You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[beagle9]

Reagan ended stagflation the wrong way, through supply-side, trickle-down economics, gutting our manufacturing base and stripping the working class of their right to effectively unionize and negotiate. Under Reagan's leadership in the 1980s, there was a shift towards a more laissez-faire approach to the economy, which always has disastrous outcomes in the long term for the working class.

• National Debt at the beginning of Reagan's presidency (January 1981): Approximately $930 billion.
• National Debt at the end of Reagan's presidency (January 1989): Approximately $2.7 trillion.

The so-called "national debt" that conservative Republicans are always raving about today, nearly tripled during Reagan's presidency, increasing by around $1.7 trillion. This significant increase was driven by a combination of tax cuts, increased military spending, and large budget deficits.

View attachment 1002210​

Jimmy Carter took office in 1977, he inherited a challenging economic situation characterized by stagflation, a combination of high inflation, high unemployment, and stagnant economic growth. This economic malaise had roots in several factors, including the Vietnam War and the 1973 OPEC oil embargo.

1. Vietnam War: The prolonged Vietnam War put significant strain on the U.S. economy. The war's costs led to large government deficits, contributing to inflation. Additionally, the war diverted resources from domestic needs, which hindered economic growth.
2. 1973 OPEC Oil Embargo: In response to U.S. support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) imposed an oil embargo on the United States and other nations that supported Israel. This embargo led to a severe oil shortage, causing energy prices to skyrocket. The sharp increase in oil prices contributed to inflation and slowed economic growth, as energy is a critical input for most industries.
3. Stagflation: The combination of these factors resulted in stagflation, a situation where inflation was high, but economic growth was slow, and unemployment was also high. Stagflation is particularly difficult to address because the traditional tools to combat inflation (like raising interest rates) can exacerbate unemployment, while measures to stimulate growth (like increasing government spending) can worsen inflation.

If Carter had adopted a more leftist or socialist approach to addressing stagflation, his policies might have included the following:

1. Nationalization of Key Industries

Energy Sector

Carter could have nationalized the oil and energy industries to control prices and stabilize supply, ensuring that essential resources were managed in the public interest rather than for corporate profit. This move would have aimed to prevent price gouging and reduce reliance on foreign oil, particularly in the wake of the 1973 OPEC oil embargo. He could've also improved relations with Arab countries after America's blind support for Israel in 73, improving oil prices for the American consumer.

2. Price Controls and Wage Regulation

Price Controls:

To combat inflation, Carter might have implemented strict price controls on essential goods and services, ensuring that corporations could not arbitrarily increase prices. This would have helped to keep living costs stable for ordinary Americans.

Wage Policies:

Carter could have introduced policies to raise wages across the board, such as a significant increase in the minimum wage or a living wage mandate. These measures would have increased consumer purchasing power, helping to stimulate economic growth.

3. Massive Public Works Programs

Government Employment Programs:

Drawing inspiration from the New Deal, Carter could have launched large-scale public works programs to create jobs and invest in infrastructure, renewable energy, and public housing. These initiatives would have provided employment, stimulated demand, and addressed long-term economic needs.

4. Creating A Social Safety Net for The Working-Class

Healthcare:

Universal Healthcare: Implementing a universal healthcare system would have removed the burden of healthcare costs from individuals and businesses, freeing up disposable income and reducing inflationary pressures.

Social Safety Nets:

Expanding social security, unemployment benefits, and other welfare programs would have provided financial security for those hit hardest by economic challenges, stabilizing the economy by maintaining consumer demand.

5. Progressive Taxation and Equitable Economic Policy

Increased Taxes on the Wealthiest Members Of Society:

Carter could have reintroduced the high marginal tax rates seen in the 1950s and 60s, where the top marginal tax rate was as high as 91%. This would have generated substantial revenue for public programs while reducing income inequality.

Fair Economic Distribution:

Carter might have framed these policies as "equitable economic policy," ensuring that the benefits of economic growth were shared more fairly across society, not just among the rich and powerful.

6. Comprehensive Economic Planning

Rather than leaving the economy to blind market forces (Adam Smith's imaginary "invisible hand of the free market"), Carter could have established a central economic planning body to coordinate investment, production, and distribution. This would have aimed to create a more stable and equitable economy, focused on long-term goals rather than short-term profits.

