• 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!

conservatives can no longer deny they've been lied to about deficits.

ARealConservative said:
umm, I'm talking about things that happened under that economic model.

you bring up the 40's to explain today's system shows you really don't know what you are talking about.

ps - your chart measured debt in relation to GDP - according to GDP - we entered a major recession immediately following ww2.

so anyway you want to look at it, you are clueless
Click to expand...

Umm... still waiting for you to explain how the WW2 debt hurt us in any way.
 
Absentglare said:
Umm... still waiting for you to explain how the WW2 debt hurt us in any way.
Click to expand...

we entered a recession, and the system ultimately collapsed because of debt. you obviously didn't learn that, but it is true.

foreign nations called us out for our debt, and the entire system we were running under went bye bye.

but deficits don't matter. until the system craters.

poser! you don't have a clue about anything
 
Absentglare said:
No i don't. Taxes play a uniquely valuable role of draining money out of the economy. They are most effective when they target bloated sectors of the economy. If Bill Gates gets another billion dollars, he probably won't change behavior to become more productive. If a hundred thousand inner city kids each got $10,000, that could make them immensely more productive.
Click to expand...

But MMT says that you don't need taxes at all to pay the country's bills. You use taxes for the sole purpose of income redistribution. But, since MMT says that we don't really need to collect taxes to pay the country's bills, we can just give more income to the poor by putting it on the country's charge card. Then the rich can keep their money and the poor will have more money, narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. The only reason for you guys not wanting to do this is your jealousy of the rich and the desire to knock them down a few notches.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
No every human needs to invest in them self. No one can do that for them...
Click to expand...

A newborn baby cannot invest in itself. We are all born helpless. It is the cowardly elites who take the assistance they received for granted that do not understand nor appreciate these facts.
 
Absentglare said:
A newborn baby cannot invest in itself. We are all born helpless. It is the cowardly elites who take the assistance they received for granted that do not understand nor appreciate these facts.
Click to expand...

Did you not grow up?
 
ARealConservative said:
we entered a recession, and the system ultimately collapsed because of debt. you obviously didn't learn that, but it is true.

foreign nations called us out for our debt, and the entire system we were running under went bye bye.

but deficits don't matter. until the system craters.

poser! you don't have a clue about anything
Click to expand...

We didn't enter the recession because of the debt. That is literally impossible. Perhaps you should figure out what the debt is and what a recession is.

Further, nothing collapsed. That is hyperbolic nonsense.

We can always pay US debt with US dollars. We have literally an unlimited ability to produce US dollars.
 
Absentglare said:
We didn't enter the recession because of the debt. That is literally impossible. Perhaps you should figure out what the debt is and what a recession is.

Further, nothing collapsed. That is hyperbolic nonsense.

We can always pay US debt with US dollars. We have literally an unlimited ability to produce US dollars.
Click to expand...




What do you think the result of that would be?
 
faithful_servant said:
..and once again, a liberal ignores the FACT that it was a response to a DEM. Congress that triggered the last recession. But that's just truth and if the truth doesn't match the narrative, go with the narrative - right???
Click to expand...

LOL What did this evil Democratic Congress DO to cause the Great Bush Recession. Why didn't the President obstruct their evil ways with vetoes?
 
Moderate Right said:
But MMT says that you don't need taxes at all to pay the country's bills. You use taxes for the sole purpose of income redistribution. But, since MMT says that we don't really need to collect taxes to pay the country's bills, we can just give more income to the poor by putting it on the country's charge card. Then the rich can keep their money and the poor will have more money, narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. The only reason for you guys not wanting to do this is your jealousy of the rich and the desire to knock them down a few notches.
Click to expand...

That first sentence is true. We don't need taxes to pay bills.

All policies are forms of resource redistribution.

There is no such charge card. We could spend more on the poor if we wanted to.

Why are you bringing jealousy into this? I am happy to pay more in taxes as long as that comes with further empowering the American public. Does everything have to be selfish for you? It doesn't for me. I actually want America to be a better place. You're basically admitting to me that you don't give a flying **** about that goal, you care so little that you cannot even comprehend why someone would want that.
 
