Bush tax cuts prevented the economy from failing.

You're an idiot.....

Let's pay particular attention to the fall-off in applications for re-financing, down by almost 60%. This was the source of mortgage equity withdrawals, which fueled consumer-spending growth even in the face of the last recession. Let's look at a graph I used two years ago, from work done by James Kennedy and Alan Greenspan, on the effect of mortgage equity withdrawals (MEWs) on the growth of the US economy.

Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term.

The Economic Blue Screen of Death

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Do Republicans remember how the country was when Obama became president. The economy, the stock market, the wars, employment and so on? The car industry, the steel industry, the rubber industry and so on?

Credit card companies? Health care?

Do they wish he had done nothing?

How would things be different?

Do you remember that Pelosi and Reid ran congress ?

Can you remember that you are not supposed to reveal that you never graduated from the 5th grade ?

So tell me what you believe the 109th Congress contributed to The Wages of Supply Side Idiocy, Parte Deux....

As much as Bush.

BTW: Part 1 actually made some sense at the time.

Bush was a moron.

But blaming him for the whole mess makes rdean just as big a moron.

I asked "what", not "how much".....

You're a fraud......run along....

They work independent ? Really ?

I guess you'd know what a fraud looks like.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It's done even better since then. 78 straight months of growth.

Pathetic by most standards.

 

[Faun]

"This legislation established an "affordable housing" loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that mandate was to be regulated by HUD. Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30% or more of Fannie's and Freddie's loan purchases be related to "affordable housing" (borrowers who were below normal lending standards). However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements, and HUD soon increased the mandates. This encouraged "subprime" mortgages. (See HUD Mandates, below.)"

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In 1999, President Bill Clinton signed into law Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed portions of the Glass-Steagall Act. Economist Joseph Stiglitz criticized the repeal of the Act. He called its repeal the "culmination of a $300 million lobbying effort by the banking and financial services industries..." He believes it contributed to this crisis because the risk-taking culture of investment banking dominated the more risk-averse commercial banking culture, leading to increased levels of risk-taking and leverage during the boom period.[17]"

You lose son.

Lose what? Passing Gramm-Leach-Bliley did not cause the collapse. Not to mention ... Gramm = conservative; Leach = conservative; Bliley = conservative; deregulation = conservative policy.

You need to re-read that child.
Billy Boy REPEALED it
Billy Boy caused the collapse son...there is NOTHING you can do to change that.

Imbecile.... the president doesn't pass laws that don't first get passed by the Congress. Yes, Clinton signed it into law .... A conservative deregulation bill written and sponsored by conservatives in Congress. We can blame conservatism if you like; but again, passing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act didn't cause the meltdown.

It of course played a HUGE part imbecile.
Just accept the fact that your Boy is complicit in the melt down son.

Accept what? That your source is wikipedia? Or that your source describes how economists are split over whether or not it was responsible?

 

[kaz]

Um ... how is that money not being taxed? It goes through to owners INCOME statements. They have to pay massive taxes on that. The top 1% pay 40% of all taxes and the top 5% pay 60%. And you're claiming that's tax free? Geez, Al Jazzera, you have to pay more attention

That would then be personal income tax, not corporate tax.

Exactly, which shows that the statement that corporations don't pay taxes is a lie. I've owned three corporations, still own one. All were S corps. I pay taxes up the wazoo

Because the corporations don't, as I said.

So seriously, when the corporation gives me the profits and the tax bill and I pay the taxes for the corporation with the revenue from the corporation, that isn't the corporation paying taxes? And unemployment taxes, property taxes, business licenses, ... those aren't corporations paying taxes either because they aren't called the "corporate tax?" You're a stupid mother fucker

I specified "corporate income tax".

And that's enough out of you, little man.

