Put Up, or Shut Up; What are Republicans offering the Middle class? Be Specific

[Dad2three]

You dont have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

Yeah, THAT just proves NAFTA, that conservative idea Reagan announced the day he ran for Prez in 1979 isn't really deregulation *shaking head*


"free trade" becomes a recipe for standards-lowering competition



Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics AND 'FREE TRADE' ) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

So did NAFTA bring more regulations or fewer regulations? Just answer the question, asswipe.

Why can't conservatives EVER get over their simplistic ideas and premises?

 

[Dad2three]

We had a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE because of imaginary deregulation?

Nah, it was the Bankster choice to flood the world markets with cheap money, in the US it was just Bush ignoring regulator warnings that started in 2004 (20 years after Reagan ignored S&L warnings, weird), of an EPIDEMIC of fraud that could rival the S&L crisis, Bush gutted the FBI white collate division by over 1,800 agents, over 1/.3rd... HMM how'd that work out?

Darn that Bush!

NOTHING on my demolishing YOUR talking point? Typical

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, THAT just proves NAFTA, that conservative idea Reagan announced the day he ran for Prez in 1979 isn't really deregulation *shaking head*


"free trade" becomes a recipe for standards-lowering competition



Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics AND 'FREE TRADE' ) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

Let's add a coupla thousand pages of additional regulations, that'll make it all better.

Good Gov't policy conservatives don't 'believe in'? Nah....

How many pages will it take to bring back manufacturing that left because of too much regulation?

Maybe if we regulate energy to hike its price, would that would help?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nah, it was the Bankster choice to flood the world markets with cheap money, in the US it was just Bush ignoring regulator warnings that started in 2004 (20 years after Reagan ignored S&L warnings, weird), of an EPIDEMIC of fraud that could rival the S&L crisis, Bush gutted the FBI white collate division by over 1,800 agents, over 1/.3rd... HMM how'd that work out?

Darn that Bush!

NOTHING on my demolishing YOUR talking point? Typical

Where?

 

[Dad2three]

Let's add a coupla thousand pages of additional regulations, that'll make it all better.

Good Gov't policy conservatives don't 'believe in'? Nah....

How many pages will it take to bring back manufacturing that left because of too much regulation?

Maybe if we regulate energy to hike its price, would that would help?

lol, Right, it was 'regulation' that created the OPPORTUNITY to move jobs offshore *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyqYY72PeRM

Darn that Bush!

NOTHING on my demolishing YOUR talking point? Typical

Where?

AND? oh right Dems the minority party in the GOP majority House 1995-2007 had super powers when it came to Fannie/Freddie ACCOUNTING scandals of 2003-2004 they spoke of in the OUT OF CONTEXT vids



The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008





Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


June 17, 2004




Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."




Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”


One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.



"(In 2000, Clinton) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH), the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."


http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/f..._090911_v2.pdf




June 17, 2004


Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004



Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush

http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf


ANYTHING ELSE?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Good Gov't policy conservatives don't 'believe in'? Nah....

How many pages will it take to bring back manufacturing that left because of too much regulation?

Maybe if we regulate energy to hike its price, would that would help?

lol, Right, it was 'regulation' that created the OPPORTUNITY to move jobs offshore *shaking head*

You're right, companies never consider regulatory burden when making business decisions.

 

[Dad2three]

How many pages will it take to bring back manufacturing that left because of too much regulation?

Maybe if we regulate energy to hike its price, would that would help?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHL404zhcU

lol, Right, it was 'regulation' that created the OPPORTUNITY to move jobs offshore *shaking head*

You're right, companies never consider regulatory burden when making business decisions.

So NOTHING on your false premise of the Dems/F/F got it



Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs
By BRUCE BARTLETT


The table below presents the bureau’s data. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.

The Wall Street Journal’s July survey of business economists found, “The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.”

In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.

“None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” McClatchy reported. “Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.”

The latest monthly survey of its members by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan’s administration, according to an analysis of the federation’s data by the Economic Policy Institute.

Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor in unemployment. In a blog post on Sept. 5, Jay Livingston, a sociologist at Montclair State University, hypothesized that if regulation were a major problem it would show up in the unemployment rates of industries where regulation has been increasing: the financial sector, medical care and mining/fuel extraction. He found that unemployment rates in these sectors were actually well below the national average.


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/


lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

NOTHING on my demolishing YOUR talking point? Typical

Where?

AND? oh right Dems the minority party in the GOP majority House 1995-2007 had super powers when it came to Fannie/Freddie ACCOUNTING scandals of 2003-2004 they spoke of in the OUT OF CONTEXT vids



The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008





Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


June 17, 2004




Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."




Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”


One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.