ARealConservative said:
this thread is flip flopping on deficit concerns, which Krugman has definitely done. admit it, you respect morons like Krugman. what you don't respect is consistency because you are a hyper partisan shill
Click to expand...

no ARC, the thread is not about flip flopping on debt concerns. Its about the fact that "conservatives can no longer deny they've been lied to about deficits." Its actually the title of the thread. And read this slowly, republicans didn't "flip flop". They were lying about their concern for debt and deficits the last 8 years. And we told you and yours they were lying. Now that Paul Ryan comes out in a growing economy with low UE and says

“One of the things that we’re focusing on is getting people back to work, is economic growth,” Ryan told reporters Tuesday. “You can’t ever balance the budget if you don’t get this economy growing.”

you cant deny anymore that you were lied to. What does it say about you that continue to try?

ARealConservative said:
deficits don't matter, until the left doesn't get what they want. then they do matter.
Click to expand...

that's just delusional. Ryan has just proven that deficits matter until republicans get what they want. Then they don't matter.

so yes, I did read the article.
Click to expand...
that's just hilarious. You didn't even read the title of the thread.
 
Absentglare said:
That first sentence is true. We don't need taxes to pay bills.

All policies are forms of resource redistribution.

There is no such charge card. We could spend more on the poor if we wanted to.

Why are you bringing jealousy into this? I am happy to pay more in taxes as long as that comes with further empowering the American public. Does everything have to be selfish for you? It doesn't for me. I actually want America to be a better place. You're basically admitting to me that you don't give a flying **** about that goal, you care so little that you cannot even comprehend why someone would want that.
Click to expand...

Then let the rich keep their money. Hell, let EVERYONE keep all of their money (no taxes tor anyone) and we'll all be doing great. As you said, we don't need to collect taxes to pay the country's bills.
 
Moderate Right said:
Then let the rich keep their money. Hell, let EVERYONE keep all of their money (no taxes tor anyone) and we'll all be doing great. As you said, we don't need to collect taxes to pay the country's bills.
Click to expand...

I think we should use this methodology to dramatically cut the corporate income tax.

But the personal income tax plays a meaningful role in the economic cycle.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
How does giving someone something make them more productive?
Click to expand...

Paul, welcome back. And you're a liberal now. that's good news. Now that you're a liberal, you wouldn't mind responding to the thread topic would you? So what do you think about the conservative debt messiah saying exactly what democrats said the last 8 years

“One of the things that we’re focusing on is getting people back to work, is economic growth,” Ryan told reporters Tuesday. “You can’t ever balance the budget if you don’t get this economy growing.”
 
Vern said:
“One of the things that we’re focusing on is getting people back to work, is economic growth,” Ryan told reporters Tuesday. “You can’t ever balance the budget if you don’t get this economy growing.”

You simply can no longer deny you were lied to. yet all you do is desperately look for any excuse or whine not to own up to it. when you grow up and want to have an honest and intelligent discussion, feel free to reply.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The GOP has argued that which Ryan said, for years. Grow the economy, and the deficits and debt shrink as a total share, thus easier to deal with. Granted, there were Republicans who took the absolutist $$$ approach to the problem.
 
Visbek said:
:roll:

Wrong. There were multiple years of genuine surpluses under Clinton. Revenues were greater than outlays. By any definition, that is a surplus.

The public debt -- the amount borrowed from the public, and the measure that pretty much everyone uses -- dropped slightly during those deficit years.

The gross debt -- which includes intergovernmental loans -- did continue to go up. However, that's because when payroll taxes run a surplus, the government is required by law to lend those funds to the rest of the government. I.e. when payroll taxes run a surplus, gross debt increases. Further, when we draw down from the Social Security trust fund, gross debt can shrink, even though Social Security is in a more precarious position.

Gross debt is a valid measure. However, a) only if you use it as a consistent measure, and b) only when you actually understand how it works. It's not valid when the only reason to cite it is to blast Democrats, and/or obscure how Republican political leaders don't actually give a crap about shrinking government or reducing debts.
Click to expand...

Visbek,

What is your profession, if you don't mind me asking?
 
Visbek said:
You also still haven't answered my question:

What did Congress do in 2006 to cause the crash? Yet again, Congress couldn't pass any laws at that time without Bush's signature. The only way Congress could somehow be responsible is if Bush signed a law. So what did they do?

We already know it wasn't CRA. Aside from being adjusted nearly every year of Bush's term, most of the mortgages originated were not CRA (see above).

So. What else ya got?
Click to expand...

In late 2004 Bush introduced a bill to reform Freddy and Fanny. After a year and a half it made it through the Senate Banking Finance Committee only to be filibustered and killed by Chris Dodd. After that the 2008 Crash was inevitable.

