I'm glad to see more people catching on to what I've know for a long time - professional sports is corrupt.
Pro sports is money, and money is capitalism, and capitalism is corrupt and a corrupting influence, ergo the corruption in sports - just like everything else capitalism touches.
Quote from: Y on May 15, 2015, 04:52:49 PM
I'm glad to see more people catching on to what I've know for a long time - professional sports is corrupt.
Pro sports is money, and money is capitalism, and capitalism is corrupt and a corrupting influence, ergo the corruption in sports - just like everything else capitalism touches.
Now you had to go and ruin this by making it political.......NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE TIED TO POLITICS :rolleyes:
What was political about Y's statement? He was referring to capitalism, not politicians.
Of course...capitalism is an economic system, but don't tell Hank that. Things to Hank are what Hank wants them to be, not what they are. :rolleyes:
It's to be expected. <shrugs>
:biggrin:
Quote from: Anne on May 06, 2015, 01:40:09 PM
Everyone in the US "supports" capitalism. You think if you have religious or moral convictions you shouldn't have a business? I guess maybe you are right if you will compromise what you believe in.
Some of us quite unwillingly!
Correct! Capitalism is both corrupt and corrupting. Capitalism is at best amoral, and at worst immoral. Therefore, how can any religious person - someone who is supposed to be 'moral' and following a supposed 'moral' code - be involved in, or be an adherent to, capitalism?
Of course one would be compromising their supposed religious beliefs - not that the religious tend to actually follow their beliefs, that's usually reserved for expecting such of others.
I don't understand how the religious don't gravitate towards communism/socialism. Those are far more moral and equitable economic systems.
Really?
Capitalism is...an economic and political system according to the dictionary... I said political....and that is what he did.
My only point is Y just loves to troll.....
Professional sports is not particularly any more corrupt than many college or even many high school sports......
Btw....capitalism is what made America great and the reason why you get to do the things you do.
Quote from: Y on May 15, 2015, 05:48:40 PM
Some of us quite unwillingly!
Correct! Capitalism is both corrupt and corrupting. Capitalism is at best amoral, and at worst immoral. Therefore, how can any religious person - someone who is supposed to be 'moral' and following a supposed 'moral' code - be involved in, or be an adherent to, capitalism?
Of course one would be compromising their supposed religious beliefs - not that the religious tend to actually follow their beliefs, that's usually reserved for expecting such of others.
I don't understand how the religious don't gravitate towards communism/socialism. Those are far more moral and equitable economic systems.
Maybe because communism has resulted in oppression, poverty, cruelty and corruption in every modern attempt.
Quote from: Anne on May 17, 2015, 05:00:07 PM
Maybe because communism has resulted in oppression, poverty, cruelty and corruption in every modern attempt.
Anne, you just mentioned all of the bad things about predatory capitalism. Let us pray, Anne. :pray:
I've asked to have some posts moved here for discussion on this topic. Hopefully it won't take too long and we can get at it.
OK, cool, it's done. TYVM!
Quote from: Y on May 19, 2015, 03:44:15 PM
I've asked to have some posts moved here for discussion on this topic. Hopefully it won't take too long and we can get at it.
Y, I don't think you will get much discussion on Capitalism or Socialism from the Republicans of this topic. :wink: Because they don't know shit about anything. Other than they get from Fox News and the Washington DC Republican Party. :haha: :rotfl:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 15, 2015, 07:50:26 PM
Really?
Capitalism is...an economic and political system according to the dictionary... I said political....and that is what he did.
My only point is Y just loves to troll.....
Btw....capitalism is what made America great and the reason why you get to do the things you do.
1. Just because you did your usual and reached for the first thing you Googled up that you thought supported your position - and just as usual, you're wrong.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism
Full Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free markethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Capitalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the economic system.
Capitalism is an economic system and a mode of production in which trade, industries, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned. 2. Troll?!? Like you?!? I made a distinct observation on the corrupting influence of Capitalism, i.e.: money, on sports - just like it has on every other human activity. Capitalism reduces most, if not all, human interactions to financial ones.
3. It's our Constitutional Republic form of government that is "the reason why you get to do the things you do." It's not surprising that you can't tell the difference between a system of government and an economic system.
Quote from: Anne on May 17, 2015, 05:00:07 PM
Maybe because communism has resulted in oppression, poverty, cruelty and corruption in every modern attempt.
You, like Hank, either misconstrue or don't understand the difference between a system of government and an economic system.
The primary examples always thrown out disparaging 'communism' aren't 'communism' at all. They're dictatorships. Dictatorships using the facade of 'communism' to do the same thing the capitalists have done with capitalism - move a nation's wealth from the masses to the few, and exactly with the results you bring up.
Therefore, you can't blame that on the communist economic system.
The closest examples of pure communism that I'm aware of are the original Christian communities.
Quote from: The Troll on May 17, 2015, 06:23:13 PM
Anne, you just mentioned all of the bad things about predatory capitalism. Let us pray, Anne. :pray:
Yup!
In a society, the object of an economic system is to benefit that society - NOT certain elements of that society.
An economic system must be egalitarian - just like government and society.
If an economic system - or a governmental or societal system - is not egalitarian, then it either must be changed for another economic system or regulatory changes implemented to make that system egalitarian.
Quote from: The Troll on May 19, 2015, 04:24:28 PM
Y, I don't think you will get much discussion on Capitalism or Socialism from the Republicans of this topic.
Hopefully, there will be discussions because economics - like government/society - is an important subject.
The goal of the progressives and libs is to make us all equally poor rather than equally rich like you seem to think.
Quote from: me on May 19, 2015, 11:06:34 PM
The goal of the progressives and libs is to make us all equally poor rather than equally rich like you seem to think.
We cannot be either 'equally poor' or 'equally rich'; we can be equal.
I had a thread around here once where the formula for basic economics was discussed.
The gist was:
1. Resources are finite, and for anyone to become 'richer': gain a greater portion of those limited resources, the rest have to become 'poorer': lose a portion of those limited resources.
2. The greater percentage of those resources that are accumulated by the few, the less resources there are to go around for the masses.
That's why both communism and socialism are superior to capitalism - they're more egalitarian, which is far better for society at large.
^^
I just went looking for that thread and couldn't find it, but I certainly remember it. Maybe the forum historian Bo D can point us in the right direction. He can find some things sometimes that I'd long forgotten about. ;D
Wow!
Quote from: Y on May 20, 2015, 04:23:20 PM
We cannot be either 'equally poor' or 'equally rich'; we can be equal.
I had a thread around here once where the formula for basic economics was discussed.
The gist was:
1. Resources are finite, and for anyone to become 'richer': gain a greater portion of those limited resources, the rest have to become 'poorer': lose a portion of those limited resources.
2. The greater percentage of those resources that are accumulated by the few, the less resources there are to go around for the masses.
That's why both communism and socialism are superior to capitalism - they're more egalitarian, which is far better for society at large.
That's what I said, we will be equally poor under either socialism or communism. Talk to some people who have lived under either type and they will tell you that's why they came here, to get away from that.
