OK, I'll admit it, our friends on the left are correct; there IS a catch to the Trump tax cuts

[Papageorgio]

Right because Keating sent large campaign donations to Democrats because? Oh wait that screws up your narrative. Also the control of Congress was Democrat held in the House for 40 years and the Senate for 34 of the forty years but it was the Republican laws that got through Congress to cause the S&L problem? LOL! Your inability to look at both sides makes you the biggest dupe here, because I look at both sides and you ASSume it's the GOP's fault, pretty stupid thinking. You need to educate yourself, you don't know the what the definition of a Recession or a Depression is, you have no idea how government works and you just spew what ever the Democratic talking points tell you to spew. I can tell you were a teacher, you are basically clueless.

Who said anything about laws? It's Republican crony oversight where the Republicans are a joke... After that you're just totally full of s***LOL. Perhaps the S&L bust was just a gigantic recession and meltdown of the banking system congratulations Miss the point much?

The oversight of the S&L was by those that were indicted as the Keating Five, which was one Republican and four Democrats. You aren't that dumb are you?

Recession? LOL! It wasn't a depression like you have been claiming? LOL! What a slimy way to shovel off responsibility.

I guess you could say it was debatable whether it was a bad recession or depression. At any rate it was the result of Republicans being an office and letting things go with their Pals on Wall Street and in the banking industry Etc etc. Either way it was a huge financial meltdown overseen by the GOP as usual. Can you brainwashed functional morons miss the point any more? LOL!

I guess you could say it was debatable whether it was a bad recession or depression.

Only an idiot would say it was either.

Like Investopedia that said it was the worst Financial meltdown since 1929? You live in a dream world super dupe...

And every reputable site says it was a recession, not a depression. You have wiki, I have shown several more reputable sites that show it was a recession, not a depression. You are looking dumber and dumber with each post you create.

 

[francoHFW]

What was the worst Financial meltdown since 1929 then Einstein?

2008.

Before 2008 obviously. you're an idiot

Before 2008, the recession the Fed created to kill double digit inflation in 1981.
So were you the moron that posted that BS about the "1989 Depression"?
DERP!

No that was Wikipedia from the same article you quoted...

Yeah, anybody who wrote that there was a Depression in 1989 is as stupid as you.

We don't do full-blown depressions anymore when the GOP f**** up again, we bailout the banks and financial institutions and have unemployment and Welfare go wild... Where you been, dupe world? Cost Obama 7 or 8 trillion dollars..

 

[francoHFW]

Who said anything about laws? It's Republican crony oversight where the Republicans are a joke... After that you're just totally full of s***LOL. Perhaps the S&L bust was just a gigantic recession and meltdown of the banking system congratulations Miss the point much?

Perhaps the S&L bust was just a gigantic recession

View attachment 169646

Real Gross Domestic Product

Why don't you point out the giant recession (not a depression anymore?....DERP!) we had in 1989?

And only cost a couple trillion dollars of bailouts and assistance to victims to keep it that way d u h. I got laid off in 1991 and got 72 weeks of unemployment....

The S&L bailout wasn't anywhere close to "a couple trillion dollars".

Did I say it was, you silly jackass? Added welfare and UE for Millions....

1991 was a mild recession. There was no recession or depression in 1989.
Trillions weren't needed for anything in 1989.

Because there was a bailout in 1989 but it wasn't enough and the economy continue to bottom out until 1991, dumbass. A recession that lasts for 2 years is called a depression. Especially when the third of savings and loans go out of business....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

2008.

Before 2008 obviously. you're an idiot

Before 2008, the recession the Fed created to kill double digit inflation in 1981.
So were you the moron that posted that BS about the "1989 Depression"?
DERP!

No that was Wikipedia from the same article you quoted...

Yeah, anybody who wrote that there was a Depression in 1989 is as stupid as you.

We don't do full-blown depressions anymore when the GOP f**** up again, we bailout the banks and financial institutions and have unemployment and Welfare go wild... Where you been, dupe world? Cost Obama 7 or 8 trillion dollars..

We don't do full-blown depressions anymore

Especially in 1989.
Q1 +4.1%
Q2 +3.2%
Q3 +3.0%
Q4 +0.9%

DERP!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Perhaps the S&L bust was just a gigantic recession

View attachment 169646

Real Gross Domestic Product

Why don't you point out the giant recession (not a depression anymore?....DERP!) we had in 1989?

And only cost a couple trillion dollars of bailouts and assistance to victims to keep it that way d u h. I got laid off in 1991 and got 72 weeks of unemployment....

