GOP jobs agenda

[Dad2three]

Clinton was able to do what he did because he benefited from the Dot Com Boom's huge increases in tax revenues coming into the government's coffers and a GOP led Congress that forced him into make cuts to government.

So how does Clinton's situation have ANYTHING to do with what Barry has done since he took office? It's not even an apples and oranges thing...it's more like an apples and watermelons thing!

So NO, you will not accept FACTS and will CONtinue the lie. Shocking


ZEKE ASKED YOU ABOUT THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY BUBBA:

"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997



BUT YOU IGNORED THIS ONE:

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote.

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."

— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994


"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997

One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."
— Goldman Sachs, March 1998


Here’s what conservative politicians said about the 1993 deficit reduction legislation that raised taxes on the top 1.2% of our wealthiest citizens:



"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating." —Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)


"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit."

—Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)


"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up."

—Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)


"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower."

—Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)


"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction."

—Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)




One month after the bill passed, the CBO’s new estimate of the 1988 deficit was down to $200 billion. The CBO explained the dramatic improvement this way: “For the first time in two and one-half years, the deficit projections have taken a decided turn for the better… The reconciliation act deserves most of the credit for the improvement over the long run.” Indeed, of the $160 billion improvement from March to September of that year, CBO directly credited OBRA with $143 billion. In fact, OBRA turns out to have been the single largest contributor to the 1998 surplus.


After OBRA, the second largest contributor to fiscal improvement over the period was the rapidly strengthening economy. As the economy improved, the government began to take in more revenue than expected, since taxpayers were making more money, and had to spend somewhat less than expected, as poverty declined and the demand for social services declined with it.



Not So Fast Newt Center for American Progress

So, we are still running a deficit. I wonder how many months a company could stay in business running at a deficit.

Why do we still have a record number on food stamps and disability?

For food stamps, that would be because the jobs are minimum wage and those folks are keeping their hours low enough to continue to collect food stamps.

For disability, that would be because Obama lowered the standard by which disability is determined.

According to liberals we have better paying jobs with this recovery. The reason more are on disability is because when people could not find work, they found illness.

If it weren't for false premises, distortions or lies, we would NEVER hear from conservatives

"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

 

[Dad2three]

And I ask again, Faun...what Obama policy has led to the growth of jobs in the natural gas and oil production industries?

Asked and answered ... read the link I gave you.

OK...you made me waste time going back over pages of your posts looking for the link that you "gave" me. The only thing I see you linked was a graph showing job losses under Bush and under Obama.

So I ask AGAIN...what Obama policy has led to the growth of jobs in the natural gas and oil production industries?

ALL 61,500 since 2008 in that sector???? lol

I guess Obama ONLY get credit for the OTHER 11,100,000+ jobs created since hitting Bush's bottom Feb 2010???

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

With Republicans taking over Congress today, prepare to be dazzled with their jobs agenda. It is what we have been waiting six years for

In the new Congress, Republicans will have the majority in both the Senate and the House for the first time in eight years. As they get ready to take power, their rhetorical focus is clear: jobs, the economy, and more jobs.
So far, there are two main proposals on deck for the GOP. First, the Hire More Heroes Act, which would make it easier for small businesses that hire veterans to deny health care to their employees. Second, they want to immediately build the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would transport oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast.
On their own, these are both extremely small-bore policies. But as a jobs agenda, this doesn't even rise to the level of pitiful. It's the latest evidence that Republicans continue to struggle with basic macroeconomics — and it does not bode well for the nation should they win the White House in 2016.

Sorry Republicans The Keystone XL pipeline is not a jobs agenda - The Week

Americans create jobs, by providing goods and services to those who need and want those products and services.

All government can do is to make it more expensive to produce those products and services. And at some point, the cost of doing so, due to the government having added to the costs, makes such more than the market will bear, killing jobs.

Understand, that every single job the government 'produces' is a government job... and every single government job, makes production more expensive... BIGGER GOVERNMENT = fewer jobs.

So where you see the GOP cutting the size and scope of government, the GOP is creating jobs by reducing the drag the government induces upon the market.

Nothing complex about any of this.

 

[Papageorgio]

Clinton was able to do what he did because he benefited from the Dot Com Boom's huge increases in tax revenues coming into the government's coffers and a GOP led Congress that forced him into make cuts to government.

So how does Clinton's situation have ANYTHING to do with what Barry has done since he took office? It's not even an apples and oranges thing...it's more like an apples and watermelons thing!

So NO, you will not accept FACTS and will CONtinue the lie. Shocking


ZEKE ASKED YOU ABOUT THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY BUBBA:

"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997



BUT YOU IGNORED THIS ONE:

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote.

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."

— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994


"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997

One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."
— Goldman Sachs, March 1998


Here’s what conservative politicians said about the 1993 deficit reduction legislation that raised taxes on the top 1.2% of our wealthiest citizens:



"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating." —Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)


"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit."

—Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)


"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up."

—Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)


"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower."

—Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)


"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction."

—Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)




One month after the bill passed, the CBO’s new estimate of the 1988 deficit was down to $200 billion. The CBO explained the dramatic improvement this way: “For the first time in two and one-half years, the deficit projections have taken a decided turn for the better… The reconciliation act deserves most of the credit for the improvement over the long run.” Indeed, of the $160 billion improvement from March to September of that year, CBO directly credited OBRA with $143 billion. In fact, OBRA turns out to have been the single largest contributor to the 1998 surplus.


After OBRA, the second largest contributor to fiscal improvement over the period was the rapidly strengthening economy. As the economy improved, the government began to take in more revenue than expected, since taxpayers were making more money, and had to spend somewhat less than expected, as poverty declined and the demand for social services declined with it.



Not So Fast Newt Center for American Progress

So, we are still running a deficit. I wonder how many months a company could stay in business running at a deficit.

Why do we still have a record number on food stamps and disability?

For food stamps, that would be because the jobs are minimum wage and those folks are keeping their hours low enough to continue to collect food stamps.

For disability, that would be because Obama lowered the standard by which disability is determined.

According to liberals we have better paying jobs with this recovery. The reason more are on disability is because when people could not find work, they found illness.

If it weren't for false premises, distortions or lies, we would NEVER hear from conservatives

"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

What's the false premise, do we have better paying jobs causing food stamps to be at an all time high?

 

[Siete]

So NO, you will not accept FACTS and will CONtinue the lie. Shocking


ZEKE ASKED YOU ABOUT THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY BUBBA:

"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997



BUT YOU IGNORED THIS ONE:

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote.

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."

— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994


"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997

One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."
— Goldman Sachs, March 1998


Here’s what conservative politicians said about the 1993 deficit reduction legislation that raised taxes on the top 1.2% of our wealthiest citizens:



"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating." —Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)


"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit."

—Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)


"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up."

—Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)


"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower."

—Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)


"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction."

—Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)




One month after the bill passed, the CBO’s new estimate of the 1988 deficit was down to $200 billion. The CBO explained the dramatic improvement this way: “For the first time in two and one-half years, the deficit projections have taken a decided turn for the better… The reconciliation act deserves most of the credit for the improvement over the long run.” Indeed, of the $160 billion improvement from March to September of that year, CBO directly credited OBRA with $143 billion. In fact, OBRA turns out to have been the single largest contributor to the 1998 surplus.


After OBRA, the second largest contributor to fiscal improvement over the period was the rapidly strengthening economy. As the economy improved, the government began to take in more revenue than expected, since taxpayers were making more money, and had to spend somewhat less than expected, as poverty declined and the demand for social services declined with it.



Not So Fast Newt Center for American Progress

So, we are still running a deficit. I wonder how many months a company could stay in business running at a deficit.

Why do we still have a record number on food stamps and disability?

For food stamps, that would be because the jobs are minimum wage and those folks are keeping their hours low enough to continue to collect food stamps.

For disability, that would be because Obama lowered the standard by which disability is determined.

According to liberals we have better paying jobs with this recovery. The reason more are on disability is because when people could not find work, they found illness.

If it weren't for false premises, distortions or lies, we would NEVER hear from conservatives

"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

What's the false premise, do we have better paying jobs causing food stamps to be at an all time high?

premise? ... red states.

Republican-Heavy Counties Eat Up Most Food-Stamp Growth - Bloomberg

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So, we are still running a deficit. I wonder how many months a company could stay in business running at a deficit.

Why do we still have a record number on food stamps and disability?

For food stamps, that would be because the jobs are minimum wage and those folks are keeping their hours low enough to continue to collect food stamps.

For disability, that would be because Obama lowered the standard by which disability is determined.

According to liberals we have better paying jobs with this recovery. The reason more are on disability is because when people could not find work, they found illness.

If it weren't for false premises, distortions or lies, we would NEVER hear from conservatives

"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

What's the false premise, do we have better paying jobs causing food stamps to be at an all time high?

premise? ... red states.

Republican-Heavy Counties Eat Up Most Food-Stamp Growth - Bloomberg

Golly.... "Republicans" are on FOOD STAMPS!??

LOL! No shit... Is that suppose to be a surprise to someone?

Here's a clue... Republicans also bought houses they couldn't afford, they have abortions and they get divorced... and guess what. Just because Republicans do it, doesn't justify it.

The problem with virulent ideas, is they're bad for ya, and they spread... .

Here's the good news: Stop providing subsidies and the Republicans taking them get cut off too.


See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If it weren't for false premises, distortions or lies, we would NEVER hear from conservatives

"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

LOL! I just adore the sweeter ironies.

Your quote, is a lie.

The Financial Markets crashed because the Ideological Left coerced those markets to set aside sound, actuarial lending principle, in favor of the Left's perverse notion of fairness. When you remove principle from a business whose viability rests entirely upon the strict adherence to it, it must fail.

Such is the nature, of science; its either objective or it's not science.

 

[Dad2three]

For food stamps, that would be because the jobs are minimum wage and those folks are keeping their hours low enough to continue to collect food stamps.

For disability, that would be because Obama lowered the standard by which disability is determined.

According to liberals we have better paying jobs with this recovery. The reason more are on disability is because when people could not find work, they found illness.

If it weren't for false premises, distortions or lies, we would NEVER hear from conservatives

"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

What's the false premise, do we have better paying jobs causing food stamps to be at an all time high?

premise? ... red states.

Republican-Heavy Counties Eat Up Most Food-Stamp Growth - Bloomberg

Golly.... "Republicans" are on FOOD STAMPS!??

LOL! No shit... Is that suppose to be a surprise to someone?

Here's a clue... Republicans also bought houses they couldn't afford, they have abortions and they get divorced... and guess what. Just because Republicans do it, doesn't justify it.

The problem with virulent ideas, is they're bad for ya, and they spread... .

Here's the good news: Stop providing subsidies and the Republicans taking them get cut off too.


See how that works?

Sure, THEN the US would look like any other 3rd world nation, like they did before PROGRESSIVE policies (like labor laws, Min wage, SS, etc) CREATED the worlds largest middle class!

Cons can't wait for US to look like China

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation

In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.

Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala The New Republic

 

[Dad2three]

So NO, you will not accept FACTS and will CONtinue the lie. Shocking


ZEKE ASKED YOU ABOUT THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY BUBBA:

"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997



BUT YOU IGNORED THIS ONE:

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote.

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."

— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994


"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997

One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."
— Goldman Sachs, March 1998


Here’s what conservative politicians said about the 1993 deficit reduction legislation that raised taxes on the top 1.2% of our wealthiest citizens:



"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating." —Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)


"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit."

—Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)


"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up."

—Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)


"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower."

—Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)


"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction."

—Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)




One month after the bill passed, the CBO’s new estimate of the 1988 deficit was down to $200 billion. The CBO explained the dramatic improvement this way: “For the first time in two and one-half years, the deficit projections have taken a decided turn for the better… The reconciliation act deserves most of the credit for the improvement over the long run.” Indeed, of the $160 billion improvement from March to September of that year, CBO directly credited OBRA with $143 billion. In fact, OBRA turns out to have been the single largest contributor to the 1998 surplus.


After OBRA, the second largest contributor to fiscal improvement over the period was the rapidly strengthening economy. As the economy improved, the government began to take in more revenue than expected, since taxpayers were making more money, and had to spend somewhat less than expected, as poverty declined and the demand for social services declined with it.



Not So Fast Newt Center for American Progress

So, we are still running a deficit. I wonder how many months a company could stay in business running at a deficit.

Why do we still have a record number on food stamps and disability?

For food stamps, that would be because the jobs are minimum wage and those folks are keeping their hours low enough to continue to collect food stamps.

For disability, that would be because Obama lowered the standard by which disability is determined.

According to liberals we have better paying jobs with this recovery. The reason more are on disability is because when people could not find work, they found illness.

If it weren't for false premises, distortions or lies, we would NEVER hear from conservatives

"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

The Financial Markets crashed because the Ideological Left coerced those markets to set aside sound, actuarial lending principle, in favor of the Left's perverse notion of fairness. When you remove principle from a business whose viability rests entirely upon the strict adherence to it, it must fail.

Such is the nature, of science; its either objective or it's not science.

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

When an economy booms or busts, money gets misspent, assets rise in prices, fortunes are made. Out of all that comes a set of easy-to-discern facts.

Here are key things we know based on data. Together, they present a series of tough hurdles for the big lie proponents.

•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.


Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing laws overseen by either Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Community Reinvestment Act — Source: McClatchy

Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture



FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

If it weren't for false premises, distortions or lies, we would NEVER hear from conservatives

"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

LOL! I just adore the sweeter ironies.

Your quote, is a lie.

The Financial Markets crashed because the Ideological Left coerced those markets to set aside sound, actuarial lending principle, in favor of the Left's perverse notion of fairness. When you remove principle from a business whose viability rests entirely upon the strict adherence to it, it must fail.

Such is the nature, of science; its either objective or it's not science.

Banks used cheap capital to create a bubble. Their lending strategies fueled and fed off the housing bubble, and they did so using mortgage products whose performance was premised on continued growth of that bubble.


After 2004, the financial industry coalesced around high -risk mortgage lending as their primary cash crop. Subprime mortgages, which had been an effective if sometimes shady means of extending credit availability to under-served borrowers, suddenly became a foundation of 21st century financial capitalism. The complete collapse of the financial system and resulting recession have shown the folly of that strategy. What has saved the financial sector is the government takeover of the GSEs and the bailout of the rest of the banking system



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

So NO, you will not accept FACTS and will CONtinue the lie. Shocking


ZEKE ASKED YOU ABOUT THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY BUBBA:

"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997



BUT YOU IGNORED THIS ONE:

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote.

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."

— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994


"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997

One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."
— Goldman Sachs, March 1998


Here’s what conservative politicians said about the 1993 deficit reduction legislation that raised taxes on the top 1.2% of our wealthiest citizens:



"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating." —Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)


"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit."

—Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)


"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up."

—Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)


"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower."

—Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)


"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction."

—Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)




One month after the bill passed, the CBO’s new estimate of the 1988 deficit was down to $200 billion. The CBO explained the dramatic improvement this way: “For the first time in two and one-half years, the deficit projections have taken a decided turn for the better… The reconciliation act deserves most of the credit for the improvement over the long run.” Indeed, of the $160 billion improvement from March to September of that year, CBO directly credited OBRA with $143 billion. In fact, OBRA turns out to have been the single largest contributor to the 1998 surplus.


After OBRA, the second largest contributor to fiscal improvement over the period was the rapidly strengthening economy. As the economy improved, the government began to take in more revenue than expected, since taxpayers were making more money, and had to spend somewhat less than expected, as poverty declined and the demand for social services declined with it.



Not So Fast Newt Center for American Progress

So, we are still running a deficit. I wonder how many months a company could stay in business running at a deficit.

Why do we still have a record number on food stamps and disability?

For food stamps, that would be because the jobs are minimum wage and those folks are keeping their hours low enough to continue to collect food stamps.

For disability, that would be because Obama lowered the standard by which disability is determined.

According to liberals we have better paying jobs with this recovery. The reason more are on disability is because when people could not find work, they found illness.

If it weren't for false premises, distortions or lies, we would NEVER hear from conservatives

"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

What's the false premise, do we have better paying jobs causing food stamps to be at an all time high?

"According to liberals we have better paying jobs with this recovery. The reason more are on disability is because when people could not find work, they found illness."

 

[Dad2three]

With Republicans taking over Congress today, prepare to be dazzled with their jobs agenda. It is what we have been waiting six years for

In the new Congress, Republicans will have the majority in both the Senate and the House for the first time in eight years. As they get ready to take power, their rhetorical focus is clear: jobs, the economy, and more jobs.
So far, there are two main proposals on deck for the GOP. First, the Hire More Heroes Act, which would make it easier for small businesses that hire veterans to deny health care to their employees. Second, they want to immediately build the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would transport oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast.
On their own, these are both extremely small-bore policies. But as a jobs agenda, this doesn't even rise to the level of pitiful. It's the latest evidence that Republicans continue to struggle with basic macroeconomics — and it does not bode well for the nation should they win the White House in 2016.

Sorry Republicans The Keystone XL pipeline is not a jobs agenda - The Week

Americans create jobs, by providing goods and services to those who need and want those products and services.

All government can do is to make it more expensive to produce those products and services. And at some point, the cost of doing so, due to the government having added to the costs, makes such more than the market will bear, killing jobs.

Understand, that every single job the government 'produces' is a government job... and every single government job, makes production more expensive... BIGGER GOVERNMENT = fewer jobs.

So where you see the GOP cutting the size and scope of government, the GOP is creating jobs by reducing the drag the government induces upon the market.

Nothing complex about any of this.

"So where you see the GOP cutting the size and scope of government, the GOP is creating jobs by reducing the drag the government induces upon the market."


LOL


Too funny Bubba

Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...

 

[Dad2three]

With Republicans taking over Congress today, prepare to be dazzled with their jobs agenda. It is what we have been waiting six years for

In the new Congress, Republicans will have the majority in both the Senate and the House for the first time in eight years. As they get ready to take power, their rhetorical focus is clear: jobs, the economy, and more jobs.
So far, there are two main proposals on deck for the GOP. First, the Hire More Heroes Act, which would make it easier for small businesses that hire veterans to deny health care to their employees. Second, they want to immediately build the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would transport oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast.
On their own, these are both extremely small-bore policies. But as a jobs agenda, this doesn't even rise to the level of pitiful. It's the latest evidence that Republicans continue to struggle with basic macroeconomics — and it does not bode well for the nation should they win the White House in 2016.

Sorry Republicans The Keystone XL pipeline is not a jobs agenda - The Week

Americans create jobs, by providing goods and services to those who need and want those products and services.

All government can do is to make it more expensive to produce those products and services. And at some point, the cost of doing so, due to the government having added to the costs, makes such more than the market will bear, killing jobs.

Understand, that every single job the government 'produces' is a government job... and every single government job, makes production more expensive... BIGGER GOVERNMENT = fewer jobs.

So where you see the GOP cutting the size and scope of government, the GOP is creating jobs by reducing the drag the government induces upon the market.

Nothing complex about any of this.

The Republican sham of lower taxes and less regulation doesn't help anyone but the richest Americans and Big Business and kill jobs and opportunity for almost everyone, especially in the middle class and poor.

Every Republican administration in memory has created record deficits - passing that money along to the wealthy, where it remains in the bank accounts and out of the economy.

Just because the right will repeat a lie forever, doesn't mean that lie will ever produce facts.

 

[rdean]

Why are Republicans screaming about jobs they aren't qualified for anyway? That's what happens when you think education is for snobs.

 

[Dad2three]

If it weren't for false premises, distortions or lies, we would NEVER hear from conservatives

"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

LOL! I just adore the sweeter ironies.

Your quote, is a lie.

The Financial Markets crashed because the Ideological Left coerced those markets to set aside sound, actuarial lending principle, in favor of the Left's perverse notion of fairness. When you remove principle from a business whose viability rests entirely upon the strict adherence to it, it must fail.

Such is the nature, of science; its either objective or it's not science.

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.


More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes


"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You can post all the deflection you want scamp.
The fact remains that the Ideological Left spent DECADES coercing the Financial markets to set aside sound, actuarial lending principle, in favor of their perverse notions of fairness.

In so doing, the Left forced from the financial markets, adherence to the principles that sustain that industries viability.

When sound principle is removed from an industry which depends upon it, that industry fails.

You're weeping and gnashing your tooth via all of the would-be 'facts' you've incessantly cited, all point toward the financial market using unprincipled practices, which is true, they did so.

What you're trying to do however, is to show the EFFECT as the CAUSE. Which is typical of Relativism... which is the great rationalizer.

The Ideological Left COERCED the markets to set aside principle, effectively 'normalizing' unprincipled choices. Then you want to come in and BLAME THE FINANCIAL MARKET FOR MAKING POOR CHOICES.

And THAT is the history of the Ideological Left.

You did so with WW2 and fascism... THATS YOU! Yet you deny that its you and blame the Germans.

You did so with the Catholic Church.. "PEDOPHILE PRIESTS!"... implying that Catholicism is to blame for the Sexual Abnormality, which you seek to normalize throughout the entire country. As if it works fine everywhere EXCEPT WHEN THE CATHOLICS DO IT!

You TRIED to do the same thing to The Boy Scouts of America... except THEY DID what the Banks SHOULD have done... they told ya to get bent and sue 'em. Which ya did and ya LOST.

You've done it to the US Steel, Textile and Manufacturing Industries... greedily stripping them of the means to produce a product within the means of the market to sustain it, driving them out of the country, THEN when they LEFT the country, ya BLAMED THEM FOR LEAVING.

And so it goes, without exception. Everything you people touch, dies.

And it dies because you demand that standards are archaic or cultural contrivances, outmoded societal constructs... when in truth, what they are is the time tested recognition of natural principle; OKA: THE LAWS OF NATURE which governs human behavior, every bit at the same irrepressible force and effect as the Laws of Nature governing the physical universe... .

And even THERE you idiots can't take responsibility. See a cliff... put a fence around it. Because without a fence, someone might go over it and they can't be held responsible for not knowing that if ya go over the cliff, ya won't float!

You're idiots. Truly, you people are simply not intelligent enough for freedom.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why are Republicans screaming about jobs they aren't qualified for anyway? That's what happens when you think education is for snobs.

Education?

LMAO!

Are you an educated woman?

Please enlighten us with your credentials.

(FYI: The reader should know I have already called, double Ph.D, with several Masters from Ivy League Universities and all before the age of 14... )

 

[Dad2three]

You can post all the deflection you want scamp.
The fact remains that the Ideological Left spent DECADES coercing the Financial markets to set aside sound, actuarial lending principle, in favor of their perverse notions of fairness.

In so doing, the Left forced from the financial markets, adherence to the principles that sustain that industries viability.

When sound principle is removed from an industry which depends upon it, that industry fails.

You're weeping and gnashing your tooth via all of the would-be 'facts' you've incessantly cited, all point toward the financial market using unprincipled practices, which is true, they did so.

What you're trying to do however, is to show the EFFECT as the CAUSE. Which is typical of Relativism... which is the great rationalizer.

The Ideological Left COERCED the markets to set aside principle, effectively 'normalizing' unprincipled choices. Then you want to come in and BLAME THE FINANCIAL MARKET FOR MAKING POOR CHOICES.

And THAT is the history of the Ideological Left.

You did so with WW2 and fascism... THATS YOU! Yet you deny that its you and blame the Germans.

You did so with the Catholic Church.. "PEDOPHILE PRIESTS!"... implying that Catholicism is to blame for the Sexual Abnormality, which you seek to normalize throughout the entire country. As if it works fine everywhere EXCEPT WHEN THE CATHOLICS DO IT!

You TRIED to do the same thing to The Boy Scouts of America... except THEY DID what the Banks SHOULD have done... they told ya to get bent and sue 'em. Which ya did and ya LOST.

You've done it to the US Steel, Textile and Manufacturing Industries... greedily stripping them of the means to produce a product within the means of the market to sustain it, driving them out of the country, THEN when they LEFT the country, ya BLAMED THEM FOR LEAVING.

And so it goes, without exception. Everything you people touch, dies.

And it dies because you demand that standards are archaic or cultural contrivances, outmoded societal constructs... when in truth, what they are is the time tested recognition of natural principle; OKA: THE LAWS OF NATURE which governs human behavior, every bit at the same irrepressible force and effect as the Laws of Nature governing the physical universe... .

And even THERE you idiots can't take responsibility. See a cliff... put a fence around it. Because without a fence, someone might go over it and they can't be held responsible for not knowing that if ya go over the cliff, ya won't float!

You're idiots. Truly, you people are simply not intelligent enough for freedom.

DECADES??? LOL

"The fact remains that the Ideological Left spent DECADES coercing the Financial markets to set aside sound, actuarial lending principle, in favor of their perverse notions of fairness.

In so doing, the Left forced from the financial markets, adherence to the principles that sustain that industries viability.

When sound principle is removed from an industry which depends upon it, that industry fails."


Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis



The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed
Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress



Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."

Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.

JUNE 2005

NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?

According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.


The global housing boom In come the waves The Economist


Question: How did Europe and Asia and Canada all have a simultaneous housing boom as big if not bigger than that of the US?

Were the Australians compelled to follow the CRA? Did Barney Frank influence the Belgians? Were the US GSEs effecting policy in the UK?

Or might some other factors — like ultra-low rates, excess leverage, demand for junk AAA-rated paper, misaligned incentives, and/or derivatives have been at play?


A Global View of the Housing Bubble The Big Picture

 

[Dad2three]

You can post all the deflection you want scamp.
The fact remains that the Ideological Left spent DECADES coercing the Financial markets to set aside sound, actuarial lending principle, in favor of their perverse notions of fairness.

In so doing, the Left forced from the financial markets, adherence to the principles that sustain that industries viability.

When sound principle is removed from an industry which depends upon it, that industry fails.

You're weeping and gnashing your tooth via all of the would-be 'facts' you've incessantly cited, all point toward the financial market using unprincipled practices, which is true, they did so.

What you're trying to do however, is to show the EFFECT as the CAUSE. Which is typical of Relativism... which is the great rationalizer.

The Ideological Left COERCED the markets to set aside principle, effectively 'normalizing' unprincipled choices. Then you want to come in and BLAME THE FINANCIAL MARKET FOR MAKING POOR CHOICES.

And THAT is the history of the Ideological Left.

You did so with WW2 and fascism... THATS YOU! Yet you deny that its you and blame the Germans.

You did so with the Catholic Church.. "PEDOPHILE PRIESTS!"... implying that Catholicism is to blame for the Sexual Abnormality, which you seek to normalize throughout the entire country. As if it works fine everywhere EXCEPT WHEN THE CATHOLICS DO IT!

You TRIED to do the same thing to The Boy Scouts of America... except THEY DID what the Banks SHOULD have done... they told ya to get bent and sue 'em. Which ya did and ya LOST.

You've done it to the US Steel, Textile and Manufacturing Industries... greedily stripping them of the means to produce a product within the means of the market to sustain it, driving them out of the country, THEN when they LEFT the country, ya BLAMED THEM FOR LEAVING.

And so it goes, without exception. Everything you people touch, dies.

And it dies because you demand that standards are archaic or cultural contrivances, outmoded societal constructs... when in truth, what they are is the time tested recognition of natural principle; OKA: THE LAWS OF NATURE which governs human behavior, every bit at the same irrepressible force and effect as the Laws of Nature governing the physical universe... .

And even THERE you idiots can't take responsibility. See a cliff... put a fence around it. Because without a fence, someone might go over it and they can't be held responsible for not knowing that if ya go over the cliff, ya won't float!

You're idiots. Truly, you people are simply not intelligent enough for freedom.

What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral.

One group has been especially vocal about shaping a new narrative of the credit crisis and economic collapse: those whose bad judgment and failed philosophy helped cause the crisis.

Rather than admit the error of their ways — Repent! — these people are engaged in an active campaign to rewrite history. They are not, of course, exonerated in doing so. And beyond that, they damage the process of repairing what was broken. They muddy the waters when it comes to holding guilty parties responsible. They prevent measures from being put into place to prevent another crisis.

Here is the surprising takeaway: They are winning. Thanks to the endless repetition of the Big Lie.

A Big Lie is so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. There are many examples: Claims that Earth is not warming, or that evolution is not the best thesis we have for how humans developed. Those opposed to stimulus spending have gone so far as to claim that the infrastructure of the United States is just fine, Grade A (not D, as the we discussed last month), and needs little repair.

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.

Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny. But that has not stopped people who should know better from repeating them.

What caused the financial crisis The Big Lie goes viral - The Washington Post



“From 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred (see chart). But that trend has reversed abruptly.

A Global View of the Housing Bubble The Big Picture

 

[Dad2three]

You can post all the deflection you want scamp.
The fact remains that the Ideological Left spent DECADES coercing the Financial markets to set aside sound, actuarial lending principle, in favor of their perverse notions of fairness.

In so doing, the Left forced from the financial markets, adherence to the principles that sustain that industries viability.

When sound principle is removed from an industry which depends upon it, that industry fails.

You're weeping and gnashing your tooth via all of the would-be 'facts' you've incessantly cited, all point toward the financial market using unprincipled practices, which is true, they did so.

What you're trying to do however, is to show the EFFECT as the CAUSE. Which is typical of Relativism... which is the great rationalizer.

The Ideological Left COERCED the markets to set aside principle, effectively 'normalizing' unprincipled choices. Then you want to come in and BLAME THE FINANCIAL MARKET FOR MAKING POOR CHOICES.

And THAT is the history of the Ideological Left.

You did so with WW2 and fascism... THATS YOU! Yet you deny that its you and blame the Germans.

You did so with the Catholic Church.. "PEDOPHILE PRIESTS!"... implying that Catholicism is to blame for the Sexual Abnormality, which you seek to normalize throughout the entire country. As if it works fine everywhere EXCEPT WHEN THE CATHOLICS DO IT!

You TRIED to do the same thing to The Boy Scouts of America... except THEY DID what the Banks SHOULD have done... they told ya to get bent and sue 'em. Which ya did and ya LOST.

You've done it to the US Steel, Textile and Manufacturing Industries... greedily stripping them of the means to produce a product within the means of the market to sustain it, driving them out of the country, THEN when they LEFT the country, ya BLAMED THEM FOR LEAVING.

And so it goes, without exception. Everything you people touch, dies.

And it dies because you demand that standards are archaic or cultural contrivances, outmoded societal constructs... when in truth, what they are is the time tested recognition of natural principle; OKA: THE LAWS OF NATURE which governs human behavior, every bit at the same irrepressible force and effect as the Laws of Nature governing the physical universe... .

And even THERE you idiots can't take responsibility. See a cliff... put a fence around it. Because without a fence, someone might go over it and they can't be held responsible for not knowing that if ya go over the cliff, ya won't float!

You're idiots. Truly, you people are simply not intelligent enough for freedom.

You're DEMENTED Bubba. Simple


Nobody 'forced' bankers to do anything they didn't want to do. Congress reduced regulation -- something bankers wanted. In other words, Congress deregulated, ALLOWING bankers to do things they otherwise weren't allowed. Nobody put a gun to their heads forcing them to make no income check, no asset check, loans. The banker's greed was part of the problem -- and why not? Banks used to hold mortgages to term, meaning that if the borrower defaulted, the bank was on the hook.

Under the new financing, banks knew they were going to sell the mortgage to someone else immediately, so they took no risk if the borrower defaulted -- but they still earned all those fees and commissions. That gave the bank perverse incentives to issue mortgages to anyone that had a pulse (they made money and the risk was elsewhere.)


The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along. The big investment banks simply connected the investors to the originators, helped by the AAA ratings.

Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.



Given CEOs' proclivity for government bashing, any lenders being driven to write bad loans by the CRA would have been on CNBC screaming at the top of their lungs.

But that dog that didn't bark.


Big Lie is, blaming someone else. Then you activate your PR groups, starting with Fox and the RW think tanks. Then you go further and have the Wallisons/Pinto's/AEI's of the world throw pure bs into the mix. Stir frequently.