All right, Y, give an example of a society without capitalism that works, with everyone or almost everyone equal in standard of living.
Anne, I gave you one way back in this thread - early x-tian settlements.
Many, if not most primitive societies were communistic.
Many religious societies - including ones in this country - have been communal.
There are numerous socialist economies in Europe which work rather well.
It's not an idea that hasn't worked, or doesn't work.
Capitalism is NOT the end all, be all, and certainly NOT the most egalitarian/moral of economic systems.
Now Anne, you give an example a pure capitalist economy that works in an egalitarian manner for everyone and doesn't end up with the economic disparity with which our country is ending up.
The examples were all of primitive or early societies that aren't around anymore. Do the socialist economies in Europe you talk about have a single standard of living? I am not sure what you want. Unless you go to the really primitive areas with no contact with the outside world you have some kind of capitalism.
Quote from: Anne on June 06, 2015, 04:02:31 PM
Do the socialist economies in Europe you talk about have a single standard of living?
No but it's a lot more equal than ours and they all enjoy a higher average standard of living than we here in the U.S. do.
Maybe it's time to dust off this short video that Ex posted some time back as an example of the results of unbridled capitalism in this country. It's worth a few minutes of your time Anne.
https://www.youtube.com/v/QPKKQnijnsM
Quote from: Locutus on June 07, 2015, 02:48:26 PM
Maybe it's time to dust off this short video that Ex posted some time back as an example of the results of unbridled capitalism in this country. It's worth a few minutes of your time Anne.
Thanks for resurrecting that; good to watch again. I would be interested in seeing the difference between how those numbers looked in 2009 and how they look in 2015...I'm sure it's much more profound.
But what has the democrats done about it? It seems to me they have fed the rich by pumping $50 billion a month into the stock market MAKING the rich much richer. Am I right?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 08, 2015, 08:42:41 AM
But what has the democrats done about it? It seems to me they have fed the rich by pumping $50 billion a month into the stock market MAKING the rich much richer. Am I right?
This is not a partisan issue. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on June 08, 2015, 10:28:10 AM
This is not a partisan issue. :rolleyes:
It is when Obama's economic policies has failed....leaving the fed to do this.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 08, 2015, 10:35:18 AM
It is when Obama's economic policies has failed....leaving the fed to do this.
You're just a special kind of stupid; aren't you?
Quote from: Exterminator on June 08, 2015, 12:26:54 PM
You're just a special kind of stupid; aren't you?
Whatever skippy.......it is quite OBVIOUS to anyone with any common sense, that the Affordable Health Care Act is NOT helping the economy like we was PROMISED...rather it IS INDEED hurting our economy. This is JUST ONE reason as to the many of policies that have caused our economy to NOT GROW like it should......as a mater of fact the economy SHRANK the 1st quarter........didn't see that on the headlines did ya? The Unemployment rate went up from 5.4 to 5.5% did you read about that?
I'm sure you will say this is a good thing. 7 years into this administration....and we still do not have a strong economy...but a weak one that is tithering towards a recession.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 08, 2015, 01:04:12 PM
Whatever skippy.......it is quite OBVIOUS
Yes, obvious that the redistribution of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the already wealthy that has been going on for over 30 years is the n*ggers fault; right? You're an idiot. :rolleyes:
What is obvious, to me anyway, is the overwhelming inability of individuals to discern the difference between an economic policy and the results of a congressional propensity toward saying no to everything put before them.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 08, 2015, 01:17:45 PM
What is obvious, to me anyway, is the overwhelming inability of individuals to discern the difference between an economic policy and the results of a congressional propensity toward saying no to everything put before them.
Enough of that. If there had been some leadership, there wouldn't have been a constant NO. It was his way or the highway....
He passed two of his stimulus bills...he passed his Healthcare bill...also, Harry Reid said NO to several bills passed by the republicans. Leadership is at its weakest and THAT is the problem we face today.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 08, 2015, 01:16:35 PM
Yes, obvious that the redistribution of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the already wealthy that has been going on for over 30 years. :rolleyes:
Because of liberal laws........we have spent TRILLIONS on poverty and we are in the same shape we was 30 years ago.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 08, 2015, 01:27:43 PM
Because of liberal laws........we have spent TRILLIONS on poverty and we are in the same shape we was 30 years ago.
Bullshit. This started with Reagan.
And by the way, how did your personal finances fare under a conservative administration with conservative policies? LMFAO!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 08, 2015, 01:26:31 PM
Enough of that. If there had been some leadership, there wouldn't have been a constant NO. It was his way or the highway....
I had enough of no a long time ago; but that still hasn't stopped them. They've said no to funding the DOHS and a shit-pot full of other items since then. It will not end until we change who lives in the White House*.
*- Unless Hillary gets elected in which case it is my prediction the death spiral will continue via the no saying. (Because everybody knows you closet racists are extreme chauvinists as well).
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 08, 2015, 01:26:31 PM
He passed two of his stimulus bills...he passed his Healthcare bill...also, Harry Reid said NO to several bills passed by the republicans. Leadership is at its weakest and THAT is the problem we face today.
Please. . . We've been up and down this road for nearly 8 years now. Must I repeat myself endlessly? (And if so to what end?) :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on June 08, 2015, 01:33:29 PM
And by the way, how did your personal finances fare under a conservative administration with conservative policies? LMFAO!
Great tactic........change the subject....you are good at doing that. LMMFAO!!!
Quote from: Palehorse on June 08, 2015, 01:34:31 PM
Please. . . We've been up and down this road for nearly 8 years now. Must I repeat myself endlessly? (And if so to what end?) :rolleyes:
We have been up and down this road here at the zone, with 95% liberals who agree with you. I have stated several times as to why they have failed, but it just ends up as a joke with you guys...who don't want to listen to what the other side has to say. You can repeat yourself as much as you want, it doesn't mean you are right.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 08, 2015, 01:34:31 PM
(Because everybody knows you closet racists are extreme chauvinists as well).
Wow! another tactic by typical liberals, spouting off and being wrong.
Do you HONESTLY believe I am racist and a chauvinist? Just because I don't agree with Obama and Hillary?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 08, 2015, 01:38:29 PM
We have been up and down this road here at the zone, with 95% liberals who agree with you. I have stated several times as to why they have failed, but it just ends up as a joke with you guys...who don't want to listen to what the other side has to say. You can repeat yourself as much as you want, it doesn't mean you are right.
Unlike you, the scope of my validation process is not limited to a forum or cyberspace. I actually engage real life human beings that possess awesome critical thinking skills, and then supplement things with some research and investigational resources that do not include the media. (Most of which I have shared with you and everyone else, and which you have either refused to read or consider because they do not fit your emotional world-view.)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 08, 2015, 01:40:37 PM
Wow! another tactic by typical liberals, spouting off and being wrong.
Translation: I got nothing so I'm going to use my peanut butter, go to response bank.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 08, 2015, 01:40:37 PM
Do you HONESTLY believe I am racist and a chauvinist? Just because I don't agree with Obama and Hillary?
I don't want to believe it, but when it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on June 08, 2015, 01:45:56 PM
Unlike you, the scope of my validation process is not limited to a forum or cyberspace. I actually engage real life human beings that possess awesome critical thinking skills, and then supplement things with some research and investigational resources that do not include the media. (Most of which I have shared with you and everyone else, and which you have either refused to read or consider because they do not fit your emotional world-view.)
Palehorse this is where you are 100% wrong...I do tons of research. I love politics. I engage with real life human beings on a regular basis. I work with folks who are very politically motivated and have tremendous critical thinking skills.....and love to share their points of view. I do read the vast majority of your views.....and just because I don't agree with them....it doesn't mean you are still right and I am wrong.
I come here to GET your points of view...and I often bounce them around to see if they have any ability to stick. Sometimes they do, many times they don't.
I may not be the best (and I am not even close, and not suggesting I am even kind of good at it) at debating on a forum....but, there are plenty of extremely good critically thinking people that support my beliefs or it is where I develop MY beliefs.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 08, 2015, 01:45:56 PM
I don't want to believe it, but when it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . .
Translation: It is all I got........attack on a personal level.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 08, 2015, 02:01:51 PM
Translation: It is all I got........attack on a personal level.
Non responsive. You asked, I answered your inquiry.
If you do not want an honest answer then why ask?
Even the right-leaning Forbes doesn't try to deny the obvious: Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth and Investing. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/)
Quote from: Palehorse on June 08, 2015, 04:10:41 PM
Non responsive. You asked, I answered your inquiry.
If you do not want an honest answer then why ask?
Fair enough....just felt like I needed to add my comment, because I feel you are WAY off base....let me rephrase, I KNOW you are way off base. But it is YOUR OPINION.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 09, 2015, 08:33:07 AM
Even the right-leaning Forbes doesn't try to deny the obvious: Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth and Investing. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/)
This again, TYPICAL, of you to pick and choose articles that fit YOUR agenda. Forbes also says Economically, Could Obama Be America's Worst President? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/06/02/economically-could-obama-be-americas-worst-president/)
Obama's real GDP growth has actually been less than half as much as the worst of any President in the last 60 years. In other words, even if you doubled actual GDP growth under President Obama, it would still be the worst record of any President in the last 60 years!Obama's so-called recovery included the longest period since the Great Depression with unemployment above 8%, 43 months, from February, 2009, when Obama's so-called stimulus costing nearly $1 trillion was passed, until August, 2012. It also included the longest period since the Great Depression with unemployment at 9.0% or above, 30 months, from April, 2009, until September, 2011. Ronald Reagan suffered a severe recession starting in 1981, which resulted from the monetary policy that broke the back of the roaring 1970s inflation. But all the job losses of that recession were recovered after 28 months, with the recovery fueled by traditional pro-growth policies. By this point in the Reagan recovery, 64 months after the recession started, jobs had grown 9.5% higher than where they were when the recession started, representing an increase of about 10 million more jobs.
All your article (which predates the article I linked to) states is that under Obama's administration, it took longer to recover from a recession than any previous recession since the depression, not that it failed to do so. Considering the recession Obama was handed was the worst since the Great Depression and that it has since recovered more than Reagan's economy ever did, I'd say that's not a bad record.
Yet you still claim that he has failed even while the numbers don't agree with you...why is that?
Quote from: Exterminator on June 09, 2015, 10:55:41 AM
All your article (which predates the article I linked to) states is that under Obama's administration, it took longer to recover from a recession than any previous recession since the depression, not that it failed to do so. Considering the recession Obama was handed was the worst since the Great Depression and that it has since recovered more than Reagan's economy ever did, I'd say that's not a bad record.
Yet you still claim that he has failed even while the numbers don't agree with you...why is that?
Here are just a few reasons:
Corporate profits have nearly tripled, and stock prices have soared. Thanks to the fed FEEDING it billions every month...
On the other hand, the number of Americans receiving food stamps remains 45% higher than when the president first took office, and the rate of home ownership has dropped by 3.2 percentage points, to the lowest point in nearly 20 years.
The average premium for a benchmark "silver" health plan in the Obamacare marketplaces rose only 2% this year, and consumers had more plans from which to choose. But the tax penalty for going without insurance will double.
46.5 million people, or about 1 out of 9 Americans. The number is only 2.8% below the peak reached in December 2012, and still more than 45% higher than the month before the president was first sworn in.
CBO estimated that when Obama leaves office in 2017, the number of food stamp beneficiaries will still be at 42.7 million — one third more than when he entered.
The federal debt has already grown more during Obama's first six years than under all previous U.S. presidents combined, at least in nominal dollars with no adjustment for inflation. The debt owed to the public stands at about $13 trillion, an increase of 106% since Obama first took office.
In January 2010, the president said in his State of the Union Address, "We will double our exports over the next five years." That hasn't come close to happening.http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/09/fact-check-obama-numbers/21510959/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/09/fact-check-obama-numbers/21510959/)
He could walk on water and you'd still hate him just because of the color of his skin.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 09, 2015, 11:55:53 AM
He could walk on water and you'd still hate him just because of the color of his skin.
Is that all you got? Enough already. You think he walks on water because of why? Not because he is a good leader, I know you are not that stupid.
Lets call it like it is. He is NOT a good leader, no mater WHAT color he is. THAT has nothing to do with it.
Colin Powel is a GREAT LEADER, and he is black.
Condi Rice was a GREAT LEADER
Tim Scott and Alan West both excellent leaders.
Clarence Thomas?? GREAT Intellectual!
Mia Love, a black woman just elected into congress is an name you will hear a lot about in the coming years....
Seriously?
I think it is YOU who is showing racism....saying someone is a great leader JUST BECAUSE you want to be politically correct...
Enough with your token negros already. I would say that probably 95% of the people on this forum believe you're a racist. Why do you think that is?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2015, 11:35:33 AM
The federal debt has already grown more during Obama's first six years than under all previous U.S. presidents combined, at least in nominal dollars with no adjustment for inflation. The debt owed to the public stands at about $13 trillion, an increase of 106% since Obama first took office.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/09/fact-check-obama-numbers/21510959/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/09/fact-check-obama-numbers/21510959/)
ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!
Size of national debt when Reagan took office: $1 trillion
Size after six years: $2.3 trillion (130 percent increase)
Size at the end of his presidency: $2.9 trillion (
190 percent increase)
As Roosevelt battled the Great Depression and World War II, the debt soared from $23 billion in 1933 to $266 billion in 1945, or more than a
1,000 percent increase. Wilson, meanwhile, boosted the national debt from $3 billion in 1913 to $24 billion in 1921, for an increase of
more than 700 percent. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/08/does-obama-have-the-worst-record-on-any-president-on-the-national-debt/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/08/does-obama-have-the-worst-record-on-any-president-on-the-national-debt/)
Quote from: Exterminator on June 09, 2015, 01:27:56 PM
token negros
WOW!! Now just WHO exactly is being racist? TOKEN NEGRO? REALLY?