2008 crash not caused by bad CRA Loans bundled by Freddy and Fanny? Not even Paul Krugman claims this. What do you get out go lying?
 
Athanasius68 said:
What are you talking about? The GOP has argued that which Ryan said, for years. Grow the economy, and the deficits and debt shrink as a total share, thus easier to deal with. Granted, there were Republicans who took the absolutist $$$ approach to the problem.
Click to expand...

Athan, I'm shocked. I've simply never heard a republican say what you say you heard. I've heard republicans say "its only a spending problem." I've heard them say "Obama's spending is out of control." In addition to railing at the stimulus, they railed at the auto bailout. They refused compromise on revenue increases and forced the sequester spending cuts and then claimed the cuts were "Obama's fault". And I've never seen a conservative post anything but those conservative narratives. So please back up your point. I'm really curious if there was a republicans with the courage to stand up to the "mob mentality" that was conservatism at the time.
 
Casca XV said:
In late 2004 Bush introduced a bill to reform Freddy and Fanny. After a year and a half it made it through the Senate Banking Finance Committee only to be filibustered and killed by Chris Dodd. After that the 2008 Crash was inevitable.

2008 crash not caused by bad CRA Loans bundled by Freddy and Fanny? Not even Paul Krugman claims this. What do you get out go lying?
Click to expand...

Casca, you have just posted fantasy as fact. Ands its some of the most ridiculous fantasy concerning the Bush Mortgage Bubble I've seen in a long time. You cant back up one point you posted so its pointless to ask but please back up your "post".

If you want to learn about the Bush Mortgage Bubble, here's a thread with actual facts. You'll be smarter than 99% of conservatives just by reading the first post.

Vern said:
I still see alot of misconceptions about the Bush Mortgage Bubble and the Bush policies that encouraged, funde and protected it so I thought I would start an FAQ section. Since the resulting destruction of the housing and financial sector are still a drag on the economy today, it seems relevent

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress update.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Visbek said:
1993 tax reform that cut deficit by $500 billion, which included taxing top earners and cutting military spending. Republicans pitched a fit, and lost. Economy wasn't destroyed as a result. In fact, we saw 7 years of uninterrupted growth, while Republicans and Clinton/Dems fought constantly over fiscal policy. Compromise was rare and grudging.

Various trade agreements, around 300. Note: He did NOT pass NAFTA, that was actually signed in by Bush 41 right at the end of his term.

Deregulated banks in 1999. That was as much his idea as Republicans. It's also one of the changes that caused the bubble and meltdown in 2008.



*bzzt* wrong

Bush came into office looking for an excuse to attack Iraq. The administration largely pushed the intelligence agencies to produce intel that supported their view. E.g. Agencies like the CIA strongly distrusted Chalabi, who had the ear of the DoD. Cheney's office tried to discredit Joe Wilson, for daring to contradict a fake report on Nigerian yellowcake sold to Iraq.

And of course, the agents who worked on the Iraq intel have basically nothing to do with current investigations into Russia, CIA put in new safeguards to prevent that from happening etc
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-bush-white-house/?utm_term=.43e316e70a8b

Why Did We Invade Iraq? - The Atlantic



nope, nope, nope

CRA blocks discrimination in lending (redlining). It didn't mandate banks to loan to unfit lenders. It didn't cause mortgage originators to fill out reams of fraudulent applications. It didn't create the securitization of loans that let mortgage originators and banks package inferior loans into obscure financial instruments that buyers didn't understand. It didn't pressure ratings agencies to give good ratings in order to keep bank business; it didn't force investment banks to threaten ratings agencies with pulling their business if they didn't get rosy ratings... etc

cra-chartg1109.gif




nope, not even close, total bull****

Fannie and Freddie were very late to subprime. They were actually losing market share when the bubble was expanding rapidly, because so many people wanted to buy mortgages (typically in a securitized form). They only started buying in earnest around 2005, when they realized they were missing out.

FannieFreddieRit.JPG


freddie-mac-fannie-may-fraction-of-loans-held.jpg




F&F had lots of issues in the early 00s, due to poor accounting practices and the competition eating their lunch. As GSEs, they had a unique role -- soak up those 30 year mortgages, which is what they were doing whilst the bubble was expanding. They were at the end of the chain, and again they lost share as competition heated up. If F&F hadn't bought any of those bad mortgages, the bubble would still have been huge, as other entities would have just bought more of the crap.

F&F had a similar issue to Lehman. Both were caught without a chair when the music stopped, and were loaded down with underperforming loans and securities. The difference is that Lehman wanted to unload, and couldn't; whereas F&F mostly held onto mortgages and collected the income, and sold very little.



I concur Bush 43 had limited responsibility in the mess. He refused to regulate properly; he had no interest in popping the bubble early; he screwed up handling foreclosures.

The real culprit was the private markets. They were the ones that originated bad loans; generated obscure securities, which generated huge systemic risks; generated fraudulent loans; sold securities which let the originators and middle-men not just get away with no skin in the game, but bet against their own products; bought and sold all those homes, and so on.
Click to expand...

I hope you had to spend a lot of time putting this together. I'm not even going to bother destroying it. This tortured revision reminds me of Leftist trying to explain Obamacare as a success.

Obama just spent the last 8 years having the success of Jimmy Carter. It will be interesting to see how Nasty Propagandist try to explain away the prosperity that already started a day after Trumps win.
 
Vern said:
Casca, you have just posted fantasy as fact. Ands its some of the most ridiculous fantasy concerning the Bush Mortgage Bubble I've seen in a long time. You cant back up one point you posted so its pointless to ask but please back up your "post".

If you want to learn about the Bush Mortgage Bubble, here's a thread with actual facts. You'll be smarter than 99% of conservatives just by reading the first post.
Click to expand...

2003/2004 was the recovery from the Tech Bubble recession and the start of the prosperity caused by the Bush tax cuts. As a result lot of people were buying real-estate, but because of the Community Reinvestment Act from Carter and the Freddy and Fanny de-regulation by Clinton many people were buying real-estate they could not afford. That is where the Mortgage Bubble came from.
 
Casca XV said:
2003/2004 was the recovery from the Tech Bubble recession and the start of the prosperity caused by the Bush tax cuts. As a result lot of people were buying real-estate, but because of the Community Reinvestment Act from Carter and the Freddy and Fanny de-regulation by Clinton many people were buying real-estate they could not afford. That is where the Mortgage Bubble came from.
Click to expand...

whoa whoa casca, I didn't ask you to post more ridiculous nonsense. I asked you to back up your point. Its no shock that you continued your fantasy, all conservative (and conservative like posters) do it. Now please back up your "story" about a bill that Bush introduced in 2004 that was filibustered after a year and a half and how it would have prevented the Bush Mortgage Bubble. this is not a chat room. This is a debate forum.
 
Vern said:
Athan, I'm shocked. I've simply never heard a republican say what you say you heard. I've heard republicans say "its only a spending problem." I've heard them say "Obama's spending is out of control." In addition to railing at the stimulus, they railed at the auto bailout. They refused compromise on revenue increases and forced the sequester spending cuts and then claimed the cuts were "Obama's fault". And I've never seen a conservative post anything but those conservative narratives. So please back up your point. I'm really curious if there was a republicans with the courage to stand up to the "mob mentality" that was conservatism at the time.
Click to expand...

It is true the GOP continues its line of Reagan 'deficits exist because government spends too much, not because people are not taxed enough.' And it's also true that there have been Republicans who have taken the zero sum approach.
But Part of the theory of supply side is that as revenues increase, it reduces the significance of deficit and debt, which is what the GOP argued throughout the 80s.
 
Athanasius68 said:
It is true the GOP continues its line of Reagan 'deficits exist because government spends too much, not because people are not taxed enough.' And it's also true that there have been Republicans who have taken the zero sum approach.
But Part of the theory of supply side is that as revenues increase, it reduces the significance of deficit and debt, which is what the GOP argued throughout the 80s.
Click to expand...

Athan, I didn't ask you post more theories and beliefs. I asked you to back up "The GOP has argued that which Ryan said, for years. Grow the economy". Now somewhere in your rambling post you seem to allude to maybe someone in the GOP coulda sorta said it in the 80s. We were not discussing the 80s. We're discussing the last 8 years. the last 8 years, conservatives were whipped into a state of panic about debt and deficits. They were told and obediently believed we had to cut spending. Republicans attacked things that would have helped the economy and their ignorant base cheered them on.

and Athan, in the 80s they were telling their ignorant base that tax cuts pay for themselves. So they weren't having an honest discussion about debt back then either. But again, we're not discussing the 80s. We're discussing the last 8 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom