PDA

View Full Version : Canceled Recession



mdh
04-29-2019, 04:31 PM
From: https://www.wsj.com/articles/has-the-recession-been-cancelled-11556311511

“What would we do without experts? As U.S. workers continue to enjoy a vibrant job market, they should spare a thought for laborers in one category of professional services who remain mired in a multi-year slump. Established manufacturers of Keynesian economic forecasts have entered a prolonged period of secular stagnation. Some may even wonder if they can ever break out of a “new normal” of declining prestige.

At the New York Times recently, economist Paul Krugman valiantly attempted to overcome his history of underrating American potential by making another call on tax policy and the macroeconomy. On April 8, Mr. Krugman wrote about one of President Trump’s signature policy achievements:

...his one major legislative success, the 2017 tax cut — which he predicted would be “rocket fuel” for the economy — has turned out to be a big fizzle, economically and, especially, politically.
It’s true that U.S. economic growth got a bump for two quarters last year, and Trumpists are still pretending to believe that we’ll have great growth for a decade. But at this point last year’s growth is looking like a brief and rapidly fading sugar high.
Today New York Times colleague Ben Casselman helps to set Mr. Krugman straight:


Rumors of the economic expansion’s death appear to have been greatly exaggerated.
Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced in the economy, rose at a 3.2 percent annual rate in the first three months of the year, the Commerce Department said Friday. That is significantly better than most economists expected, and far better than the dour forecasts of early this year, when many forecast a near stall in growth.
While we can all celebrate the current expansion of U.S opportunity, forgive Harvard’s Larry Summers if he finds the latest news less than entirely pleasant. A former Clinton and Obama economic adviser, Mr. Summers wrote in May of 2017 in the Washington Post:

Details of President Trump’s first budget have now been released. Much can and will be said about the dire social consequences of what is in it and the ludicrously optimistic economic assumptions it embodies. My observation is that there appears to be a logical error of the kind that would justify failing a student in an introductory economics course.
Apparently, the budget forecasts that U.S. economic growth will rise to 3.0 percent because of the administration’s policies — largely its tax cuts and perhaps also its regulatory policies. Fair enough if you believe in tooth fairies and ludicrous supply-side economics.
Sadly Messrs. Summers and Krugman have had plenty of company in struggling to predict U.S. economic performance. It seems that a significant portion of the Beltway economic forecasting sector has had some strange inability to recognize the potential of non-government-directed investment. Today the White House Council of Economic Advisers notes:

We see in today’s advance estimate of real GDP growth in the first quarter of 2019 that the economy continues to outperform expectations... in their final longer-term forecasts before the November 2016 election, the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Open Market Committee on average projected four-quarter real GDP growth in 2017, 2018, and 2019 of 2.2, 2.0, and 1.7 percent, respectively. In actuality, real GDP grew 2.5 percent in 2017, 3.0 percent in 2018, and in the first quarter of 2019 grew at an annualized rate of 3.2 percent.
Recently there also seems to have been some inexplicable tendency among esteemed left-leaning economists to overemphasize the economic damage caused by a partial shutdown of the federal government. The outstanding report on first quarter growth had this column—and perhaps a few other Americans—wondering if perhaps we should hope for more such governmental interruptions. The White House says no, arguing that Commerce Department data suggest that the first quarter could have been even better:

In the absence of residual seasonality and the government shutdown, real GDP growth in the first quarter of this year might have been up to 1.2 percentage points higher, implying... annualized growth rates of 4.4 percent.
Let’s not go overboard. As Don Luskin of Trend Macrolytics points out, beneath today’s headline GDP number, growth in consumer spending and business investment was not as strong as we’d like. But overall the economy continues to show a remarkable vitality that has been especially surprising to the Democratic economic establishment.

It can even be a tad embarrassing. It’s one thing to express pessimism about America in a column. How would you like to have scheduled an entire event dedicated to discussing a pending economic disaster and then have to read today’s blowout GDP report?

The esteemed Brookings Institution recently announced a May event, “Preparing for the next recession: Policies to reduce the impact on the U.S. economy.” This came complete with a roster of credentialed declinists and an official Twitter hashtag: #RecessionReady.

All that’s missing is a sign of recession. Harriet Torry reports in the Journal on the optimism among corporate executives, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Jamie Dimon:

“People are going back to the workforce. Companies have plenty of capital,” he said, adding that “business confidence and consumer confidence are both rather high…it could go on for years. There’s no law that says it has to stop,” he said.

The Brookings gang should take those words to heart, and realize that while times may be tough in the industry dedicated to forecasting doom, most of the country is doing much better.” James Freeman

Chris Smith porter maine
04-29-2019, 04:36 PM
Thanks Obama!

S.V. Airlie
04-29-2019, 04:47 PM
Thank you Obama. And mdh, what is the deficit today, any idea?

Norman Bernstein
04-29-2019, 04:55 PM
From: https://www.wsj.com/articles/has-the-recession-been-cancelled-11556311511

Too bad MOST Americans don't seem to be able to detect this 'fantastic economy' Trump keeps bragging about.... maybe it's because they got stiffed, as Trump gave a whopping gift to the very wealthy in the last tax cut.... and paid for it, with DEBT?


A new Monmouth poll (https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_042919/) finds just 12% of Americans say that their family has benefited a great deal from recent growth in the U.S. economy and another 31% say they have received some benefit from the economic upturn.

A majority, though, say they have been helped either not much (27%) or not at all (27%) from the nation’s macroeconomic growth.

Norman Bernstein
04-29-2019, 05:00 PM
It can even be a tad embarrassing. It’s one thing to express pessimism about America in a column. How would you like to have scheduled an entire event dedicated to discussing a pending economic disaster and then have to read today’s blowout GDP report?

It's like the Spanish Inquisition: nobody expects it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAn7baRbhx4

The problem: history tells us one is coming... and history also denies the fervent hope of some that the 'good times' will roll on forever.

Too Little Time
04-29-2019, 06:28 PM
...
I don't have much regard for pundits. I don't plan my life based on GDP. I don't know anyone who does.

There are a lot of people having a difficult time. And they are not the people in the 19% below the 1% who are complaining about how difficult their economic life is.

bobbys
04-29-2019, 06:32 PM
Libs are really sore we are doing great, it means a sure win for trump in 2020, they put po
Itics above country.

L.W. Baxter
04-29-2019, 06:40 PM
Libs are really sore we are doing great, it means a sure win for trump in 2020, they put po
Itics above country.

I put decency and integrity above economic success, both personally and for our society.

Speaking of indecency and lies, have you corresponded with Sheriff Joe lately. Any good wetback jokes. How's the investigation going into Obama's birth certificate.

Chris Smith porter maine
04-29-2019, 06:41 PM
Libs are really sore we are doing great, it means a sure win for trump in 2020, they put po
Itics above country.

Yep borrowed another trillion dollars, to give the rich tax cuts brilliant. I'm sure the Koch brothers thank you.

Art Haberland
04-29-2019, 07:00 PM
MGM Entertainment just laid off 246 people country wide. This may not sound like much to a company with 20 casinos, but it is the start of some belt tightening. They are promising a "phase two" of layoffs as soon as they are done with the "Kaizen" efficiency experts. I was working for Caesar's Entertainment when they did that. We called it "the purge". It got so bad that people started mass call outs on Thursdays, the last day of the work week as they did not want to get a lay off notice with their paycheques.

Companies do not do this when the economy is at full speed with smooth sailing ahead. The signs are out there if you look for them.

ahp
04-29-2019, 07:06 PM
We don't need to go back to the Spanish Inquisition. We can go back to President Calvin Coolidge, cheap money and "The business of America is business", or even more recently to Bush Jr. and the great real estate collapse.

bobbys
04-29-2019, 07:20 PM
I told youse libs are ticked the economy is doing great, not one Democrat wannabe can counter this, this just leaves libs ranting and raving over the countries economic health

mdh
04-29-2019, 07:23 PM
Or more recently, Barry Obama’s tax cuts.

Most people paid less in taxes last year, while their wages rose, and the tax receipts to the gov’t increased. Lowering taxes brought more money in because the economy grew, in large part due to other Trump policies, namely regulatory rollbacks. The debt increased because Congress passed a budget that dictated so. Although i’m not privy to their confidentials, i doubt seriously that the Koch’s pay income tax. Sports professionals and Hollywood actors usually fall into high wage scenarios, but most CEO’s gain their real wealth through stock options, that they don’t pay income tax on.

David G
04-29-2019, 07:41 PM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?253462-10k

10,000 lies. By one rather cautious tally.

And one of them is that the economy is 'healthy'... and that it's because of Trump Administration policies.

Keith Wilson
04-29-2019, 07:44 PM
Amazing. A trillion dollars borrowed from future generations dumped into the economy, a large dose of classic Keynesian deficit-financed stimulus, but at exactly the wrong time, the top of the economic cycle - and our Trumpkins are crowing as if this is some kind of great achievement. Gee, this seed corn sure is tasty!

bobbys
04-29-2019, 07:46 PM
MGM Entertainment just laid off 246 people country wide. This may not sound like much to a company with 20 casinos, but it is the start of some belt tightening. They are promising a "phase two" of layoffs as soon as they are done with the "Kaizen" efficiency experts. I was working for Caesar's Entertainment when they did that. We called it "the purge". It got so bad that people started mass call outs on Thursdays, the last day of the work week as they did not want to get a lay off notice with their paycheques.

Companies do not do this when the economy is at full speed with smooth sailing ahead. The signs are out there if you look for them.

Hhhhhhmmmmmmm, so the casino industry is down, people are being laid off but when trump had one of his few business mishaps and lost the casino it was not the economy or a bad business to be in?

S.V. Airlie
04-30-2019, 06:16 AM
Hhhhhhmmmmmmm, so the casino industry is down, people are being laid off but when trump had one of his few business mishaps and lost the casino it was not the economy or a bad business to be in?With Trump's history, bad business. May want to talk with the mafia about those casinos bobbys.Actually, if you read some of the info out about why casinos failed under Trump, you'll note that TRUMP made some very big mistakes. Actions have consequences. Oh yes forgot, I'm sure Trump blamed someone else for his mistakes as usual.

Norman Bernstein
04-30-2019, 07:08 AM
Most people paid less in taxes last year, while their wages rose, and the tax receipts to the gov’t increased.

MOST people got tiny tax cuts, wages for most barely increased, and tax receipts, of course, increased, because of the 'sugar high' provided by the massive debt increase.


Lowering taxes brought more money in because the economy grew, in large part due to other Trump policies, namely regulatory rollbacks.

The economy grew damn well during Obama's presidency, without the need to provide tax cuts that were financed by debt. As for those regulatory rollbacks, show some evidence that they did much of anything... without proof, its nothing more than a right wing talking point.


The debt increased because Congress passed a budget that dictated so.

Exactly HOW stupid do you think we all are? The debt increase was a result of the tax cuts... and little else.


Although i’m not privy to their confidentials, i doubt seriously that the Koch’s pay income tax. Sports professionals and Hollywood actors usually fall into high wage scenarios, but most CEO’s gain their real wealth through stock options, that they don’t pay income tax on.

...yeah, and that does a great deal for the bulk of the American people... income and wealth inequality continues to rise. How far would you like it to go? Will you not be satisfied until a dozen unbelievably wealthy people own 95% of the nation's wealth? Do you figure that will be a GOOD thing for America?

Too Little Time
04-30-2019, 07:45 AM
The economy grew damn well during Obama's presidency, without the need to provide tax cuts that were financed by debt. As for those regulatory rollbacks, show some evidence that they did much of anything... without proof, its nothing more than a right wing talking point.

Exactly HOW stupid do you think we all are? The debt increase was a result of the tax cuts... and little else.
Exactly HOW stupid do you think we all are?

Obama gave $1 trillion to banks financed by debt. He could have given it to the poor and achieved the same result.

The CBO estimated the growth of debt prior to Trump being elected to be about $.8 trillion/year ($.1 trillion/year due to the ACA). There is a lot of debt growth due to prior programs.

S.V. Airlie
04-30-2019, 07:46 AM
Exactly HOW stupid do you think we all are?

Obama gave $1 trillion to banks financed by debt. He could have given it to the poor and achieved the same result.

The CBO estimated the growth of debt prior to Trump being elected to be about $.8 trillion/year ($.1 trillion/year due to the ACA). There is a lot of debt growth due to prior programs.Cite please!

mdh
04-30-2019, 08:21 AM
MOST people got tiny tax cuts, wages for most barely increased, and tax receipts, of course, increased, because of the 'sugar high' provided by the massive debt increase.



The economy grew damn well during Obama's presidency, without the need to provide tax cuts that were financed by debt. As for those regulatory rollbacks, show some evidence that they did much of anything... without proof, its nothing more than a right wing talking point.



Exactly HOW stupid do you think we all are? The debt increase was a result of the tax cuts... and little else.



...yeah, and that does a great deal for the bulk of the American people... income and wealth inequality continues to rise. How far would you like it to go? Will you not be satisfied until a dozen unbelievably wealthy people own 95% of the nation's wealth? Do you figure that will be a GOOD thing for America?

How stupid? Memory loss issues again? Search ‘Obama tax cuts’; and ‘Quantitative Easing’.

Art Haberland
04-30-2019, 08:36 AM
Hhhhhhmmmmmmm, so the casino industry is down, people are being laid off but when trump had one of his few business mishaps and lost the casino it was not the economy or a bad business to be in?

The Donald lost FOUR casinos when the casino industry was still expanding. The place I work was being built when the Taj was placed into shareholder control.

And yes, this is the time when the Donald should be holding one of his promises to reduce the debt. The economy IS doing well, you invest in the future by paying down debt, not borrowing more. What happened to that promise to pay off what we owed by 2020?

Yes, we all knew it was a hollow promise because it us basically impossible to pay it off in such a small amount of time, but there are many who bought it.

Norman Bernstein
04-30-2019, 08:44 AM
It's classic Republican economics:

When is the best time to cut taxes? When the economy is doing bad.

When is the OTHER best time to cut taxes? When the economy is doing GREAT.

Who needs the tax cuts? The very wealthy, and big corporations.

Government spending is only a problem, when a Democrat is in the White House. If there's a Republican president, spending isn't a problem.

Too Little Time
04-30-2019, 09:01 AM
Cite please!
i have given citians in the past on these facts.

S.V. Airlie
04-30-2019, 09:02 AM
i have given citians in the past on these facts.Do it again then, if you have, it should be simple to copy it or are you just being too lazy?

hightop
04-30-2019, 09:05 AM
Not cancelled, postponed.

S.V. Airlie
04-30-2019, 09:08 AM
Not cancelled, postponed.Yup, I keep envisioning a huge bubble throwing a shadow on the US in the near future. That shadow is debt!

Reynard38
04-30-2019, 09:18 AM
Libs are really sore we are doing great, it means a sure win for trump in 2020, they put po
Itics above country.

Have you driven through West Virginia or western PA lately? I didn’t see a lot of evidence of “doing great”. Of course those folks voted for IQ45. You get what you vote for.

And its easy to live large for a while on borrowed $$. Eventually the bills come due though.

mdh
04-30-2019, 10:07 AM
Have you driven through West Virginia or western PA lately? I didn’t see a lot of evidence of “doing great”. Of course those folks voted for IQ45. You get what you vote for.

And its easy to live large for a while on borrowed $$. Eventually the bills come due though.

When i drove through there in 2016, the folks were so poor that they were making their own, homemade Trump signs.

Reynard38
04-30-2019, 10:38 AM
When i drove through there in 2016, the folks were so poor that they were making their own, homemade Trump signs.

hasn’t changed.

Keith Wilson
04-30-2019, 10:41 AM
Adding deficit-financed money to the economy makes sense in the depths of a severe recession. At the top of the economic cycle, it's spectacularly stupid.

Too Little Time
04-30-2019, 11:05 AM
Do it again then, if you have, it should be simple to copy it or are you just being too lazy?
I am not here to do your work. If you knew much about the debt and deficit, you would know what I said was true.

S.V. Airlie
04-30-2019, 11:07 AM
You brought it up, I didn't in YOUR post, Take responsibility for what you post why don't you? It maybe a learning experience if you and the other Trump lovers did that once in a while.

stromborg
04-30-2019, 11:17 AM
Obama gave $1 trillion to banks financed by debt.

Not quite:


The Bailout Scorecard Last update: Feb. 25, 2019
Altogether, accounting for both the TARP (https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/initiatives/2-emergency-economic-stabilization-act) and the Fannie and Freddie bailout (https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/programs/10-preferred-stock-investments), $632B has gone out the door—invested, loaned, or paid out—while $390B has been returned.
The Treasury has been earning a return on most of the money invested or loaned. So far, it has earned $349B. When those revenues are taken into account, the government has realized a $107B profit as of Feb. 25, 2019.


https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

Keith Wilson
04-30-2019, 11:31 AM
My. Saved the banks, helped the economy recover fairly quickly from the worst mess since the Great Depression, and made a profit on it? Not too shabby.

S.V. Airlie
04-30-2019, 11:36 AM
See TLT, when you look it up, it ain't what you professed it was was it?

Too Little Time
04-30-2019, 07:53 PM
See TLT, when you look it up, it ain't what you professed it was was it?
You seemed to have missed the point. The government gave a large amount of money to banks when they could have given it to the borrowers.

It seems we agree the government gave large amounts of money to banks. We differ on the amount.

It seems we agree that the government did not give to the borrowers.

And somehow you make a claim I am wrong.

Others bring up the claim that the bailouts had a positive financial return. Considering alternative investments, even the S&P 500 did better. Few call those who underperform the S&P 500 good investors. But I did not bring up the performance of the government, I don't want to quibble about that issue, and the government serves purposes other than making money by investing.

mdh
04-30-2019, 08:06 PM
My. Saved the banks, helped the economy recover fairly quickly from the worst mess since the Great Depression, and made a profit on it? Not too shabby.

Saved the big banks and the foreign banks : destroyed hundreds of small, local banks who had not done anything wrong. Made the banks ‘too big to fail’, bigger.

Art Haberland
04-30-2019, 10:47 PM
Saved the big banks and the foreign banks : destroyed hundreds of small, local banks who had not done anything wrong. Made the banks ‘too big to fail’, bigger.

We should have done what Iceland did, jail the bankers who did the dirty deeds

mdh
04-30-2019, 11:06 PM
We should have done what Iceland did, jail the bankers who did the dirty deeds

According to the Obama DoJ, they didn’t break any laws. The likely criminal acts were made by the Clinton administration and DoJ, in strong arming the banks to make the subprime loans that were the root of the problem.

David G
05-01-2019, 09:46 AM
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/58613008_852898561736154_6056478678538256384_n.png ?_nc_cat=102&_nc_eui2=AeEt_boZF5hBLWzaSHJ-yUBiF7VDav-CUsFOO3uEdp4Hnr0t7HCf1nz3BmNnTmjxEuaXl513tQMmql5LR fPS6YZujpekqTTPulT7ifgMVyfvDQ&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=de757ba8daada0f3ecfffb273a09cf75&oe=5D2F2EBC

Keith Wilson
05-01-2019, 10:08 AM
The likely criminal acts were made by the Clinton administration and DoJ, in strong arming the banks to make the subprime loans that were the root of the problem.Yes indeedy. You do realize that the recession happened after eight years of the Bush administration, right?

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55b28bbae4b0fb437207557c/t/5730dadf59827eed2991fd26/1462819566834/

mdh
05-01-2019, 11:35 AM
Yes indeedy. You do realize that the recession happened after eight years of the Bush administration, right?

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55b28bbae4b0fb437207557c/t/5730dadf59827eed2991fd26/1462819566834/

Yes, and i’ve posted links several times in the past, that showed video of GWB at SoU speech, and John McCain, explaining that it was a major problem for the Country if Congress didn’t address it. And Barny Frank said there was absolutely no problem with the progrem, Fanny, or Freddie, and that they were just being racist or something for saying it.

SMOGRAS

Norman Bernstein
05-01-2019, 11:39 AM
And Barny Frank said there was absolutely no problem with the progrem, Fanny, or Freddie, and that they were just being racist or something for saying it.


...except that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while they did participate in the excesses which resulted in the collapse back in 2008, were only VERY minor players... the VAST bulk of the problem was NOT the result of FM and FM, but of the commercial banks, their dangerous leverage and speculation, and the fraudulent valuation of derivatives.

This has been covered so incredibly extensively, in both the press, and in investigative journalists and books, that's it's shocking that even a Trump fanatic would still be trying to perpetuate that myth....

....but that's what they do.

mdh
05-01-2019, 12:23 PM
...except that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while they did participate in the excesses which resulted in the collapse back in 2008, were only VERY minor players... the VAST bulk of the problem was NOT the result of FM and FM, but of the commercial banks, their dangerous leverage and speculation, and the fraudulent valuation of derivatives.

This has been covered so incredibly extensively, in both the press, and in investigative journalists and books, that's it's shocking that even a Trump fanatic would still be trying to perpetuate that myth....

....but that's what they do.

The majority of the loans that were sold off were the subprimes that the government was forcing the banks to make. According to the Obama administration and DoJ, there was nothing illegal about “their dangerous leverage and speculation, and the fraudulent valuation of derivatives.” That GWB and McCain warned everybody about it multiple times, and dimocrats believed their lying Congressmen and media rather than effort to investigate and evaluate a little on their own, to just stay under their comfortable bubble, has never been more evident than on that occasion, and the present one. The first one came at great cost, i hope this one doesn’t reflect.

S.V. Airlie
05-01-2019, 12:27 PM
How was the government forcing the banks to do that exactly meh? Can you show evidence it was such as a citation, something, heck anything!

mikefrommontana
05-01-2019, 01:00 PM
A more practical question is: If Happy Days are here again, how long will it last and, most importantly, how will it end? No capitalist country has defeated the business cycle.

The cloud of debt grows ever more ominous.

sandtown
05-01-2019, 01:06 PM
And another question for the Reich . . .

If I get your kid a job, can I grope your wife's privates ??

bobbys
05-01-2019, 01:57 PM
And another question for the Reich . . .

If I get your kid a job, can I grope your wife's privates ??

Liberal women offered .....acts for bill Clinton..

S.V. Airlie
05-01-2019, 02:02 PM
Liberal women offered .....acts for bill Clinton..And Trump had to pay for them, next point bobbys!

Too Little Time
05-02-2019, 09:32 AM
...
You do like citations. I tend to deal in facts.

I did a search today to verify my comments.

Jan 15, 2009 Congress at the request of president elect Obama approved release of the last $350 billion of TARP.

A couple months later Obama obtained approval of another $750 billion which was expected to cover the remainder of the governments needs relative to the banking problems.

In all $7 trillion was provided to handle the banking problems. That includes government guarantees. The government was on the hook for a lot if things did not work out well.

6-7 million mortgages were foreclosed.




I will point to to the internet as a citation.

Too Little Time
05-02-2019, 09:36 AM
My. Saved the banks, helped the economy recover fairly quickly from the worst mess since the Great Depression, and made a profit on it? Not too shabby.
And increased economic inequality.

ccmanuals
05-02-2019, 09:38 AM
You do like citations. I tend to deal in facts.

I did a search today to verify my comments.

Jan 15, 2009 Congress at the request of president elect Obama approved release of the last $350 billion of TARP.

A couple months later Obama obtained approval of another $750 billion which was expected to cover the remainder of the governments needs relative to the banking problems.

In all $7 trillion was provided to handle the banking problems. That includes government guarantees. The government was on the hook for a lot if things did not work out well.

6-7 million mortgages were foreclosed.




I will point to to the internet as a citation.

But TARP really wasn't the bailout of the banks and I suspect you know this.


The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, sometimes referred to as the "bank bailout of 2008," was proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, passed by the 110th United States Congress, and signed into law by President George W. Bush. The act became law as part of Public Law 110-343 on October 3, 2008, in the midst of the financial crisis of 2007–2008. The law created the Troubled Asset Relief Program to purchase distressed assets from financial institutions.

Norman Bernstein
05-02-2019, 09:41 AM
The majority of the loans that were sold off were the subprimes that the government was forcing the banks to make. According to the Obama administration and DoJ, there was nothing illegal about “their dangerous leverage and speculation, and the fraudulent valuation of derivatives.”

Who said anything about 'illegal'? Sorry, but it is indeed possible to cause a global financial crisis, 'legally'... and that's what happened. Why was it all legal? Because despite warnings from competent economists, the GOP laissez faire economic philosophy permitted it to happen. Let's see... who was in office for the eight years running up to the collapse? Want to blame it on the Democrats?

Well, never mind... as long as you continue to engage in childish, sophomoric name-calling, your arguments will have NO credibility... you just regurgitate the crap from the bullsh|t news sites, anyhow.

Too Little Time
05-02-2019, 10:31 AM
But TARP really wasn't the bailout of the banks and I suspect you know this.
A matter of interpretation. There was $7 trillion in aid. TARP was one of the programs.

S.V. Airlie
05-02-2019, 10:40 AM
A matter of interpretation. There was $7 trillion in aid. TARP was one of the programs.That's like Trumps tax cut, it's supposedly passed it to help umm, the little guy but, he benefitted from it immensely.Obvcoiusly it wasn't for the little guy, it was for the rich and powerful and the corporations which he probably has a lot of stock in.

mdh
05-02-2019, 11:19 AM
Who said anything about 'illegal'? Sorry, but it is indeed possible to cause a global financial crisis, 'legally'... and that's what happened. Why was it all legal? Because despite warnings from competent economists, the GOP laissez faire economic philosophy permitted it to happen. Let's see... who was in office for the eight years running up to the collapse? Want to blame it on the Democrats?

Well, never mind... as long as you continue to engage in childish, sophomoric name-calling, your arguments will have NO credibility... you just regurgitate the crap from the bullsh|t news sites, anyhow.

Art and me. Art said we should have jailed the bankers like Iceland did, and i said the criminals here were the Clinton administration and probably members of Congress, led by Barny Frank. I don’t blame the bankers much for selling off their liabilities, but would have preferred that they called in the media and attorneys to sue the government over criminally leveraging bank business.

So yes, it was caused by dimocrats. Republican Bush and Republican McCain warned dimocrat Congress, and they ridiculed the Republicans, did nothing, and the economy collapsed. It cost trillions and trillions of borrowed dollars to barely climb out of the slump because they did that wrong, too.

sandtown
05-02-2019, 11:41 AM
Art and me. Art said we should have jailed the bankers like Iceland did, and i said the criminals here were the Clinton administration and probably members of Congress, led by Barny Frank. I don’t blame the bankers much for selling off their liabilities, but would have preferred that they called in the media and attorneys to sue the government over criminally leveraging bank business.

So yes, it was caused by dimocrats. Republican Bush and Republican McCain warned dimocrat Congress, and they ridiculed the Republicans, did nothing, and the economy collapsed. It cost trillions and trillions of borrowed dollars to barely climb out of the slump because they did that wrong, too.

That is complete Reichist bull-crap. Yeah, FAUX was all over creating the lie that the melt-down was the fault of minorities, Barney Frank and the Dems.

It was an obvious lie then, and it still is.

bobbys
05-02-2019, 12:52 PM
Mark My words here, intrest rates will soon skyrocket to slow down the economy and help Democrats in 2020.. look for rates to rise during the Democrat debates.

Norman Bernstein
05-02-2019, 01:49 PM
So yes, it was caused by dimocrats. Republican Bush and Republican McCain warned dimocrat Congress, and they ridiculed the Republicans, did nothing, and the economy collapsed.

So, let me get this straight: Bush was President for EIGHT YEARS, at the end of which, the bubble burst....

...and it was the Democrat's fault?

Why should ANY of us pay the slightest attention to the lunacy of 10 year old who thinks it's funny to engage in name-calling?

mdh
05-02-2019, 02:08 PM
So, let me get this straight: Bush was President for EIGHT YEARS, at the end of which, the bubble burst....

...and it was the Democrat's fault?

Why should ANY of us pay the slightest attention to the lunacy of 10 year old who thinks it's funny to engage in name-calling?

For the umpteenth time: yes. Constitutionally, the President doesn’t legislate, Congress does. It needed legislation to correct and prevent it. A lot like border security, international affairs, medical care, social security, the budget and other issues the dimocrats are neglecting while dwelling on protecting Hiliary, Obama administration officials, the media, and members of their party in general. Hope the negligence doesn’t result in something in the form of 9/11 at the hands of China, North Korea, Iran, etc.