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

[TruthNotBS]

Exactly...So you are admitting that it starts with government, and then it blows up from there ?

Now just getting you to admit which party has been the worst offenders of our constitutional government, and basically admitting which party has sold us out is going to be epic.

Exactly...So you are admitting that it starts with government, and then it blows up from there ?

No, I'm not saying that. It starts with capitalism and its penchant for taking control of government through its money. Capitalists bribe politicians, they use their wealth to corrupt the government to do their bidding, even at the expense of the public or the working class. We currently live in a plutocratic oligarchy, controlled by big money. Corporate interest rules, not the public good. Get it? Probably not, because you don't want to get it, you just want to disingenuously go in circles, asserting your ignorance. Debating for the sake of debating.

Now just getting you to admit which party has been the worst offenders of our constitutional government, and basically admitting which party has sold us out is going to be epic.

Both parties are shit. One is shitier than the other when it comes to worker rights and that's the Republican Party, but the Democrats are also in the pockets of big business and they will often undermine the interests of the working class. So both parties are guilty, with one being the lesser evil of the two, as far as working-class interests are concerned, and that's the Democratic Party. If I had to choose one party over the other, I would choose the Democrats. I'm an independent, not affiliated or registered with any party.

When it comes to the economy, historical data often shows that Democratic administrations tend to perform better for the working class. Here are some key stats:

1. Job Creation: Over the past several decades, Democratic presidents have generally overseen more robust job creation. For example, between 1945 and 2020, 62 million jobs were created under Democratic presidents compared to 35 million under Republicans.
2. GDP Growth: On average, GDP growth tends to be higher under Democratic administrations. From 1947 to 2020, the average annual GDP growth was around 4.4% under Democratic presidents, compared to about 2.5% under Republicans.
3. Unemployment Rates: Historically, unemployment rates tend to be lower at the end of Democratic presidencies. For instance, Bill Clinton left office with an unemployment rate of 4%, while Barack Obama brought the rate down to 4.7% after inheriting it at 10% due to the 2008 financial crisis.
4. Stock Market Performance: While not a direct indicator of working-class well-being, the stock market generally performs better under Democratic presidents. Since 1929, the average annual return for the S&P 500 has been around 10.8% under Democrats compared to 5.6% under Republicans.
5. Income Growth: Under Democratic presidents, income growth for the middle class has typically been higher. Between 1947 and 2016, real median family income grew by 2.5% annually under Democratic presidents, compared to 0.6% under Republicans.

Here are some links to sources that provide data and analysis on how Democratic administrations have historically performed better for the working class:

1. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for GDP growth data:
   
   • BEA Website
2. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for job creation and unemployment data:
   
   • BLS Website
3. Pew Research Center for income inequality and income growth data:
   
   • Pew Research Center
4. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study by Alan Blinder and Mark Watson:
   
   • NBER Study

These sources provide comprehensive data and research to support the claim that Democratic administrations have historically led to better economic outcomes for the working class.

As a working-class person, with class consciousness, I usually support the party that better serves the interests of the working class.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Neither you nor your references have shown any proof that the CRA or any other government policy "forced" banks to make these risky loans.


Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?

Sumit Agarwal (School of Business, National University of Singapore)
Efraim Benmelech (Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, and National Bureau of Economic Research)
Nittai Bergman (MIT and National Bureau of Economic Research) Amit Seru (University of Chicago and National Bureau of Economic Research)

OCTOBER 2012

Abstract

Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks’ incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=housing_law_and_policy

You keep referring to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as if they were the driving force behind the crisis, but again, where’s your evidence?


in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system.


Of the 19.2 million subprime and low quality loans that were on the books of government agencies in 2008, 12 million (about 62%) were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie. No one who has grasped the significance of these numbers--and there is much more data in my dissent--could believe that Fannie and Freddie were "not a major factor."


27 million subprime loans in the US financial system.
19.2 million of those held by GSEs and other government agencies,
12 million of those 19.2 million government held mortgages were Fannie and Freddie.

That's about 44% of all subprime mortgages.
That's a driving force all right.