I see, so it doesn't make any difference how much taxes corporations pay, it has to be CALLED a "corporate" income tax. We pay a myriad of other taxes, we pay almost all the income taxes, but hey, you want it called a "corporate" tax. Well fuck the shit out of you. You sir, are a no integrity liar. Little would describe you perfectly

 

[kaz]

That you are saying "business did not manifest any reluctance to hiring following the passage of the ACA" is saying EXACTLY that it's the only factor. My God, how do you even sell financial securities when you can't follow what you even said yourself? Don't your clients just sit there and stare at you and say you just contradicted themselves?

And BTW, you overstated what you think you showed, all you did was compare hiring under Obama to under Bush. They both sucked

is saying EXACTLY that it's the only factor.

No......you possess the reading comprehension of the product of a third rate university....which explains your affinity for Bear's tragic ignorance....

Yes, it is saying that's the only factor. You pointed to one factor, one outcome, and drew a conclusion. That is exactly saying there is exactly one factor. Which is a fallacy of the single cause

(sigh)

What did I suggest that it was the single cause of?

Please spare me your "interpretations" and quote me.....

You argued that Obamacare doesn't cause unemployment because it didn't go up after the Obamacare was introduced. That argument requires the Obamacare to be the single cause of unemployment. Reading's not your thing, is it? I see why you do it so rarely.

Also, Obamacare is long term destructive, no one said it was overnight. But that's more a weakness in your argument than a fallacy

With what part of

"Please spare me your "interpretations" and quote me"​

are you struggling?


Also, Obamacare is long term destructive


He Asserts, Boldly........

But that's more a weakness in your argument than a fallacy

No....that is a Bold Assertion offered without evidence........in short, same kazzie shit, different day....

Don't you have a Lounge to be working right now?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Democrats thought that putting pressure on the lending institutions to give credit to the lowlifes would undue the injustice of the past or some stupid social justice reason like that.

The sad thing is that the weak minded Republicans went along with it and did not push back. They could have put an end to it when they were in charge of Congress but they didn't do it.

Which is why I always stated there were many hands in the pot, in fact thousands of them from HUD, to F and F, to Congress, to the many other bureaucracies to the President. And speaking of pressures on the bank, let's not forget ACORN as well.

 

[IcebergSlim]

It's done even better since then. 78 straight months of growth.

Pathetic by most standards.

Sure.....Name the POTUS under whom we saw a longer streak.....

That response should be in the form of a NAME, btw....

 

[Wilbur Right]

Sub Prime loans originated during the Carter administration. They were "designed" to give sellers the ability to buy another house first before selling their current home, thus not forcing them to rush to buy a new house to get out of the old house before said date. It was designed to be only a temporary loan which came with an Adjustable Rate Mortgage.

LMAO. Those types of loans you described Ray Ray, those are called "bridge loans". To allow a borrower to access (bridge) equity in their current home to purchase a different home before their current home sells.

Bridge loan borrowers need to be gold plated. They would be responsible for two mortgages. Gold plated. Not a sub prime quality borrower you idiot.

No wonder you bounce around credit card balances. You don't know wtf you are doing or talking about.

 

[pinqy]

Ray

You apparently have no idea what full employment means....

If you don't understand what he said, obviously you don't know what "full employment" means. He told you in his sentence both what it means and what's misleading about it

Stop kazzing. The labor force participation rate has nothing to do with full employment.

Your post proves the government can dupe you, and you don't even know it.

Do you believe "full employment" means a U3 at 0%?

A Labor Force Participation Rate of 100%?

People giving up looking for work is different than a mother staying home with her kids, Larry

Not in any practical way. Neither is competing for work, and neither is available for work. What someone wants or says they want doesn't change likelihood of getting a job.

 

[KissMy]

 

[gipper]

It's done even better since then. 78 straight months of growth.

Do Republicans remember how the country was when Obama became president. The economy, the stock market, the wars, employment and so on? The car industry, the steel industry, the rubber industry and so on?

Credit card companies? Health care?

Do they wish he had done nothing?

How would things be different?

Do you remember that Pelosi and Reid ran congress ?

Can you remember that you are not supposed to reveal that you never graduated from the 5th grade ?

So tell me what you believe the 109th Congress contributed to The Wages of Supply Side Idiocy, Parte Deux....

As much as Bush.

BTW: Part 1 actually made some sense at the time.

Bush was a moron.

But blaming him for the whole mess makes rdean just as big a moron.

I asked "what", not "how much".....

You're a fraud......run along....

Now for a little truth about the economy under Big Ears.

Should The Donald win, leftists everywhere will condemn him for the bad economy and the rich getting richer, the day he walks into the oval office...and millions of Americans will get duped again.

95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1% — Here's What That Really Means
Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez put out an update to his estimates of income inequality, and the headline figure has everybody outraged: 95% of income gains since 2009 have accrued to the top 1%.
95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1% — Here's What That Really Means

Labor Day Summary: Wage Earners Have Taken a Beating
Do the math, people: annual wage increases once real-world inflation is factored in (roughly 7% to 10% annually for those who rent, have significant healthcare expenses or buy higher education) are either negative or are measured in the hundreds of dollars–in other words, trivial increases for all but the very top echelon of wage earners.

Increases in wealth for those with central bank-supplied free money for financiers are measured in the millions of dollars. Even small-fry with capital invested in bubble markets have experienced gains in the hundreds of thousands of dollars–entire lifetimes of earned income for those earning $25,000 to $35,000 annually.

There are forces at work that are beyond the power of central banks: the technologies of automation, robotics and software are replacing human labor not just in low-skill sectors but increasingly in sectors that provided the bulk of middle class jobs.

One reason why automation is gaining ground is the soaring cost of healthcare (paid by the employers and employees in America, except for those on federally funded Medicaid). Healthcare expenses are labor overhead–employers don’t pay labor overhead on robots or software.

While wage earners see their tiny raises wiped out by inflation, employers see theirtotal compensation costs skyrocketing due to employee healthcare expenses.

Then there’s globalization. Capital and technology are mobile, labor is not. Capital and technology can chase higher returns anywhere on the planet, but most workers cannot easily move to another country, and then move again a year later, and so on in an endlessly disruptive search for higher returns.
Labor Day Summary: Wage Earners Have Taken a Beating

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No need to lie about what I said, which was that 60% of our corporations pay no corporate income tax, nothing more.

I read where it was more like 20%, at least with the large corporations.

Corporate Income Tax: Most Large Profitable U.S. Corporations Paid Tax but Effective Tax Rates Differed Significantly from the Statutory Rate

What GAO Found
In each year from 2006 to 2012, at least two-thirds of all active corporations had no federal income tax liability.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I'm quite sure it's not a coffee shop but it's indisputable that they are and have been mysteriously operating on the same page for quite some time.

Please explain what market forces act on wages. No one will answer that question except to say what employers are willing to pay what employees are willing to take which is exactly my point. They decide and so far they have let overall compensation decrease over time.

Now, in a world where record profits, record productivity have been the norm for several decades and yet have not moved wages, what forces do?

I thought I already explained that: you are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job with the same quality.

If employers can't find workers to do X job, then they have no choice but to increase their wage offer. It keeps going up until they at least get some takers.

I think we all feel we are worth more money; I know I do. But if you can be replaced, then your labor is not worth more money.

It's not just monkey jobs either. Years ago my company wanted me to attend electronics school. It was tough because I had to go at night to keep my full time income. After a few months I really started to get burned out. So I asked my teacher what kind of money I would be looking at once I got my FCC license. He told me about 16K a year. Shocked, I asked what I would be making if I stayed two years instead of one to get my associates degree? He told me about 18K a year.

I went home and scoured the want ads to see what kind of money people in that field were offered. I was surprised to see that there were not many job offerings period.

Electronics is very hard. It's mostly math. But why such little pay? Because everybody and their mother were getting into electronics at the time. Way too much supply and little demand.

You just gave the answer I specifically asked you not give. I guess you either are unable to read or give a real answer.