Empowering Workers:

Increasing support for labor unions and encouraging worker cooperatives would have given workers a greater say in how businesses were run and profits were shared, contributing to a more balanced economy.

7. International Solidarity and Trade Policy

Following China's Model:

China, under the leadership of the Communist Party, implemented gradual reforms that maintained strong state control over key sectors of the economy. This approach has allowed China to achieve remarkable economic growth and stability over the past few decades.

Avoiding Russia's Mistakes Of The 1990s:

In contrast to China, Russia's experience in the 1990s illustrates the dangers of abandoning state control of certain industries. Under the "Shock Therapy" economic program, Russia rapidly privatized state assets, leading to economic collapse and widespread poverty. By maintaining stronger state control of the major centers of economic power (the industries vital to the nation's infrastructure) and implementing gradual reforms, Carter could have quickly gotten us out of stagflation, but he decided to "pussyfoot" on the economy, essentially doing nothing effective. Reagan's actions got us out of stagflation and created a whole new crisis.

View attachment 1002224​

Why did we have an oil embargo crippling us during the Carter presidency, and now we as citizens learn that this nation has more natural resources than any other nation in this world ? Why have we been lied to for so many year's about all of this stuff, only to learn the truth now by the bull (Trump) who is inside wrecking the China shop as we speak ?????

Is Trump the enemy of the establishment because he's just too damned honest as a big mouth New Yorker who wants to do the right thing for America, and do so too the best of his ability ?

 

[protectionist]

Obama the globalist was convinced that America had stagnated in the production or promise of anything new being possible in the future because of helping the world to catch up instead of America leading as the example on how to run a country.

In 2012, during the presidential campaign, Obama the GLOBALIST, made a speech in Germany, in which he proclaimed himself to be "a citizen of the world".
He got sharply contradicted and chewed out, by conservative presidential candidate Virgil Goode, who said "You're supposed to be a citizen of the United States, and as a US president, representing the American people, not the world."

 

[protectionist]

Todd, dismissing Trump’s proposals to cut essential programs as “just proposals” misses the bigger issue. The fact that these cuts were even considered shows where Trump’s priorities lie, certainly not with the working class. If those cuts didn’t fully materialize, it was thanks to Democrats who fought to protect these programs. Trump’s intent to gut Medicaid, food assistance, and housing subsidies was clear, and just because he didn’t get everything he wanted doesn’t mean his policies didn’t hurt working people.

Beyond the threat of program cuts, let’s talk about the real expenses the working class faced, which wiped out any benefits from those modest tax cuts. Health insurance premiums continued to rise, and Trump's attempts to undermine the Affordable Care Act only added to that burden. Housing costs surged in many parts of the country, making it harder for people to afford rent or buy homes (Trump is against rent controls and providing adequate rental assistance to working-class families that need it).

Childcare costs remained high, and for many, the cost of education, whether paying off student loans or saving for their kids, continued to be a heavy financial strain. Utility costs, transportation, and even food prices edged up, squeezing family budgets even tighter.

So, while you might downplay the impact of Trump's proposals as not being fully realized, the reality is that his policies and the expenses working-class families had to bear, far outweighed any small gains from tax cuts. The working class ended up with more bills and fewer protections, all while the wealthy and corporations enjoyed the lion’s share of the benefits.

You have made some very WILD CLAIMS in this post, while not presenting a shred of evidence.
This is typical of leftwingers who watch CNN, MSNBC, PBS, et al leftist media which throws crazy ideas around like pillows in a pillow fight.

Show something to back up your weird claims that >>>
1. "Trump’s intent to gut Medicaid, food assistance, and housing subsidies"

2. "Trump is against rent controls and providing adequate rental assistance to working-class families that need it."

3. "the reality is that his policies and the expenses working-class families had to bear, far outweighed any small gains from tax cuts.

4. "The working class ended up with more bills and fewer protections,"
.

 

[protectionist]

There you go! China is at fault. Having said that, who was president when that happened and allowed it to happen to a higher degree than it should have? Trump! Trump failed to control or beat the Chinese. They were better than Trump. They caused over 1.4 million Americans to die and Trump was not good enough to beat the Chinese.

Hey, he was so bad that he raised tariffs on them and the tariffs cost us more than the Chinese.

Talk about proof of incompetency. Here it is and by your own words.

and you say it was the marxist libturds? Where they in power, or was Trump in power. If they were in power, then Trump was a stooge for them and if he was in power, he allowed them to do it to him.

How much more incompetent a person be? even libtards and Chinese beat him?

The pandemic and its economic negatives, are attributable to Democrats
1. Obama's NIH funded the Wuhan lab
2. Democrat governors kept the shutdowns going.
3. Pelosi blocked stimulus checks

 

[beagle9]

In 2012, during the presidential campaign, Obama the GLOBALIST, made a speech in Germany, in which he proclaimed himself to be "a citizen of the world".
He got sharply contradicted and chewed out, by conservative presidential candidate Virgil Goode, who said "You're supposed to be a citizen of the United States, and as a US president, representing the American people, not the world."

Absolutely right... Obama (I strongly feel) with him being this admitted so called "globalist or globalized citizen", just proved to me his great disdain and racist view's that him and his wife share and hold against America for nefarious purposes.

He figured that going global in his citizenship and views was going to empower him against American traditional cultures, standards, and traditions surrounding God, clingers and the standards invoked from it all when he would go about fundamentally changing it.

We absolutely must turn away from this globalist agenda that has divided America and Americans over these latter day's of modernization, and over the expectations of how we are supposed to graduate to a more modern day society without God leading us in the moral and decency department.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. Tax Cuts Favoring the Wealthy​

• Repeated tax cuts, such as those implemented under the Reagan, Bush, and Trump administrations, have disproportionately benefited the wealthy. These cuts reduce the tax burden on high-income earners and corporations, allowing them to accumulate more wealth while reducing government revenue for social programs that support the working class.

2. Deregulation of Industries​

• Deregulation, particularly in the financial sector, has allowed corporations and wealthy individuals to engage in risky and speculative activities that concentrate wealth at the top. This includes the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the rise of shadow banking, which contributed to the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath.

3. Decline of Labor Unions​

• The decline of labor unions due to anti-union policies, corporate resistance, and weakening labor laws has diminished workers' bargaining power. This has led to stagnant wages, reduced benefits, and less job security for the working class, while corporate profits and executive pay have soared.

4. Globalization and Outsourcing​

• Globalization and the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to countries with cheaper labor have decimated many well-paying jobs in the U.S. The shift to a service-based economy has often meant lower wages and less stability for American workers, while corporations have increased their profits by cutting labor costs.

5. Rising Healthcare Costs​

• The rising cost of healthcare, exacerbated by the weakening of the Affordable Care Act and the lack of universal healthcare, has placed a significant financial burden on the working class. Meanwhile, healthcare corporations and pharmaceutical companies have seen their profits grow.

6. Soaring Housing Costs​

• The cost of housing has skyrocketed in many parts of the country due to a combination of factors, including real estate speculation, gentrification, and a lack of affordable housing development. This has made it increasingly difficult for working-class families to afford rent or buy homes, while wealthy investors have profited from the real estate market.

7. Stagnant Wages​

• Despite increases in productivity, wages for the working class have remained largely stagnant over the past few decades. This is in part due to the decline in union power and the shift toward low-wage service jobs. Meanwhile, executive compensation and corporate profits have reached unprecedented levels.

8. Student Debt Crisis​

• The cost of higher education has soared, leading to a massive increase in student loan debt. This debt burden disproportionately affects the working class, limiting their economic mobility and delaying milestones like homeownership. In contrast, wealthy families can afford to pay for education without taking on debt.

9. Cuts to Social Programs​

• Cuts to social safety net programs, such as food assistance, housing subsidies, and healthcare, have left the working class more vulnerable to economic shocks. These programs are often targeted for cuts during periods of austerity, while wealthier individuals and corporations continue to benefit from tax breaks and loopholes.

10. Corporate Influence in Politics​

• The increasing influence of money in politics, especially after the Citizens United decision, has allowed wealthy individuals and corporations to shape policies that protect their interests. This often results in legislation that favors the rich, such as tax cuts and deregulation, at the expense of the working class.

Rent controls ensure housing remains affordable and people have housing. Of course, everything I say on these issues is assuming we remain with a market capitalist economy. Socialism will resolve all of these issues, quickly.

Repeated tax cuts, such as those implemented under the Reagan, Bush, and Trump administrations, have disproportionately benefited the wealthy.

The people who paid the most had the largest dollar benefit.

These cuts reduce the tax burden on high-income earners and corporations, allowing them to accumulate more wealth while reducing government revenue for social programs that support the working class.

These cuts resulted in the rich paying a much larger percentage of all income tax receipts.

Deregulation, particularly in the financial sector, has allowed corporations and wealthy individuals to engage in risky and speculative activities that concentrate wealth at the top.

What deregulation? What can the rich speculate on that the rest of us can't?
If the activities are risky, that means some fail. Should we remove all possibilities of success or failure, so commies can't whine about the rich anymore?

The decline of labor unions due to anti-union policies,

That reminds me, we should outlaw government worker unions.

Globalization and the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to countries with cheaper labor have decimated many well-paying jobs in the U.S.

Maybe we should make it easier and cheaper for corporations to operate here?

The cost of housing has skyrocketed in many parts of the country due to a combination of factors, including real estate speculation, gentrification, and a lack of affordable housing development.

Not to mention the massive Biden/Harris border failures that let an additional 12-15 million illegal aliens walk or fly in.

The cost of higher education has soared, leading to a massive increase in student loan debt.

Obama had the government take over college loans. Why didn't that make college cheaper?

Cuts to social safety net programs, such as food assistance, housing subsidies, and healthcare, have left the working class more vulnerable to economic shocks.

What cuts?

The increasing influence of money in politics, especially after the Citizens United decision, has allowed wealthy individuals and corporations to shape policies that protect their interests.

Citizens United was terrible!!!
Why do people think it is ok to criticize Hillary, especially before an election?
Hillary must never be criticized. She's better than the regular people.
She's in no way a lowly deplorable.

Rent controls ensure housing remains affordable and people have housing.
I agree. Rent must be something everyone can afford. $500 a month, at most.
And those nasty rich people should be forced to build more places for us all to rent. I'll take a 4 bedroom with a 3-car garage near Lincoln Park. I'll pay $600 a month, tops. Git 'er done!!!

Socialism will resolve all of these issues, quickly.

Obviously. I miss Cabrini Green. Socialism at its finest. Very affordable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Glass-Steagall originally separated commercial banking from investment banking, which meant that banks couldn’t gamble with depositors' money in risky investment ventures. When it was repealed in 1999, it allowed banks to combine these activities, leading to the creation of complex financial instruments like mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that were filled with bad subprime mortgages.

The real issue was that, without Glass-Steagall, commercial banks could now not only write risky mortgages but also package them into MBS and sell them off to investors. This created a feedback loop of ever-riskier lending practices because the banks no longer bore the full risk of those loans—they could offload that risk into the broader financial system. The result was a massive buildup of toxic assets that eventually collapsed the entire system.

As for the GSE mandates to buy subprime mortgages, it's a misunderstanding to pin the crisis solely on them. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did indeed play a role in the housing bubble by purchasing subprime loans, but they were far from the only players. Private lenders and Wall Street banks were even more aggressive in pushing subprime loans and creating risky financial products. The crisis was the result of a combination of factors, including deregulation, excessive risk-taking by private financial institutions, and a lack of oversight, all of which were exacerbated by the removal of Glass-Steagall’s protections. So, while the GSEs made mistakes, the root causes of the crisis went much deeper, and Glass-Steagall’s repeal was a significant part of the problem.

Glass-Steagall originally separated commercial banking from investment banking, which meant that banks couldn’t gamble with depositors' money in risky investment ventures.

I agree.
Banks should only be allowed to invest in safe ventures, like single family homes.
DURR

When it was repealed in 1999, it allowed banks to combine these activities, leading to the creation of complex financial instruments like mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that were filled with bad subprime mortgages.

I know. Nobody lost any money on bad subprime mortgages unless they were securitized. Right?

As for the GSE mandates to buy subprime mortgages, it's a misunderstanding to pin the crisis solely on them.

Who said they were the only players? Or that the fault was only theirs?
I just thought it was interesting that during all this so-called deregulation causing harm, that there was an added regulation that caused a lot of harm.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did indeed play a role in the housing bubble by purchasing subprime loans, but they were far from the only players.