The bulk of subprime lending was done by private lenders,

Do you understand how this works? All the lending is done by private lenders. 100 fucking percent. Fannie and Freddie don't loan to home buyers. Private lenders loan to homebuyers and then

Fannie and Freddie bought the loans.

There's no evidence that the government forced or twisted the arm of banks to engage in the reckless behaviors that led to the 2008 financial crisis. The CRA encouraged lending to underserved communities, but it did not dictate the creation of NINJA loans or the bundling of subprime mortgages into toxic securities. If the banks were merely following government orders, why did they lobby so intensely to repeal Glass-Steagall? You’re avoiding the key issue; banks acted out of greed, not coercion. Show me the evidence where the government forced banks to engage in these corrupt practices.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Name a failed policy

Several policies implemented during the Trump administration can be seen as having failed the American working class, either by not delivering on their promises or by exacerbating existing economic and social issues:

1. 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)​

• Benefits to the Wealthy: The TCJA significantly reduced corporate tax rates and offered substantial tax cuts for the wealthy, under the premise that these benefits would trickle down to the working class through job creation and wage increases. However, the primary beneficiaries were corporations and the wealthy, who used the tax cuts largely for stock buybacks and executive bonuses, with minimal impact on wages or job creation for the working class.

2. Unprepared Trade War with China​

• Tariffs on Imported Goods: The Trump administration's trade war, particularly the imposition of tariffs on Chinese goods, led to higher prices for many consumer goods. These tariffs were often passed on to consumers, disproportionately affecting working-class families who already struggle with the cost of living. Trump has done this without investing heavily in American manufacturing, which would replace the need for the American consumer to purchase products from China.
• Job Losses in Agriculture: The trade war also hurt American farmers. Retaliatory tariffs by China and other countries led to a decline in exports, harming agricultural communities and leading to job losses in sectors that were already vulnerable.

3. Dismantling Labor Protections​

• Rollback of Overtime Pay Protections: The Trump administration rolled back an Obama-era rule that expanded overtime pay protections to millions of workers. By reducing the threshold for overtime eligibility, many working-class Americans lost out on potential income from overtime work.
• Anti-Union Measures: The Trump administration supported various anti-union measures, including appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that favored employers over workers. This weakened the power of labor unions, making it more difficult for workers to collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.

4. Repeal of the Affordable Care Act's Individual Mandate​

• Increased Healthcare Costs: The repeal of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) individual mandate led to an increase in healthcare premiums for many Americans. Without the mandate, fewer healthy people enrolled in insurance plans, driving up costs for everyone else. For many working-class families, this meant higher out-of-pocket healthcare expenses, further straining their finances.

5. Weakening of Consumer Financial Protections​

• Dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): The Trump administration weakened the CFPB, an agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers from predatory financial practices. The weakening of the CFPB left consumers, particularly the working class, more vulnerable to exploitation by banks, payday lenders, and other financial institutions.

6. Cuts to Social Programs​

• Proposed Budget Cuts: The Trump administration repeatedly proposed budgets that included cuts to critical social safety net programs such as SNAP (food stamps), housing assistance, and Medicaid. Although many of these cuts were not fully implemented due to resistance by Democrat legislators in Congress, the administration's stance reflected a willingness to reduce support for the most vulnerable, disproportionately affecting working-class Americans.

7. Environmental Deregulation​

• Impact on Health and Jobs: The Trump administration rolled back numerous environmental regulations, particularly those related to air and water quality. While these rollbacks were often framed as efforts to protect jobs in industries like coal and manufacturing, they also posed significant health risks, particularly to working-class communities. Long-term, these deregulatory actions could lead to increased healthcare costs and job losses as industries fail to transition to cleaner technologies.

 

[gipper]

Ultra maga ignorance has no limits, no amount of facts will ever convince them that time after time right wing policies have failed our country. No one can make the understand their cult leader, trump, who is a convicted rapist criminal, traitor will destroy our great country...

View attachment 1004439

You’re no different if you think Kamala isn’t just as bad as Don.