So if ANY black person is NOT a liberal democrat, they are token negros?
REALLY?
I'm asking anyone on here to please tell me that they do not agree with this moron. THAT is the most moronic, racist remark that has ever been posted on this forum.
THAT is incredible.....I will be waiting for all of the critical thinkers on here to say SOMETHING about this....if not, I KNOW for a fact who exactly are the racists on here.
That is the most blatant racist remark EVER!!
This the type of logic that has our society in the crap whole right now....un - fucking - believable!!!
Quote from: Bo D on June 09, 2015, 01:32:43 PM
ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!
Size of national debt when Reagan took office: $1 trillion
Size after six years: $2.3 trillion (130 percent increase)
Size at the end of his presidency: $2.9 trillion (190 percent increase)
As Roosevelt battled the Great Depression and World War II, the debt soared from $23 billion in 1933 to $266 billion in 1945, or more than a 1,000 percent increase. Wilson, meanwhile, boosted the national debt from $3 billion in 1913 to $24 billion in 1921, for an increase of more than 700 percent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/08/does-obama-have-the-worst-record-on-any-president-on-the-national-debt/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/08/does-obama-have-the-worst-record-on-any-president-on-the-national-debt/)
Don't shoot me, shoot "fact check" with USAToday...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2015, 01:51:15 PM
WOW!! Now just WHO exactly is being racist? TOKEN NEGRO? REALLY?
So if ANY black person is NOT a liberal democrat, they are token negros?
REALLY?
I'm asking anyone on here to please tell me that they do not agree with this moron. THAT is the most moronic, racist remark that has ever been posted on this forum.
THAT is incredible.....I will be waiting for all of the critical thinkers on here to say SOMETHING about this....if not, I KNOW for a fact who exactly are the racists on here.
That is the most blatant racist remark EVER!!
This the type of logic that has our society in the crap whole right now....un - fucking - believable!!!
Why do I waste my time trying to talk to idiots?
Quote from: Exterminator on June 09, 2015, 02:30:57 PM
Why do I waste my time trying to talk to idiots?
Apparently because you make idiot comments like you do........just a thought.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2015, 02:57:19 PM
Apparently because you make idiot comments like you do........just a thought.
Idiot is a noun, not an adjective. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2015, 11:35:33 AM
Corporate profits have nearly tripled, and stock prices have soared.
If you have a 401(k) account at work, you can thank Obama for those stock prices. Chances are you are heavily invested in the stock market.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 09, 2015, 03:19:15 PM
Idiot is a noun, not an adjective. :rolleyes:
When you start attacking grammar I know I got ya! That is usually your last resort....
Quote from: Bo D on June 09, 2015, 03:30:42 PM
If you have a 401(k) account at work, you can thank Obama for those stock prices. Chances are you are heavily invested in the stock market.
Whatever happened to the 99%'ers and Occupy Wall Street dudes? I wonder how great those 401(k)'s would have been had the Fed not pumped $50billion a month into them? I thought the dems were against feeding the fatcats on Wall Street?
Just wondering....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2015, 03:53:35 PM
Whatever happened to the 99%'ers and Occupy Wall Street dudes? I wonder how great those 401(k)'s would have been had the Fed not pumped $50billion a month into them? I thought the dems were against feeding the fatcats on Wall Street?
Just wondering....
Facts is facts! :biggrin: And I'm a very happy camper right now!
Quote from: Bo D on June 09, 2015, 04:24:45 PM
Facts is facts! :biggrin: And I'm a very happy camper right now!
but, obama didn't do anything to deserve credit does he? The Fed did all of that.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2015, 04:37:10 PM
but, obama didn't do anything to deserve credit does he? The Fed did all of that.
Under Obama's leadership.
Quote from: Bo D on June 09, 2015, 04:40:59 PM
Under Obama's leadership.
Thats a good one!!! ;D ;D
oh, uh...you are serious? :confused:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2015, 03:53:35 PM
Whatever happened to the 99%'ers and Occupy Wall Street dudes? I wonder how great those 401(k)'s would have been had the Fed not pumped $50billion a month into them? I thought the dems were against feeding the fatcats on Wall Street?
Just wondering....
Hawk, you know what starts with F and end with K? Why it the 401K. :yes: Screw the hell out of the workers with a crappy so called pension plan. :kneel:
Quote from: The Troll on June 09, 2015, 04:52:39 PM
Hawk, you know what starts with F and end with K? Why it the 401K. :yes: Screw the hell out of the workers with a crappy so called pension plan. :kneel:
Your 401(k) is only as good as you make it. You pick lousy funds, you get crappy results. Simple as that.
Hank must have forgotten how really bad things were when Obama assumed office. The whole damn financial system was on the verge of collapse. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Bo D on June 09, 2015, 04:56:00 PM
Your 401(k) is only as good as you make it. You pick lousy funds, you get crappy results. Simple as that.
True dat!
Quote from: Locutus on June 09, 2015, 04:58:43 PM
Hank must have forgotten how really bad things were when Obama assumed office. The whole damn financial system was on the verge of collapse. :rolleyes:
He's just in denial right now. A stage of grief over Obama's success with the economy.
Quote from: Bo D on June 09, 2015, 05:01:29 PM
He's just in denial right now. A stage of grief over Obama's success with the economy.
:biggrin: :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2015, 04:47:46 PM
Thats a good one!!! ;D ;D
oh, uh...you are serious? :confused:
Bird Brain, you think that George McCain and Sarah would have done a better job? :haha: :haha:
Quote from: Bo D on June 09, 2015, 04:56:00 PM
Your 401(k) is only as good as you make it. You pick lousy funds, you get crappy results. Simple as that.
Tell me Bo D, just how do you know that you have a good stock. :confused: Who thought Enron would do what it did. Who thought GM would do what they did. Who thought IBM would go the way they did, the orphan and widow stock. :confused:
I thought we had good stock and it is. But under George W. Bush I lost $61,000 out of my stock retirement fund, because of what he let happen. Hell, he and the Republican Party almost drove this country into a Herbert Hoover depression. We lost stock price but we didn't lose any dividends. Since Obama I have got back my money and got another $20,000 back on top of that. Bunky Bird thinks Obama is doing a bad job. What a joker. :jester:
Quote from: The Troll on June 09, 2015, 06:35:55 PM
Tell me Bo D, just how do you know that you have a good stock. :confused: Who thought Enron would do what it did. Who thought GM would do what they did. Who thought IBM would go the way they did, the orphan and widow stock. :confused:
I thought we had good stock and it is. But under George W. Bush I lost $61,000 out of my stock retirement fund, because of what he let happen. Hell, he and the Republican Party almost drove this country into a Herbert Hoover depression. We lost stock price but we didn't lose any dividends. Since Obama I have got back my money and got another $20,000 back on top of that. Bunky Bird thinks Obama is doing a bad job. What a joker. :jester:
But OBAMA didn't do anything.......The FED pumped $50 BILLION a MONTH to make the rich richer!!!! The stock market did good, because it was artificially inflated. PERIOD. This is not even open for argument.
We still have a record number of Americans receiving food stamps! It is 45% higher than when Obama first took office, and the rate of home ownership has dropped by 3.2 percentage points, to the lowest point in nearly 20 years. This has NOTHING to do with Bush or the Republicans....NATTA!
CBO has estimated that when Obama leaves office in 2017, the number of food stamp beneficiaries will still be at 42.7 million — one third
more than when he entered. This is HIS leadership and mostly HIS democrats that were running things.
Troll, what a joker. :jester:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2015, 08:01:07 AM
But OBAMA didn't do anything.......The FED pumped $50 BILLION a MONTH to make the rich richer!!!! The stock market did good, because it was artificially inflated. PERIOD. This is not even open for argument.
We still have a record number of Americans receiving food stamps! It is 45% higher than when Obama first took office, and the rate of home ownership has dropped by 3.2 percentage points, to the lowest point in nearly 20 years. This has NOTHING to do with Bush or the Republicans....NATTA!
CBO has estimated that when Obama leaves office in 2017, the number of food stamp beneficiaries will still be at 42.7 million — one third more than when he entered. This is HIS leadership and mostly HIS democrats that were running things.
Troll, what a joker. :jester:
You are one sad, little man! You desperately dig up numbers which mean very little in the overall scheme of the economy.
Facts is facts! :biggrin:
Bush nearly destroyed us and the Obama economic policies brought us back from the brink of total failure. Just who do you think directed the Fed?
Quote from: Bo D on June 10, 2015, 08:53:22 AM
Just who do you think directed the Fed?
Ben Bernanke for the most part of Obama's time....and He did what he wanted....Obama or congress can't do shit about what they decide to do.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2015, 03:33:34 PM
When you start attacking grammar I know I got ya! That is usually your last resort....
Don't flatter yourself; illiteracy should not be a source of pride.
Quote from: Bo D on June 10, 2015, 08:53:22 AM
Bush nearly destroyed us and the Obama economic policies brought us back from the brink of total failure. Just who do you think directed the Fed?
First of lets keep things in perspective.......Bush made some mistakes, but the senate and congress was controlled by the democrats, they share much of the blame. Secondly, Obama survived the recession, but we will never know if it could have been a speedier recovery had McCain won.
So, I think YOU are sad little man, for believing what you do, based upon your biased liberal thinking.
Nanny, nanny boo boo!!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2015, 12:19:10 PM
...but the senate and congress was controlled by the democrats, they share much of the blame.
Bullshit, the Republicans controlled the house and senate for most of Bush's tenure.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2015, 07:37:18 AM
Bullshit, the Republicans controlled the house and senate for most of Bush's tenure.
The democrat party had control of both the the House and Senate, starting January 4th, 2007....for the last three years of his presidency. Plenty of time to help set up the mess we faced, but they, without a doubt, contributed to it.......but all they could do is "Blame Bush". THAT IS A FACT, JACK.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 11, 2015, 08:15:13 AM
The democrat party had control of both the the House and Senate, starting January 4th, 2007....for the last three years of his presidency.
Bush was president until 2010?
QuotePlenty of time to help set up the mess we faced..., but they, without a doubt, contributed to it.......but all they could do is "Blame Bush". THAT IS A FACT, JACK.
I have no idea what this statement is even supposed to mean but would agree that both parties are complicit in the financial collapse and have been in the redistribution of wealth that has been going on since Reagan. You're the one trying to make it a partisan issue.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2015, 12:47:15 PM
I have no idea what this statement is even supposed to mean but would agree that both parties are complicit in the financial collapse and have been in the redistribution of wealth that has been going on since Reagan. You're the one trying to make it a partisan issue.
Bullshit! All I have heard on here is how Obama took over Bush and the Republican mess.......and that is not true........you will get NO argument from me that is a non-partisan issue. I stated back when Bush was in office, several times, I thought he allowed WAY too much spending and that he made SEVERAL mistakes.....I have no love for most of the republicans that held office or that are STILL in office.
THAT is why I made the point that the democrats had plenty of time to try to curb anything the republicans was doing the last (TWO) years of Bush....they didn't, they just added to the debt AND the problem.
I say the real problem has less to do with presidency, but more to do with the greedy bankers, stock investors, dip-shit rating agencies, people buying houses that they couldn't afford, mortgage brokers, lenders, and borrowers, who all had poorly designed laws (by both sides of the aisle) to enable all of this to happen.
Some OVER-regulation and some UNDER-regulation.......
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 11, 2015, 01:13:27 PM
Bullshit! All I have heard on here is how Obama took over Bush and the Republican mess.......and that is not true....
It is absolutely fucking true.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2015, 02:17:33 PM
It is absolutely fucking true.
Nope. Bush tried to get regulation on Fannie and Freddie...said they were out of control....the dems said it was all good. THAT was the start of the mess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 11, 2015, 04:16:49 PM
Nope. Bush tried to get regulation on Fannie and Freddie...said they were out of control....the dems said it was all good. THAT was the start of the mess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM)
Another Conservative Myth Busted -- Did Fannie and Freddie Really Cause the Financial Sector Meltdown?
"Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. Even so, by 2007 only 17 percent of their total portfolio was either either subprime or Alt-A loans. Due to regulations, their percentage of these loans are actually better than many banks."
"During those same explosive three years, private investment banks -- not Fannie and Freddie -- dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data."
"If the conservative view was correct, one would expect to see mortgages originated for Fannie and Freddie securitization, as well as those originated for purposes of CRA, to default at higher rates, since these were the loans directly subject to affordable housing policies. In fact, we see quite the opposite, as these loans have performed exponentially better than those originated for private securitization, which the FCIC Republicans ignore."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-meadors/fannie-mae-freddie_b_1549411.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-meadors/fannie-mae-freddie_b_1549411.html)
5 Reasons Americans Are Right To Blame Bush For The Economy
Sixty-eight percent of Americans — including 49 percent of Republicans — say President George W. Bush is responsible for the state of today's economy, a new Gallup poll finds. (June 14, 2012)
1. Deregulated Wall Street: It was a great time to be a Wall Street executive during the Bush administration. Sweeping financial deregulation helped build the housing bubble and allowed financial institutions to pursue risky trades unchecked. In fact, Bush eliminated the rules that allowed Wall Street to cause the financial crash that plunged the nation into the Great Recession.
2. Cut Taxes For The Wealthy: The Bush tax cuts — over 50 percent of which benefited the richest 5 percent of American taxpayers — cost about $2.5 trillion over the decade after they were enacted. Ten years later, Bush's tax cuts are still the main driving factor of the national debt:
(http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Tax-Cuts-Wars-Debt-e1339684050194.jpg)
3. Ran Up A Tab On Two Wars: The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the country trillions of dollars. Combined with Bush's tax cuts, war spending was a main factor in blowing up the deficit and spending the surplus accumulated under Clinton. Lawmakers now use the deficit as an excuse for inaction.
4. Left Homeowners In A Lurch: While Bush was happy to help out the banks in the wake of the housing crisis, he did little to assist struggling homeowners. Hope For Homeowners, Bush's proposal to assist those struggling with their mortgages, was a colossal failure; in its first six months, it helped just one homeowner renegotiate his mortgage. Many mortgage holders — 15.7 million or, one in three — are still underwater today.
5. Weakened Workers: Bush weakened worker safety regulations and collective bargaining rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Department of Labor throughout his time in office. Today, corporations are back to making record profits, while workers' incomes are falling.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/14/499523/5-reasons-americans-are-right-to-blame-bush-for-the-bad-economy/ (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/14/499523/5-reasons-americans-are-right-to-blame-bush-for-the-bad-economy/)
Quote from: Bo D on June 11, 2015, 04:46:22 PM
Sixty-eight percent of Americans — including 49 percent of Republicans — say President George W. Bush is responsible for the state of today's economy, a new Gallup poll finds. (June 14, 2012)
A majority of the public once again say things in the U.S. are going pretty badly and disapproval of Obama's job performance has climbed back above 50% as well.
In fact, former President George W. Bush is more popular than Obama.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/politics/obama-approval-rating-cnn-poll/
And now, 53% are waking up and realizing that Obama is BAD for the ECONOMY.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/02/obama,.economy.poll.pdf
Don't go confusing Hank with facts. :roll eyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 11, 2015, 05:04:54 PM
A majority of the public once again say things in the U.S. are going pretty badly and disapproval of Obama's job performance has climbed back above 50% as well.
In fact, former President George W. Bush is more popular than Obama.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/politics/obama-approval-rating-cnn-poll/
And now, 53% are waking up and realizing that Obama is BAD for the ECONOMY.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/02/obama,.economy.poll.pdf
All right, I admit it. I shouldn't have included that poll data. but the facts are ....
Quote from: Bo D on June 11, 2015, 04:46:22 PM
5 Reasons Americans Are Right To Blame Bush For The Economy
Sixty-eight percent of Americans — including 49 percent of Republicans — say President George W. Bush is responsible for the state of today's economy, a new Gallup poll finds. (June 14, 2012)
1. Deregulated Wall Street: It was a great time to be a Wall Street executive during the Bush administration. Sweeping financial deregulation helped build the housing bubble and allowed financial institutions to pursue risky trades unchecked. In fact, Bush eliminated the rules that allowed Wall Street to cause the financial crash that plunged the nation into the Great Recession.
2. Cut Taxes For The Wealthy: The Bush tax cuts — over 50 percent of which benefited the richest 5 percent of American taxpayers — cost about $2.5 trillion over the decade after they were enacted. Ten years later, Bush's tax cuts are still the main driving factor of the national debt:
(http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Tax-Cuts-Wars-Debt-e1339684050194.jpg)
3. Ran Up A Tab On Two Wars: The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the country trillions of dollars. Combined with Bush's tax cuts, war spending was a main factor in blowing up the deficit and spending the surplus accumulated under Clinton. Lawmakers now use the deficit as an excuse for inaction.
4. Left Homeowners In A Lurch: While Bush was happy to help out the banks in the wake of the housing crisis, he did little to assist struggling homeowners. Hope For Homeowners, Bush's proposal to assist those struggling with their mortgages, was a colossal failure; in its first six months, it helped just one homeowner renegotiate his mortgage. Many mortgage holders — 15.7 million or, one in three — are still underwater today.
5. Weakened Workers: Bush weakened worker safety regulations and collective bargaining rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Department of Labor throughout his time in office. Today, corporations are back to making record profits, while workers' incomes are falling.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/14/499523/5-reasons-americans-are-right-to-blame-bush-for-the-bad-economy/ (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/14/499523/5-reasons-americans-are-right-to-blame-bush-for-the-bad-economy/)
Quote from: Bo D on June 11, 2015, 04:31:37 PM
Another Conservative Myth Busted -- Did Fannie and Freddie Really Cause the Financial Sector Meltdown?
"Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. Even so, by 2007 only 17 percent of their total portfolio was either either subprime or Alt-A loans. Due to regulations, their percentage of these loans are actually better than many banks."
"During those same explosive three years, private investment banks -- not Fannie and Freddie -- dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data."
"If the conservative view was correct, one would expect to see mortgages originated for Fannie and Freddie securitization, as well as those originated for purposes of CRA, to default at higher rates, since these were the loans directly subject to affordable housing policies. In fact, we see quite the opposite, as these loans have performed exponentially better than those originated for private securitization, which the FCIC Republicans ignore."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-meadors/fannie-mae-freddie_b_1549411.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-meadors/fannie-mae-freddie_b_1549411.html)
You go right on believing that if it makes you feel better BoD.
Quote from: me on June 11, 2015, 05:57:10 PM
You go right on believing that if it makes you feel better BoD.
It isn't a question of believing. Those are facts based on hard numbers.
Quote from: Bo D on June 12, 2015, 08:13:33 AM
It isn't a question of believing. Those are facts based on hard numbers.
:rolleyes:
tit for tat...
Obama didn't end the Great Recession that Bush didn't cause (https://www.aei.org/publication/obama-didnt-end-the-great-recession-that-bush-didnt-cause/)
If you think George W. Bush's economic policies caused the Great Recession and Barack Obama's ended it, then your Election Day decision is likely an easy one. But placing politics aside, I don't think the economic evidence supports that thesis. I've stated my reasons, in bits and pieces, across several blog posts. Maybe now would be a good time for a unified, though brief, rebuttal.Let's take the two strands of the argument and examine each. First, did Bushonomics cause the worst economic downturn and financial crisis since the Great Depression? To make that case, you need to specify a policy causality (or two or three) and a transmission channel. But when you go down the list of usual suspects, none of them pans out:— It was the Bush tax cuts. Except lowering taxes increases demand and improves supply-side incentives. The only way this theory might be true is if bond markets feared tax cuts would be inflationary or would hurt the ability of the US to pay back its debts. But interest stayed low during the 2000s. Also note that Obama says he wants to again extend most of these cuts.— It was Bush's income inequality. Except that a 2012 study, Does Inequality Lead to a Financial Crisis (https://www.aei.org/publication/study-income-inequality-didnt-cause-the-financial-crisis-and-great-recession/) by economists Michael Bordo and Christopher Meissner, seems to dismiss that linkage. Using data from a panel of 14 countries for over 120 years, they found "strong evidence linking credit booms to banking crises, but no evidence that rising income concentration was a significant determinant of credit booms. Narrative evidence on the US experience in the 1920s, and that of other countries in more recent decades, casts further doubt on the role of rising inequality."— It was the Bush budget deficits. Except both inflation and interest rates were low during the 2000s. This is really another version of the tax cut argument, but adds in deficits from Medicare expansion and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides, annual budget deficits averaged just $220 billion from 2001-2007. During the 2010-2012 recovery, they've averaged roughly $1.3 trillion. So deficits caused the Great Recession even though they are six times higher now?— It was Bush's financial deregulation. Except the law that ended Glass-Steagall was signed by President Bill Clinton. And few analysts think the end of Glass-Steagall directly contributed to the financial crisis. Another candidate was a 2004 rule change by the Securities and Exchange Commission that supposedly allowed broker dealers to greatly increase their leverage, contributing to the financial crisis. But as Prof. Andrew Lo of MIT explains in a 2011 paper, "... it turns out that the 2004 SEC amendment to Rule 15c3–1 did nothing to change the leverage restrictions of these financial institutions."So what did cause the Great Recession? Politicians love to blame big downturns on "market failures." Doing so then allows them to expand government and their own power. That's what happened during the Great Depression. But it wasn't the free market that failed back then, it was the Federal Reserve.And the same goes for the Great Recession. In The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure (http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Recession-Failure-Macroeconomic/dp/1107011884), Robert Hetzel, a senior economist at the Richmond Fed, pins the blame squarely on the US central bank. The downturn first started with "correction of an excess in the housing stock and a sharp increase in energy prices" — the housing bust and the oil shock. Those two things were enough, in Hetzel's view, to cause a "moderate recession" beginning in December 2007.But it was the Fed's monetary policy miscues after the downturn began that turned a run-of-the-mill recession into a once-in-a-century disaster. Not only did the Fed leave rates alone between April 2008 and October 2008 as the economy deteriorated, but the FOMC "effectively tightened monetary policy in June by pushing up the expected path of the federal funds rate through the hawkish statements of its members.In May 2008, federal funds futures had been predicting the rate to remain at 2% through November. By mid-June, that forecast had risen to 2.5%. As Hetzel writes in a Fed paper that inspired the book, "Restrictive monetary policy rather than the deleveraging in financial markets that had begun in August 2007 offers a more direct explanation of the intensification of the recession that began in the summer of 2008. Irony abounds.'And what ended the Great Recession? Was it the $800 billion Obama stimulus? As I have often pointed out, White House economists thought the stimulus would help lead to roughly 5% unemployment and 4% GDP growth in 2012.Instead, the US economy is growing at half that pace and unemployment is sharply higher — even before you account for the massive drop in labor force participation.But what do left-of-center or pro-Obama economists say? Here are Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi in a 2010 paper (https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf):> In this paper, we use the Moody's Analytics model of the U.S. economy—adjusted to accommodate some recent financial-market policies—to simulate the macroeconomic effects of the government's total policy response. We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0.
For example, we estimate that, without the government's response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.
When we divide these effects into two components—one attributable to the fiscal stimulus and the other attributable to financial-market policies such as the TARP, the bank stress tests and the Fed's quantitative easing—we estimate that the latter was substantially more powerful than the former.
So Blinder and Zandi credit the Fed and TARP, Bernanke and Bush, mostly for breaking the back of the downturn. Indeed, the steepest drops in GDP ended before Obama took office and before the stimulus kicked into gear. And eventually, of course, the economy would recover on its own as long as government didn't interfere with anti-growth policies such as tax hikes or massive new regulations.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 12, 2015, 08:41:04 AM
:rolleyes:
tit for tat...
Obama didn't end the Great Recession that Bush didn't cause (https://www.aei.org/publication/obama-didnt-end-the-great-recession-that-bush-didnt-cause/)If you think George W. Bush's economic policies caused the Great Recession and Barack Obama's ended it, then your Election Day decision is likely an easy one. But placing politics aside, I don't think the economic evidence supports that thesis. I've stated my reasons, in bits and pieces, across several blog posts. Maybe now would be a good time for a unified, though brief, rebuttal.
Let's take the two strands of the argument and examine each. First, did Bushonomics cause the worst economic downturn and financial crisis since the Great Depression? To make that case, you need to specify a policy causality (or two or three) and a transmission channel. But when you go down the list of usual suspects, none of them pans out:
— It was the Bush tax cuts. Except lowering taxes increases demand and improves supply-side incentives. The only way this theory might be true is if bond markets feared tax cuts would be inflationary or would hurt the ability of the US to pay back its debts. But interest stayed low during the 2000s. Also note that Obama says he wants to again extend most of these cuts.
— It was Bush's income inequality. Except that a 2012 study, Does Inequality Lead to a Financial Crisis (https://www.aei.org/publication/study-income-inequality-didnt-cause-the-financial-crisis-and-great-recession/) by economists Michael Bordo and Christopher Meissner, seems to dismiss that linkage. Using data from a panel of 14 countries for over 120 years, they found "strong evidence linking credit booms to banking crises, but no evidence that rising income concentration was a significant determinant of credit booms. Narrative evidence on the US experience in the 1920s, and that of other countries in more recent decades, casts further doubt on the role of rising inequality."
— It was the Bush budget deficits. Except both inflation and interest rates were low during the 2000s. This is really another version of the tax cut argument, but adds in deficits from Medicare expansion and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides, annual budget deficits averaged just $220 billion from 2001-2007. During the 2010-2012 recovery, they've averaged roughly $1.3 trillion. So deficits caused the Great Recession even though they are six times higher now?
— It was Bush's financial deregulation. Except the law that ended Glass-Steagall was signed by President Bill Clinton. And few analysts think the end of Glass-Steagall directly contributed to the financial crisis. Another candidate was a 2004 rule change by the Securities and Exchange Commission that supposedly allowed broker dealers to greatly increase their leverage, contributing to the financial crisis. But as Prof. Andrew Lo of MIT explains in a 2011 paper, "... it turns out that the 2004 SEC amendment to Rule 15c3–1 did nothing to change the leverage restrictions of these financial institutions."
So what did cause the Great Recession? Politicians love to blame big downturns on "market failures." Doing so then allows them to expand government and their own power. That's what happened during the Great Depression. But it wasn't the free market that failed back then, it was the Federal Reserve.
And the same goes for the Great Recession. In The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure (http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Recession-Failure-Macroeconomic/dp/1107011884), Robert Hetzel, a senior economist at the Richmond Fed, pins the blame squarely on the US central bank. The downturn first started with "correction of an excess in the housing stock and a sharp increase in energy prices" — the housing bust and the oil shock. Those two things were enough, in Hetzel's view, to cause a "moderate recession" beginning in December 2007.
But it was the Fed's monetary policy miscues after the downturn began that turned a run-of-the-mill recession into a once-in-a-century disaster. Not only did the Fed leave rates alone between April 2008 and October 2008 as the economy deteriorated, but the FOMC "effectively tightened monetary policy in June by pushing up the expected path of the federal funds rate through the hawkish statements of its members.
In May 2008, federal funds futures had been predicting the rate to remain at 2% through November. By mid-June, that forecast had risen to 2.5%. As Hetzel writes in a Fed paper that inspired the book, "Restrictive monetary policy rather than the deleveraging in financial markets that had begun in August 2007 offers a more direct explanation of the intensification of the recession that began in the summer of 2008. Irony abounds.'
And what ended the Great Recession? Was it the $800 billion Obama stimulus? As I have often pointed out, White House economists thought the stimulus would help lead to roughly 5% unemployment and 4% GDP growth in 2012.
Instead, the US economy is growing at half that pace and unemployment is sharply higher — even before you account for the massive drop in labor force participation.
But what do left-of-center or pro-Obama economists say? Here are Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi in a 2010 paper (https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf):> In this paper, we use the Moody's Analytics model of the U.S. economy—adjusted to accommodate some recent financial-market policies—to simulate the macroeconomic effects of the government's total policy response. We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0.
For example, we estimate that, without the government's response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.
When we divide these effects into two components—one attributable to the fiscal stimulus and the other attributable to financial-market policies such as the TARP, the bank stress tests and the Fed's quantitative easing—we estimate that the latter was substantially more powerful than the former.
So Blinder and Zandi credit the Fed and TARP, Bernanke and Bush, mostly for breaking the back of the downturn. Indeed, the steepest drops in GDP ended before Obama took office and before the stimulus kicked into gear. And eventually, of course, the economy would recover on its own as long as government didn't interfere with anti-growth policies such as tax hikes or massive new regulations.I might take this seriously if I thought you had even a glimmer of understanding of what you posted.
I liked this comment at the end of that article ...
The author commits a number of logical fallacies in this propaganda piece. The chief among these is to assume that "lowering taxes increases demand and improves supply-side incentives." This assumption does not hold. Net taxes among the very wealthy – those holding primarily interest-bearing instruments as wealth – are lower than middle class taxes. Combine that with decades of low wage growth relative to productivity, and higher net taxes paid by the middle class compared to the property-owning super-rich, along with huge losses in the chief investment of middle class people- their home; and the result is no increase in demand, and supply-side incentive is to continue to move production to low cost foreign markets, in turn helping to push up those unemployment numbers.
Secondly, the author separates several Bush policies as if to show no single one caused the financial collapse. But the effects should be taken together.
Quote from: Bo D on June 12, 2015, 08:56:52 AM
I might take this seriously if I thought you had even a glimmer of understanding of what you posted.
Discussing economics with these mental midgets is an exercise in futility.
I wonder if their asses get jealous of the shit their fingers type? :biggrin:
Quote from: Bo D on June 12, 2015, 08:56:52 AM
I might take this seriously if I thought you had even a glimmer of understanding of what you posted.
AND THIS IS WHY I HAVE NO REAL NEED TO DEBATE ON HERE....YOUR ARROGANCE AND CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE IS WHY. I expect this shit from Ex.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 12, 2015, 10:02:27 AM
I expect this shit from Ex.
Just trying to keep things at your level of understanding. :razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 12, 2015, 08:41:04 AM
:rolleyes:
tit for tat...
(https://www.aei.org/publication/obama-didnt-end-the-great-recession-that-bush-didnt-cause/)
Oh c'mon! A blog, from AEI no less!?! Are you EVER going to learn to chose valid sources?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 11, 2015, 05:04:54 PM
A majority of the public once again say things in the U.S. are going pretty badly and disapproval of Obama's job performance has climbed back above 50% as well.
In fact, former President George W. Bush is more popular than Obama.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/politics/obama-approval-rating-cnn-poll/
And now, 53% are waking up and realizing that Obama is BAD for the ECONOMY.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/02/obama,.economy.poll.pdf
1. a. Can you show us how that poll was conducted? b. That's only yet ANOTHER example of your continued use of the logical fallacy 'Appeal to Popularity', and means nothing.
2. a. Again, "Appeal to Popularity' only in the reverse. b. The things you claim about Obama can, in actuality, be laid at the feet of Big Money and Big Business and their wildly successful ownership of Congress - especially the Republicans, whose intent for decades has been to repeal every control on Capitalism enacted since Teddy Roosevelt and especially those of Franklin.
Quote from: Y on June 12, 2015, 04:42:51 PM
Oh c'mon! A blog, from AEI no less!?! Are you EVER going to learn to chose valid sources?
And Think Progress is a valid source? C'mon Y.
Lets just make a deal. I won't comment on your shit, and you don't comment on mine. Actually, you can comment on mine all you want....but, it means NOTHING to me. You have proved to be so biased its not funny. You are no different that what you accuse me of. Maybe take a long look in the mirror before you spout off.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 08, 2015, 10:35:18 AM
It is when Obama's economic policies has failed....leaving the fed to do this.
This IS a test!
What exactly are those policies, exactly how have they failed, and if those policies have failed, exactly how is that Obama's fault?
You WILL be graded on this!
Quote from: Y on June 12, 2015, 05:05:55 PM
This IS a test!
What exactly are those policies, exactly how have they failed, and if those policies have failed, exactly how is that Obama's fault?
You WILL be graded on this!
Obamacare was supposed to improve our economy.......it has not.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 12, 2015, 05:05:26 PM
And Think Progress is a valid source? C'mon Y...
The subject I addressed had nothing to do with TP or anyone else. It had specifically to do with you and your choice of sources. All you're attempting to do is ignore the focus of my criticism and switch the focus elsewhere. :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 12, 2015, 05:08:11 PM
Obamacare was supposed to improve our economy.......it has not.
Where's the substance for both of your claims? At the moment you've provided nothing but those two empty claims. Was the Healthcare act really enacted to and supposed to improve our economy? If it was enacted to and supposed to, how has it not?
The devil is in the details, Hank. :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 08, 2015, 01:04:12 PM
...the Affordable Health Care Act is NOT helping the economy like we was PROMISED...rather it IS INDEED hurting our economy...
The same as with these two similar empty claims. :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 08, 2015, 01:26:31 PM
...Leadership is at its weakest and THAT is the problem we face today.
And yet another empty claim that requires substance. :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 08, 2015, 01:40:37 PM
Do you HONESTLY believe I am racist and a chauvinist?
Are you HONESTLY asking?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2015, 12:27:54 PM
Colin Powel is a GREAT LEADER, and he is black.
Condi Rice was a GREAT LEADER
Tim Scott and Alan West both excellent leaders.
Clarence Thomas?? GREAT Intellectual!
Mia Love, a black woman just elected into congress is an name you will hear a lot about in the coming years....
All anyone has to do is read their biographies to know that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
Do you EVER research anything before you go blowing off?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2015, 01:51:15 PM
WOW!! Now just WHO exactly is being racist? TOKEN NEGRO? REALLY?
So if ANY black person is NOT a liberal democrat, they are token negros?
REALLY?
I'm asking anyone on here to please tell me that they do not agree with this moron. THAT is the most moronic, racist remark that has ever been posted on this forum.
THAT is incredible.....I will be waiting for all of the critical thinkers on here to say SOMETHING about this....if not, I KNOW for a fact who exactly are the racists on here.
That is the most blatant racist remark EVER!!
This the type of logic that has our society in the crap whole right now....un - fucking - believable!!!
I agree with him, and disagree with you. All you're doing here is trying to turn the tables because people perceive you to be racist.
Tokens, YUP! You should educate yourself on the subject of Tokenism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism), before you go shooting off your mouth. :wink:
Well, Hank, you wore me out by page 6 so I'll have to catch up on the rest later. :razz:
:biggrin:
Well, unsurprisingly, you have nothing cogent to put forth in your defense, Hank. :wink: