• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

You mean drink the koolaid. Far too many on both sides do that. We don't need more. :coffeepap


You are entitled to your opinion, however not your own facts. And the fact is this, Progressivism is destructive to liberty and freedom as expressed by the founding of this country.

Progressivism is a form of "Corporatism". Some people call it "Statism". It is destroying our fundamental values of individual freedom and liberty.

New 'Progressivism' is Statist Cancer Eating America's Soul - HUMAN EVENTS

There are three things everybody needs to know about people who unashamedly abide by the ideology of Progressivism/Liberalism, an ideology which destroyed Detroit and which remains a slow, coercing cancer that threatens to ruin the United States of America:

1. They believe in collectivism over individualism.
2. They never say when government is too big, thus the simple conclusion is that they believe in totalitarianism over limited government.
3. When it comes to assessing the past and formulating policies, they use their disgusting morality and oppressive philosophy to take the approach that what’s right, works. They never take the prudent approach of what works is right.


Dronish nature of Progressivism on display in Lansing - Detroit Political Buzz | Examiner.com

Now maybe instead of just answering with a really non intellectual comment about kool aid you could possibly address the fact? I'll keep breathing.

j-mac
 
Unfortunately for your argument, there was never an edict forcing banks to lend to people who couldn't afford to repay. In fact the CRA specifically mandated that regulated banks were REQUIRED to consider an applicant's ability to repay. No such requirement existed for non-regulated lenders, which is part of the reason that CRA loans performed better than loans from unregulated lenders.

There really isn’t any question of which approach is factually correct: right on the front page of the Times edition of December 21 is a chart that shows the growth of home ownership in the United States since 1990. In 1993 it was 63 percent; by the end of the Clinton administration it was 68 percent. The growth in the Bush administration was about 1 percent. The Times itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers--a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks.

-=-

Banks now had to show that they had actually made a requisite number of loans to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers. The new regulations also required the use of “innovative or flexible” lending practices to address credit needs of LMI borrowers and neighborhoods. Thus, a law that was originally intended to encourage banks to use safe and sound practices in lending now required them to be “innovative” and “flexible.” In other words, it called for the relaxation of lending standards, and it was the bank regulators who were expected to enforce these relaxed standards.
The effort to reduce mortgage lending standards was led by the Department of Housing and Urban Development through the 1994 National Homeownership Strategy, published at the request of President Clinton. Among other things, it called for “financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, to help homeowners that lack cash to buy a home or to make the payments.”

=-=
PREVENTING A RECURRENCE of the financial crisis we face today does not require new regulation of the financial system. What is required instead is an appreciation of the fact--as much as lawmakers would like to avoid it--that U.S. housing policies are the root cause of the current financial crisis. Other players--greedy investment bankers; incompetent rating agencies; irresponsible housing speculators; shortsighted homeowners; and predatory mortgage brokers, lenders, and borrowers--all played a part, but they were only following the economic incentives that government policy laid out for them. If we are really serious about preventing a recurrence of this crisis, rather than increasing the power of the government over the economy, our first order of business should be to correct the destructive housing policies of the U.S. government.
The American Spectator : The True Origins of This Financial Crisis

I that sums it all up nicely. Feel free to read the whole article at the provided link.
 
I that sums it all up nicely. Feel free to read the whole article at the provided link.

Ah, the American Spectator! There's a neutral source. :2rofll:

The fact is that the housing bubble inflated from 1997 - 2007, a period that encompased three years of Clinton's presidency and seven years of Bush's presidency. The fact is that the vast majority of subprime loans were given out by lenders not regulated under the CRA.

Which is not to say that F&F and CRA were total non factors. They played a role in the disaster. But not a big role.
 
Ah, the American Spectator! There's a neutral source. :2rofll:

Just a neutral as the New York Times which they quote in the article supporting 'pressure...to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers--a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks'...;)
 
Ah, the American Spectator! There's a neutral source. :2rofll:

The fact is that the housing bubble inflated from 1997 - 2007, a period that encompased three years of Clinton's presidency and seven years of Bush's presidency. The fact is that the vast majority of subprime loans were given out by lenders not regulated under the CRA.

Which is not to say that F&F and CRA were total non factors. They played a role in the disaster. But not a big role.
So based on liberal philosophy, Bush basically INHERITED that mess.
 
Any idea what was to fund infrastructure projects including the highways?

Sure do.For starters I would go back to pre 1980 tax level on the 0.1%. that would put their rate at well above today’s 35%.That should do it; with a bit of luck we could have a little more left to take the deficit down a tad.:rock
 
Sure do.For starters I would go back to pre 1980 tax level on the 0.1%. that would put their rate at well above today’s 35%.That should do it; with a bit of luck we could have a little more left to take the deficit down a tad.:rock

So, tax success unfairly, then bitch later how no one successful stays in America...duh.


j-mac
 
You are entitled to your opinion, however not your own facts. And the fact is this, Progressivism is destructive to liberty and freedom as expressed by the founding of this country.

So, you offer up koolaid driven opinion as fact? You not seeing that proves my point. Thanks. :2funny:


Now maybe instead of just answering with a really non intellectual comment about kool aid you could possibly address the fact? I'll keep breathing.

j-mac

If you ever actually present some facts, I will address them. Anything that says this is my opinion about what caused waht is not a fact j. Sorry. The problem is you think one equals the other. It doesn't.

BTW, do you consider you sources to be highly objective sources? Do you even care about how inaccurate they might be?
 
So based on liberal philosophy, Bush basically INHERITED that mess.

Yes, clearly Bush inherited some problems that were created by Clinton and the Republicans in Congress: namely the commodities futures modernization act. Unfortunately he did nothing correct the problem and in fact made it worse by impeding the states from prosecuting their predatory lending laws. His tax cuts and failure to address the too-loose money supply also helped inflate the bubble.
 
So, tax success unfairly, then bitch later how no one successful stays in America...duh.


j-mac


Nice strawman. What/whose group has seen there pay go up while the rest of the countries pay has shrunk?
 
No you won't. You don't address anything honestly. Like I said arguing with Jello.

That's it. I'm out.

j-mac

Without ever actually presenting any facts. I know. It's easier to just blame me. :2funny:
 
Did you even read your link?

So basically, what the 2004 UCLA study concluded was that inflated prices and wages were the cause of the slowed recovery, and the NIRA which FDR signed into law was the cause of that inflation, resulting in a 60% weaker recovery.

The New Deal was not a Keynesian-esque government stimulus. To be brutally honest, the New Deal was a conservative response to the economic downturn. If you want to look for examples of Keynesian government stimulus, look towards WWII as well as the early policies of the Reagan administration.
 
**** gets real bad for a bit, then rebounds as markets are wont to do. OR you can "Save" the system, making a much longer, worse recovery, but score political points from the chicken littles who want to be saved "hardship"

Sheer ignorance! Have you even considered how sharp declines in both employment and investment impact both human and physical capital? For starters, all capital has a relative rate of depreciation. How about sheer probability? If output declines by 25% in year 2, at what rate would the economy have to grow in order to "rebound" to the output level of year 1? Answer: 33%. What is the probability that any developed economy can grow by 33% in a given year? Better yet, are there even any historical examples of such growth rates?

The mythical "markets self correct" belief died with those who waited for such an occurrence back in the 1930's.
 
Sheer ignorance! Have you even considered how sharp declines in both employment and investment impact both human and physical capital? For starters, all capital has a relative rate of depreciation. How about sheer probability? If output declines by 25% in year 2, at what rate would the economy have to grow in order to "rebound" to the output level of year 1? Answer: 33%. What is the probability that any developed economy can grow by 33% in a given year? Better yet, are there even any historical examples of such growth rates?

The mythical "markets self correct" belief died with progressive ideologues back in the 1930's.

There fixed it for you....

j-mac
 
No you won't. You don't address anything honestly. Like I said arguing with Jello.

That's it. I'm out.

j-mac

That is nothing but a personal attack on another poster. I would report you if I was a pu$$y.
 
There fixed it for you....

j-mac

Nope! What you did was display that you are incapable of replying to my post with anything of substance. You can try again, but i am not expecting much to come of it.
 
Nope! What you did was display that you are incapable of replying to my post with anything of substance. You can try again, but i am not expecting much to come of it.

Well, I was playing around a little, but I do have a question. Where did you come up with your 25% numbers? And if we have been bleeding jobs at the rate of 400K per month, every month since Obama took over, what has he done to help.

j-mac
 
Sure do.For starters I would go back to pre 1980 tax level on the 0.1%. that would put their rate at well above today’s 35%.That should do it; with a bit of luck we could have a little more left to take the deficit down a tad.:rock

Doesn't look like you understandwhat taxes fund what. Why the focus on tax rates and not who is paying FIT?
 
Well, I was playing around a little, but I do have a question. Where did you come up with your 25% numbers? And if we have been bleeding jobs at the rate of 400K per month, every month since Obama took over, what has he done to help.

j-mac

The 25% number comes from applying Okun's law under the assumption that unemployment would exceed 15% in the absence of both TARP and ARRA.
 
Yes, clearly Bush inherited some problems that were created by Clinton and the Republicans in Congress: namely the commodities futures modernization act. Unfortunately he did nothing correct the problem and in fact made it worse by impeding the states from prosecuting their predatory lending laws. His tax cuts and failure to address the too-loose money supply also helped inflate the bubble.
While all of this may or may not be true, you should have stopped at the bold part. Some people just fail to notice when they've been bitchslapped. :lol: Until you and the rest of the left can admit the Obama inheritance talking point it pure bull****, the rest of your statement is irrelevant.
 
While all of this may or may not be true, you should have stopped at the bold part. Some people just fail to notice when they've been bitchslapped. :lol: Until you and the rest of the left can admit the Obama inheritance talking point it pure bull****, the rest of your statement is irrelevant.

You really make yourself look foolish when you blatantly focus on only part of the picture and ignore the parts that don't fit into your prefab poltical view. You would really have to be insane to ignore the massive economic disaster that Obama walked into when trying to evaluate his performance. Everyone knew in '08 that whoever won was going to walk into an absolute sh*tstorm:

Next president confronts staggering to-do list
By Susan Page, USA TODAY

October 16, 2008

WASHINGTON — Why exactly would anybody want this job?

The candidate who wins the White House on Nov. 4 will face the most calamitous economy for any new president since Franklin Roosevelt took over amid the Depression in 1933. He'll assume command of the biggest wartime deployment of U.S. troops since Richard Nixon was sworn in during the Vietnam War in 1969.

Their campaign promises — Republican John McCain's crusade against budget earmarks, for instance, and Democrat Barack Obama's commitment to expand health care coverage — almost certainly will take a back seat at the start. They'll be forced to turn to negotiating a new regulatory structure for financial institutions, rebuilding stock and housing markets, dealing with the partial nationalization of banks unveiled Tuesday and preventing an economic downturn from sliding into something worse.

Also on the immediate agenda: managing the reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq without sacrificing hard-won security gains, and stemming a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

"Walking into the Oval Office is tough enough when you're facing kind of the ordinary challenges that face any president," says Leon Panetta, a former California congressman and White House chief of staff for President Clinton. "But whoever is elected president this time is going to face a set of crises that no president has had to face in modern times."

Next president confronts staggering to-do list - USATODAY.com
 
You really make yourself look foolish when you blatantly focus on only part of the picture and ignore the parts that don't fit into your prefab poltical view. You would really have to be insane to ignore the massive economic disaster that Obama walked into when trying to evaluate his performance. Everyone knew in '08 that whoever won was going to walk into an absolute sh*tstorm:



Next president confronts staggering to-do list - USATODAY.com

Obama wanted the job, campaigned for 2 years prior to the election to get it, said he could do the job and has failed miserably. The Obama results speak for themselves. A good leader accepts the challenges and doesn't blame someone else when they fail. Obama delegated responsibility and no leader can do that. You can delegate authority but the responsibility is yours as a leader.
 
Obama wanted the job, campaigned for 2 years prior to the election to get it, said he could do the job and has failed miserably. The Obama results speak for themselves. A good leader accepts the challenges and doesn't blame someone else when they fail. Obama delegated responsibility and no leader can do that. You can delegate authority but the responsibility is yours as a leader.

A good leader does not live in a fantasy world. Everyone knew that the next president would face challenges unprecedented since WWII. Most Americans understand that his performance has to be judged in that context. People understood it in 2008:

"How soon would the next president be able to:

Change the direction of the country so it is satisfactory


Obama

Within his first year in office

12%

Within two years

20%

By the end of his first term

30%

During his second term

9%

He won't be able to do so

24%



Make the economy grow again

Obama

Within his first year in office

11%

Within two years

27%

By the end of his first term

29%

During his second term

11%

He won't be able to do so

19%

Next president confronts staggering to-do list - USATODAY.com
 
Back
Top Bottom