The S&L bailout wasn't anywhere close to "a couple trillion dollars".

Did I say it was, you silly jackass? Added welfare and UE for Millions....

1991 was a mild recession. There was no recession or depression in 1989.
Trillions weren't needed for anything in 1989.

Because there was a bailout in 1989 but it wasn't enough and the economy continue to bottom out until 1991, dumbass. A recession that lasts for 2 years is called a depression. Especially when the third of savings and loans go out of business....

Because there was a bailout in 1989 but it wasn't enough and the economy continue to bottom out until 1991,

DERP!

A recession that lasts for 2 years is called a depression.

Real Gross Domestic Product

What do you call on that lasts 2 quarters?

 

[francoHFW]

And only cost a couple trillion dollars of bailouts and assistance to victims to keep it that way d u h. I got laid off in 1991 and got 72 weeks of unemployment....

The S&L bailout wasn't anywhere close to "a couple trillion dollars".

Did I say it was, you silly jackass? Added welfare and UE for Millions....

1991 was a mild recession. There was no recession or depression in 1989.
Trillions weren't needed for anything in 1989.

Because there was a bailout in 1989 but it wasn't enough and the economy continue to bottom out until 1991, dumbass. A recession that lasts for 2 years is called a depression. Especially when the third of savings and loans go out of business....

Because there was a bailout in 1989 but it wasn't enough and the economy continue to bottom out until 1991,

View attachment 169709

DERP!

A recession that lasts for 2 years is called a depression.

View attachment 169710

Real Gross Domestic Product

What do you call on that lasts 2 quarters?

It was the worst Financial meltdown since the Great Depression and the Republicans did it again, obviously. Take your irrelevant nit picking on the road, super dupe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The S&L bailout wasn't anywhere close to "a couple trillion dollars".

Did I say it was, you silly jackass? Added welfare and UE for Millions....

1991 was a mild recession. There was no recession or depression in 1989.
Trillions weren't needed for anything in 1989.

Because there was a bailout in 1989 but it wasn't enough and the economy continue to bottom out until 1991, dumbass. A recession that lasts for 2 years is called a depression. Especially when the third of savings and loans go out of business....

Because there was a bailout in 1989 but it wasn't enough and the economy continue to bottom out until 1991,

View attachment 169709

DERP!

A recession that lasts for 2 years is called a depression.

View attachment 169710

Real Gross Domestic Product

What do you call on that lasts 2 quarters?

It was the worst Financial meltdown since the Great Depression and the Republicans did it again, obviously. Take your irrelevant nit picking on the road, super dupe.

Yeah, it was just awful!!
Just look at the impact it had on real GDP.....

Look at those zero quarters of negative GDP.

Now who was that moron who claimed we had a depression in 1989?

 

[francoHFW]

Did I say it was, you silly jackass? Added welfare and UE for Millions....

1991 was a mild recession. There was no recession or depression in 1989.
Trillions weren't needed for anything in 1989.

Because there was a bailout in 1989 but it wasn't enough and the economy continue to bottom out until 1991, dumbass. A recession that lasts for 2 years is called a depression. Especially when the third of savings and loans go out of business....

Because there was a bailout in 1989 but it wasn't enough and the economy continue to bottom out until 1991,

View attachment 169709

DERP!

A recession that lasts for 2 years is called a depression.

View attachment 169710

Real Gross Domestic Product

What do you call on that lasts 2 quarters?

It was the worst Financial meltdown since the Great Depression and the Republicans did it again, obviously. Take your irrelevant nit picking on the road, super dupe.

Yeah, it was just awful!!
Just look at the impact it had on real GDP.....

View attachment 169715

Look at those zero quarters of negative GDP.

Now who was that moron who claimed we had a depression in 1989?

1989 through 1992 I said, jackass.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ao...al-meltdown-vs-savings-loan-crisis-recession/

 

[francoHFW]

While most of us were alive 20 years ago, peoples' memories of the savings and loan crisis of the early 1990s have faded. But more than 1,000 so-called savings & loans -- banks specifically set up to lend out their deposits to people buying houses -- failed in the late 1980s and early 1990s due to a change in regulation that permitted S&Ls to take big risks. Bailing them out ultimately cost the federal government $220 billion.

By contrast, bailing out Wall Street and the U.S. auto industry through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from the recent crisis is expected, when all is tallied, to cost the government $105 billion -- or maybe $11 billion less if the TARP gets shut down three months early to satisfy concerns Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) had about the pending financial reform bill, according to The New York Times.

Does that mean that the current financial crisis was half as bad? Not bloody likely.

S&L Bailout 101

As a quick refresher, the S&L crisis sprang from the passage in 1982 under President Ronald Reagan of The Garn-St. Germain Act -- which freed S&Ls to make risky loans, eliminate deposit caps, and hold less capital. S&Ls used their new freedom to pay higher rates to depositors and invested those new deposits in commercial real estate projects and junk bonds.

While they earned high up-front fees for the S&Ls, these investments ultimately collapsed, leaving about a thousand insolvent S&Ls. Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, had the pleasure of overseeing what was then the biggest bailout in U.S. history -- the $220 billion S&L bailout, according to nonprofit news company ProPublica.

Compared to the S&L bailout, the recent financial crisis is looking like a bargain. Treasury is now forecasting that TARP will cost far less than the S&L crisis did. The Times reports that a mere $386 billion worth of TARP money was actually spent (a bit more than half the original $700 billion authorized). Big banks have repaid roughly half of that $386 billion.

And the TARP losses are not likely to come from Wall Street -- the originally intended recipients of the government funds -- but from the auto industry, which got $80 billion from the program, and insurance giant American International Group (AIG), which received $48 billion from TARP -- and another $134.3 billion from other government programs.

A Failure to Learn the Lessons of Deregulation

What both the S&L crisis and current financial crisis share are their root causes: Clever manipulation of the banking system that allowed financial firms to reap huge profits while shifting the risks, and ultimately the costs, onto taxpayers. Deregulation allowed S&Ls to deviate dramatically from their fiscally conservative missions, and that deviation led them to create all sorts of investments that purported to generate higher returns but were really just bad deals.

The current financial crisis springs from many sources -- not the least of which are government's failure to limit Wall Street borrowing, to cut the financial ties between ratings agencies and investment banks, and to put bankers' pay in escrow so they can get rewarded or punished based on the long-term performance of the deals they close.

But as I wrote back in December 2007 on DailyFinance's sister site, BloggingStocks, the current financial crisis is above all the first one that sprang from securitization. It was those bundles of securities backed by mortgages -- many of which were sub-prime -- that ultimately ended up being impossible to price in a cash crisis that caused so much grief. Like commercial real estate in the 1980s, securitization was seen as a safe way to get high returns -- until things went bust, and the securities' values plunged far below what bankers had predicted.

 

[francoHFW]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ao...al-meltdown-vs-savings-loan-crisis-recession/


So there you go once again dot-dot-dot GOP gets in they change the laws so Wall Street and Banks can go wild, and then another gigantic corrupt bust. Every time they have eight years they do it again...

 

[Papageorgio]

2008.

Before 2008 obviously. you're an idiot

Before 2008, the recession the Fed created to kill double digit inflation in 1981.
So were you the moron that posted that BS about the "1989 Depression"?
DERP!

No that was Wikipedia from the same article you quoted...

Yeah, anybody who wrote that there was a Depression in 1989 is as stupid as you.

We don't do full-blown depressions anymore when the GOP f**** up again, we bailout the banks and financial institutions and have unemployment and Welfare go wild... Where you been, dupe world? Cost Obama 7 or 8 trillion dollars..

Who the hell knew that only Republicans made laws and policies over the last 80 plus years! My, they are the most powerful group ever! And to think, they MADE Obama spend money! Lol! Do you really believe all your BS?

 

[Papageorgio]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ao...al-meltdown-vs-savings-loan-crisis-recession/


So there you go once again dot-dot-dot GOP gets in they change the laws so Wall Street and Banks can go wild, and then another gigantic corrupt bust. Every time they have eight years they do it again...

First off the website popped up as a suspect website impersonating a blog site at AOL, my browser blocked me because it has malware on it.

Secondly, blog sites are not impartial and lean heavily, left or right, so it isn’t a legit site.

 

[Papageorgio]

While most of us were alive 20 years ago, peoples' memories of the savings and loan crisis of the early 1990s have faded. But more than 1,000 so-called savings & loans -- banks specifically set up to lend out their deposits to people buying houses -- failed in the late 1980s and early 1990s due to a change in regulation that permitted S&Ls to take big risks. Bailing them out ultimately cost the federal government $220 billion.

By contrast, bailing out Wall Street and the U.S. auto industry through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from the recent crisis is expected, when all is tallied, to cost the government $105 billion -- or maybe $11 billion less if the TARP gets shut down three months early to satisfy concerns Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) had about the pending financial reform bill, according to The New York Times.

Does that mean that the current financial crisis was half as bad? Not bloody likely.

S&L Bailout 101

As a quick refresher, the S&L crisis sprang from the passage in 1982 under President Ronald Reagan of The Garn-St. Germain Act -- which freed S&Ls to make risky loans, eliminate deposit caps, and hold less capital. S&Ls used their new freedom to pay higher rates to depositors and invested those new deposits in commercial real estate projects and junk bonds.

While they earned high up-front fees for the S&Ls, these investments ultimately collapsed, leaving about a thousand insolvent S&Ls. Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, had the pleasure of overseeing what was then the biggest bailout in U.S. history -- the $220 billion S&L bailout, according to nonprofit news company ProPublica.

Compared to the S&L bailout, the recent financial crisis is looking like a bargain. Treasury is now forecasting that TARP will cost far less than the S&L crisis did. The Times reports that a mere $386 billion worth of TARP money was actually spent (a bit more than half the original $700 billion authorized). Big banks have repaid roughly half of that $386 billion.

And the TARP losses are not likely to come from Wall Street -- the originally intended recipients of the government funds -- but from the auto industry, which got $80 billion from the program, and insurance giant American International Group (AIG), which received $48 billion from TARP -- and another $134.3 billion from other government programs.

A Failure to Learn the Lessons of Deregulation

What both the S&L crisis and current financial crisis share are their root causes: Clever manipulation of the banking system that allowed financial firms to reap huge profits while shifting the risks, and ultimately the costs, onto taxpayers. Deregulation allowed S&Ls to deviate dramatically from their fiscally conservative missions, and that deviation led them to create all sorts of investments that purported to generate higher returns but were really just bad deals.

The current financial crisis springs from many sources -- not the least of which are government's failure to limit Wall Street borrowing, to cut the financial ties between ratings agencies and investment banks, and to put bankers' pay in escrow so they can get rewarded or punished based on the long-term performance of the deals they close.

But as I wrote back in December 2007 on DailyFinance's sister site, BloggingStocks, the current financial crisis is above all the first one that sprang from securitization. It was those bundles of securities backed by mortgages -- many of which were sub-prime -- that ultimately ended up being impossible to price in a cash crisis that caused so much grief. Like commercial real estate in the 1980s, securitization was seen as a safe way to get high returns -- until things went bust, and the securities' values plunged far below what bankers had predicted.

Do you have a link to a legit news source or is it all you have to use extreme left wing nut sites?

Did you ever find a major news source that said the United States was recession in 1989? I can’t find one and you claim it was, can you back it up or are you going to continue to lie and twist and change the subject?

 

[francoHFW]

Before 2008 obviously. you're an idiot

Before 2008, the recession the Fed created to kill double digit inflation in 1981.
So were you the moron that posted that BS about the "1989 Depression"?
DERP!

No that was Wikipedia from the same article you quoted...

Yeah, anybody who wrote that there was a Depression in 1989 is as stupid as you.

We don't do full-blown depressions anymore when the GOP f**** up again, we bailout the banks and financial institutions and have unemployment and Welfare go wild... Where you been, dupe world? Cost Obama 7 or 8 trillion dollars..

Who the hell knew that only Republicans made laws and policies over the last 80 plus years! My, they are the most powerful group ever! And to think, they MADE Obama spend money! Lol! Do you really believe all your BS?

Only the GOP makes stupid laws that cause Financial Bubbles and busts, dumbass. The amount of money spent on welfare and UE after the 2008 meltdown started out at 800 billion a year and still is 100 billion a year above what it would be otherwise, should head LOL

 

[Papageorgio]

Before 2008, the recession the Fed created to kill double digit inflation in 1981.
So were you the moron that posted that BS about the "1989 Depression"?
DERP!

No that was Wikipedia from the same article you quoted...

Yeah, anybody who wrote that there was a Depression in 1989 is as stupid as you.

We don't do full-blown depressions anymore when the GOP f**** up again, we bailout the banks and financial institutions and have unemployment and Welfare go wild... Where you been, dupe world? Cost Obama 7 or 8 trillion dollars..

Who the hell knew that only Republicans made laws and policies over the last 80 plus years! My, they are the most powerful group ever! And to think, they MADE Obama spend money! Lol! Do you really believe all your BS?

Only the GOP makes stupid laws that cause Financial Bubbles and busts, dumbass. The amount of money spent on welfare and UE after the 2008 meltdown started out at 800 billion a year and still is 100 billion a year above what it would be otherwise, should head LOL

Can’t make them if they don’t hold a majority in Congress which they didn’t in the House from 1957-1997 nor did they in the Senate from 1957 to 1981. Wonder how it got passed to put on the President’s desks without the help of Democrats? Man are you a dupe.

Anymore on your claim about the United States being in a depression in 1989? Still standing by it? Got those links you claimed were out there?

 

[francoHFW]

No that was Wikipedia from the same article you quoted...

Yeah, anybody who wrote that there was a Depression in 1989 is as stupid as you.

We don't do full-blown depressions anymore when the GOP f**** up again, we bailout the banks and financial institutions and have unemployment and Welfare go wild... Where you been, dupe world? Cost Obama 7 or 8 trillion dollars..

Who the hell knew that only Republicans made laws and policies over the last 80 plus years! My, they are the most powerful group ever! And to think, they MADE Obama spend money! Lol! Do you really believe all your BS?

Only the GOP makes stupid laws that cause Financial Bubbles and busts, dumbass. The amount of money spent on welfare and UE after the 2008 meltdown started out at 800 billion a year and still is 100 billion a year above what it would be otherwise, should head LOL

Can’t make them if they don’t hold a majority in Congress which they didn’t in the House from 1957-1997 nor did they in the Senate from 1957 to 1981. Wonder how it got passed to put on the President’s desks without the help of Democrats? Man are you a dupe.

Anymore on your claim about the United States being in a depression in 1989? Still standing by it? Got those links you claimed were out there?

It's true that the Democrats can't pass anything without 60 votes, but obviously Republicans can and it was a lot easier back then... You think only Fox tells the truth because you are a brainwashed functional moron.

 

[francoHFW]

Are you and Todd stir sock puppets because you are the most ridiculous people to debate with I've ever seen...

 

[Papageorgio]

In May 1982 Ferdinand St. Germain a DEMOCRAT from Rhode Island introduced, the Democratic Party had 241 members and the GOP had 194. The Democrats vote 188 yeas and 16 nays, in contrast the GOP had 84 yeas and 75 nays.

The Senate passed the bill with a voice vote.

So why did a Democrat introduce the bill? Why did the large majority of Democrats vote yes? In fact without Democrats this wasn’t even a bill.

So take your partisan propaganda and lies and stuff it, you dishonest hack.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yeah, anybody who wrote that there was a Depression in 1989 is as stupid as you.

We don't do full-blown depressions anymore when the GOP f**** up again, we bailout the banks and financial institutions and have unemployment and Welfare go wild... Where you been, dupe world? Cost Obama 7 or 8 trillion dollars..

Who the hell knew that only Republicans made laws and policies over the last 80 plus years! My, they are the most powerful group ever! And to think, they MADE Obama spend money! Lol! Do you really believe all your BS?

Only the GOP makes stupid laws that cause Financial Bubbles and busts, dumbass. The amount of money spent on welfare and UE after the 2008 meltdown started out at 800 billion a year and still is 100 billion a year above what it would be otherwise, should head LOL

Can’t make them if they don’t hold a majority in Congress which they didn’t in the House from 1957-1997 nor did they in the Senate from 1957 to 1981. Wonder how it got passed to put on the President’s desks without the help of Democrats? Man are you a dupe.

Anymore on your claim about the United States being in a depression in 1989? Still standing by it? Got those links you claimed were out there?

It's true that the Democrats can't pass anything without 60 votes, but obviously Republicans can and it was a lot easier back then... You think only Fox tells the truth because you are a brainwashed functional moron.

And I don’t watch FOX hater dupe.

 

[Papageorgio]

Are you and Todd stir sock puppets because you are the most ridiculous people to debate with I've ever seen...

That s because we call you out on your lies. I could see why you dislike us.

Lies you told, 1989 there was a United States Depression, and have yet to provide a legit link to back up your claim.

You claimed it was the GOP that passed the St. Germain Act of 1982, the fact is a Democrat sponsored the bill and it was by far supported by more Democrats than Republicans.

Almost all economists claim there were several factors on both sides of the aisle that cause the 2008 meltdown.

You claim to be honest and then you spout half truths and lies. I am not debating you, I am schooling you, because you are a partisan dupe that can’t think for yourself and have to listen to your Democratic Party and throw up lies. I don’t believe either party has the high ground and look at stories at many angles, you just look to blindly blame.