"(In 2000, Clinton) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH), the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."


http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/f..._090911_v2.pdf




June 17, 2004


Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004



Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush

http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf


ANYTHING ELSE?

oh right Dems the minority party in the GOP majority House 1995-2007 had super powers when it came to Fannie/Freddie ACCOUNTING scandals of 2003-2004

Where did I claim that?

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

I think it's a mistake for government to push banks to make loans to unqualified borrowers.
Whether it's Bush, Frank, Meeks, Waters, Dodd, Cuomo or Clay.

ANYTHING ELSE?

Better luck next time?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, THAT just proves NAFTA, that conservative idea Reagan announced the day he ran for Prez in 1979 isn't really deregulation *shaking head*


"free trade" becomes a recipe for standards-lowering competition



Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics AND 'FREE TRADE' ) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

So did NAFTA bring more regulations or fewer regulations? Just answer the question, asswipe.

Why can't conservatives EVER get over their simplistic ideas and premises?

Was there more regulation or less regulation as a result of NAFTA? Why won't you answer the question?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

lol, Right, it was 'regulation' that created the OPPORTUNITY to move jobs offshore *shaking head*

You're right, companies never consider regulatory burden when making business decisions.

So NOTHING on your false premise of the Dems/F/F got it



Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs
By BRUCE BARTLETT


The table below presents the bureau’s data. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.

The Wall Street Journal’s July survey of business economists found, “The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.”

In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.

“None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” McClatchy reported. “Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.”

The latest monthly survey of its members by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan’s administration, according to an analysis of the federation’s data by the Economic Policy Institute.

Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor in unemployment. In a blog post on Sept. 5, Jay Livingston, a sociologist at Montclair State University, hypothesized that if regulation were a major problem it would show up in the unemployment rates of industries where regulation has been increasing: the financial sector, medical care and mining/fuel extraction. He found that unemployment rates in these sectors were actually well below the national average.


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/


lol

So NOTHING on your false premise of the Dems/F/F got it

The Dems, Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the crisis?
Well that's a relief.

Thanks for the article. Was that supposed to prove that companies never consider regulatory burden when making business decisions?

 

[Dad2three]

Where?

AND? oh right Dems the minority party in the GOP majority House 1995-2007 had super powers when it came to Fannie/Freddie ACCOUNTING scandals of 2003-2004 they spoke of in the OUT OF CONTEXT vids



The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008





Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


June 17, 2004




Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."




Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”


One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.



"(In 2000, Clinton) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH), the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."


http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/f..._090911_v2.pdf




June 17, 2004


Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004



Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush

http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf


ANYTHING ELSE?

oh right Dems the minority party in the GOP majority House 1995-2007 had super powers when it came to Fannie/Freddie ACCOUNTING scandals of 2003-2004

Where did I claim that?

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

I think it's a mistake for government to push banks to make loans to unqualified borrowers.
Whether it's Bush, Frank, Meeks, Waters, Dodd, Cuomo or Clay.

ANYTHING ELSE?

Better luck next time?

You mean BESIDES your out of context Vids where did you say it?

NO, GOV'T DIDN'T CREATE THE BANKSTER SUBPRIME CRISIS WORLD WIDE. GROW UP!

 

[Dad2three]

You're right, companies never consider regulatory burden when making business decisions.

So NOTHING on your false premise of the Dems/F/F got it



Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs
By BRUCE BARTLETT


The table below presents the bureau’s data. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.

The Wall Street Journal’s July survey of business economists found, “The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.”

In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.

“None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” McClatchy reported. “Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.”

The latest monthly survey of its members by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan’s administration, according to an analysis of the federation’s data by the Economic Policy Institute.

Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor in unemployment. In a blog post on Sept. 5, Jay Livingston, a sociologist at Montclair State University, hypothesized that if regulation were a major problem it would show up in the unemployment rates of industries where regulation has been increasing: the financial sector, medical care and mining/fuel extraction. He found that unemployment rates in these sectors were actually well below the national average.


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/


lol

So NOTHING on your false premise of the Dems/F/F got it

The Dems, Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the crisis?
Well that's a relief.

Thanks for the article. Was that supposed to prove that companies never consider regulatory burden when making business decisions?

F/F had almost zero to do with the Bankster WORLD WIDE CREDIT CRISIS, The Dems even less

Now WHO created the false premise that ANYONE said that regulations aren't factored? HMM

 

[Dad2three]

So did NAFTA bring more regulations or fewer regulations? Just answer the question, asswipe.

Why can't conservatives EVER get over their simplistic ideas and premises?

Was there more regulation or less regulation as a result of NAFTA? Why won't you answer the question?

What do you think 'free trade' is? Oh right REMOVING BARRIERS so the 'job creators' can shift jobs off shore!

 

[Dad2three]

You're right, companies never consider regulatory burden when making business decisions.

So NOTHING on your false premise of the Dems/F/F got it



Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs
By BRUCE BARTLETT


The table below presents the bureau’s data. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.

The Wall Street Journal’s July survey of business economists found, “The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.”

In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.

“None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” McClatchy reported. “Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.”

The latest monthly survey of its members by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan’s administration, according to an analysis of the federation’s data by the Economic Policy Institute.

Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor in unemployment. In a blog post on Sept. 5, Jay Livingston, a sociologist at Montclair State University, hypothesized that if regulation were a major problem it would show up in the unemployment rates of industries where regulation has been increasing: the financial sector, medical care and mining/fuel extraction. He found that unemployment rates in these sectors were actually well below the national average.


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/


lol

So NOTHING on your false premise of the Dems/F/F got it

The Dems, Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the crisis?
Well that's a relief.

Thanks for the article. Was that supposed to prove that companies never consider regulatory burden when making business decisions?

No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)


1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom: The first thing to point out is that the both the subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, especially the private label securitization channel (PLS) market.


2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis


4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now


Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture




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

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

 

[The Rabbi]

Why can't conservatives EVER get over their simplistic ideas and premises?

Was there more regulation or less regulation as a result of NAFTA? Why won't you answer the question?

What do you think 'free trade' is? Oh right REMOVING BARRIERS so the 'job creators' can shift jobs off shore!

So was there more regulation or less regulation as a result of NAFTA? You're not answering, just deflecting like the bitch you are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So NOTHING on your false premise of the Dems/F/F got it



Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs
By BRUCE BARTLETT


The table below presents the bureau’s data. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.

The Wall Street Journal’s July survey of business economists found, “The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.”

In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.

“None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” McClatchy reported. “Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.”

The latest monthly survey of its members by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan’s administration, according to an analysis of the federation’s data by the Economic Policy Institute.

Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor in unemployment. In a blog post on Sept. 5, Jay Livingston, a sociologist at Montclair State University, hypothesized that if regulation were a major problem it would show up in the unemployment rates of industries where regulation has been increasing: the financial sector, medical care and mining/fuel extraction. He found that unemployment rates in these sectors were actually well below the national average.


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/


lol

So NOTHING on your false premise of the Dems/F/F got it

The Dems, Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the crisis?
Well that's a relief.

Thanks for the article. Was that supposed to prove that companies never consider regulatory burden when making business decisions?

No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)


1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom: The first thing to point out is that the both the subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, especially the private label securitization channel (PLS) market.


2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis


4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now


Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture




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

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown

I wonder where I claimed they did?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They expired for ONLY those making over 250 thousand/year. Considering the percentage of wealth has increased significantly over the last thirty years for the super rich, so much so that we are Banana Republic levels. It was a great victory by Obama and this country.

It was the culmination of a 12 month battle that the Republicans fought tooth and nail over to keep the tax rates for the super rich at historically low levels. The Republicans held the tax rates for the bottom 98% hostage for the super rich until finally out manuevered by Obama.

There is nothing more clear about how the Republicans really feel about the middle class than payroll taxes. Republicans were AGAINST the payroll tax cut. Why? Because, the payroll tax cut helps the middle class, but is barely felt by the super rich. Hence the Republicans didnt care about it, and made it something the Democrats had to make concessions for.

It was the culmination of a 12 month battle that the Republicans fought tooth and nail over to keep the tax rates for the super rich at historically low levels.

Historically low levels? That's hilarious!!!

In 1988, the top rate was 28%.
When Bush left office, the top rate was 35%.

But what was the effective (actual) rate? My tax rate is 38%, but I only paid 4%.

You bought $11,000 in stock a few years ago.
You sold it for $15,000 last year.
You paid $600 on your $4,000 gain.

That doesn't make your effective rate 4%.

 

[Dad2three]

So NOTHING on your false premise of the Dems/F/F got it

The Dems, Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the crisis?
Well that's a relief.

Thanks for the article. Was that supposed to prove that companies never consider regulatory burden when making business decisions?

No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)


1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom: The first thing to point out is that the both the subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, especially the private label securitization channel (PLS) market.


2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis


4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now


Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture




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

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown

I wonder where I claimed they did?

Yes, Out of context vids meant nothing

 

[Dad2three]

so nothing on your false premise of the dems/f/f got it

the dems, fannie and freddie had nothing to do with the crisis?
Well that's a relief.

Thanks for the article. Was that supposed to prove that companies never consider regulatory burden when making business decisions?

no, the gses did not cause the financial meltdown (but thats just according to the data)


1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom: The first thing to point out is that the both the subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, especially the private label securitization channel (pls) market.


2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis


4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now


hey mayor bloomberg! No, the gses did not cause the financial meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | the big picture




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

lest we forget: Why we had a financial crisis - forbes

no, the gses did not cause the financial meltdown

i wonder where i claimed they did?

Like i said Buuussshhhhh