How much subprime did they buy?

So, while the GSEs made mistakes,

Made mistakes by buying the subprime mortgages HUD forced them to buy?
Those mistakes?

 

[Luckyone]

The pandemic and its economic negatives, are attributable to Democrats
1. Obama's NIH funded the Wuhan lab
2. Democrat governors kept the shutdowns going.
3. Pelosi blocked stimulus checks

 

[Luckyone]

The pandemic and its economic negatives, are attributable to Democrats
1. Obama's NIH funded the Wuhan lab
2. Democrat governors kept the shutdowns going.
3. Pelosi blocked stimulus checks

I am so happy you said that (foot in mouth action by Protectionist). You have just proven that the Democrats did the right thing. South Korea shut down immediately after the pandemic started and guess what? percentage-wise, they were the nation with the smallest amount of Covid deaths and they were the very first nation to re-open business and everything else and within 3 months of shutting down.

As far as your statements about Obama funding the Wuhan Lab, show me proof.

As far as Pelosi blocking Stimulus checks. Show me proof.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Glass-Steagall originally separated commercial banking from investment banking, which meant that banks couldn’t gamble with depositors' money in risky investment ventures.

I agree.
Banks should only be allowed to invest in safe ventures, like single family homes.
DURR

When it was repealed in 1999, it allowed banks to combine these activities, leading to the creation of complex financial instruments like mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that were filled with bad subprime mortgages.

I know. Nobody lost any money on bad subprime mortgages unless they were securitized. Right?

As for the GSE mandates to buy subprime mortgages, it's a misunderstanding to pin the crisis solely on them.

Who said they were the only players? Or that the fault was only theirs?
I just thought it was interesting that during all this so-called deregulation causing harm, that there was an added regulation that caused a lot of harm.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did indeed play a role in the housing bubble by purchasing subprime loans, but they were far from the only players.

How much subprime did they buy?

So, while the GSEs made mistakes,

Made mistakes by buying the subprime mortgages HUD forced them to buy?
Those mistakes?

First off, your sarcastic remark about banks only investing in "safe ventures, like single-family homes" ignores the real problem: the reckless bundling of risky subprime mortgages into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and selling them as safe investments. The issue wasn’t that banks were lending for homes; it was that they were making risky loans to people who couldn’t afford them, then repackaging those loans into complex financial products and selling them as low-risk. When the housing market collapsed, it wasn’t just homeowners who suffered—it was the entire financial system because these so-called "safe" MBS were anything but. The repeal of Glass-Steagall enabled banks to take on these risks without sufficient oversight, which directly contributed to the financial meltdown.

As for your point about nobody losing money on bad subprime mortgages unless they were securitized, that’s precisely the problem. Securitization spread the risk across the entire financial system, turning what could have been a contained issue into a global crisis. Banks didn’t just hold onto these bad loans; they packaged and sold them to investors around the world, including pension funds, municipalities, and even other banks. When the housing market collapsed, those securities plummeted in value, leading to massive losses across the board. The crisis wasn’t just about bad mortgages, it was about how those mortgages were turned into ticking time bombs through securitization.

Regarding the GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), yes, they were involved, but they were far from the main culprits. They did purchase subprime mortgages, but their involvement increased significantly later in the game, after private lenders and Wall Street had already flooded the market with risky loans. The idea that a single regulation, the GSE mandates, was responsible for the crisis is misleading. The real damage was done by private financial institutions that engaged in predatory lending practices and the creation of toxic financial products. Blaming GSEs alone ignores the broader systemic issues, including the deregulation that allowed private banks to act recklessly.

Finally, the truth is that under socialism, where banking is nationalized and not driven by profit, these kinds of crises can be prevented. Banks wouldn’t be incentivized to engage in risky behavior just to turn a profit; instead, they would lend to support the working class and the nation’s economic stability. The goal wouldn’t be short-term profits for a few, but long-term stability and prosperity for all. Under a system where banking serves the public good, rather than private gain, we could avoid the boom-and-bust cycles that are all too common in capitalist economies.

Thanks to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, it's inevitable that socialism will completely replace capitalism, in the near future. We're entering into a marketless, more democratic age of advanced automation and AI.