• 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!

Liberals want a recession

SonOfDaedalus said:
The only way those taxes will pay for themselves if the economy keeps growing. But anyone with any sense knows economies have cyclical downturns. To project an economy that just grows forever is idiotic.

Yes, as the economy grows, revenue will continue to grow. That's when you tax and save up your money for the next recession.

The global economy is complex. Ignoring all the other factors, if China's economy takes a downturn it can cause problems with lots of other economies. In a world of complex derivative products, these shocks can cause a cascade and crisis. I'm just pointing out that Trump's thinking is shortsighted. China doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

This shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No wonder you are a liberal Democrat.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
In case you didn't notice, companies were hiring for years before Trump. The economy was on an upswing long before Trump. We had the longest streak of job growth in history before Trump.

Trump tried to pump up an economy that was already doing well. He increased the deficit as much as Obama did when he was fighting a recession. So what are we going to do if we have a recession?
Click to expand...

This one isn't any better. Either no understanding of what has been and is occurring, or just biased hope and change, or plain just lying to oneself.
 
ataraxia said:
Oh but if the economy was growing only at 2.5% rather than 3% it was a disaster that was all just simply and clearly Obama’s fault. Thank goodness Trump came along and fixed that disastrous mess!

But a recession now simply and clearly couldn’t possibly be Trump’s fault.

Got it.
Click to expand...

2.5%? On what planet did Obama have 2.5% growth? He average was more like just under 2%. We were at a trough and he managed to keep us there and actually do WORSE for 8 straight years. Good Lord wake up. And all this while overseeing enormous debt increase and an increase in the Debt to GDP ratio from 62% to over 130%. That is the worst economic performance ever!!! Carter did better.
 
Outlook said:
Are the liberals so scared that Trump is going to be re-elected, they want to see the US economy to collapse?
No media bias here, but NBC reporter Richard Engel and idiot Bill Maher want people to loss their jobs and have businesses close if it defeats Trump. They don’t care, they make millions a year.
These two idiots on Friday said they hoped an economic recession would happen in the US so Trump would not be re-elected.
Instead of wishing for a recession try going to the ballet box and vote him out of power if he is so horrible.
Click to expand...

Liberals want a recession?

Conservatives make it happen.

Bush Dubya made the second worst recession ever.

Trump looks like he's making one now.

Only one post war Republican US President has ever come out of his presidency with lower unemployment than when he went in.
Only one post war Democrat US President has ever come out of his presidency without unemployment being lower, Carter, it was the same as when he went in.
 
There are definitely a few people that are so vapid that they've said that "want a recession" to help ensure we get rid of Trump, but even they acknowledge how bad it is.

Most people do not WANT a recession, however it's going to happen even if we don't want it in the very near future. And, then, when it does, and a Democrat is elected, they'll do what they can to salvage the economy, meanwhile having their balls busted by Republicans about "fiscal responsibility" that they, themselves, didn't practice when they were in power. And then after 4-8 years, another Republican will be voted in because people are dumb.
 
Mycroft said:
X = the price of a chinese product before tariffs were enacted.

10% = tariff

X + 10% = the price of a chinese product after tariffs were enacted.

Y = the subsidy China is giving to the chinese manufacturer (say, 10%) allowing them to reduce their prices by the same amount.

So...this is the formula that US importers end up dealing with: X+10%-Y.

Now tell me...has the importer paid more? or less? or the same? for that chinese product after tariffs were enacted compared to before they were enacted?

Also, tell me how much the importer has passed on to their consumers...10%?, more?, less?

Hint: China pays for the tariff.

Currency manipulation works much the same way...and make no mistake, their currency isn't "floating"...they deliberately devalued their own currency. The only difference is that the chinese manufacturer isn't getting a subsidy for the loss of value in the currency. China is making THEM eat that cost. That means the chinese manufacturer is paying the tariff.

What does China get out of this? Simple...they get to keep selling stuff, though at a lower price, to American consumers.

What does American consumers get out of this? Simple...they get to keep buying cheap stuff from China.

Who is being hurt? The Chinese government and the Chinese economy.

Oh...one other thing. China is only subsidizing CHINESE manufacturers...not foreign manufacturers. Those multinational companies with operations in China are taking it up the ass...and they won't put up with that for very much longer. They are going to beat feet OUT of China. The Chinese economy loses even more.
Click to expand...

Anyone can makeup a scenario to show how something could be done.

Showing that China is doing what you imagine they could do would be the proof.
 
Outlook said:
Are the liberals so scared that Trump is going to be re-elected, they want to see the US economy to collapse?
No media bias here, but NBC reporter Richard Engel and idiot Bill Maher want people to loss their jobs and have businesses close if it defeats Trump. They don’t care, they make millions a year.
These two idiots on Friday said they hoped an economic recession would happen in the US so Trump would not be re-elected.
Instead of wishing for a recession try going to the ballet box and vote him out of power if he is so horrible.
Click to expand...

Liberal hysteria and rage is the greatest moral challenge the US has faced since the Vietnam Era.
 
Trump says we have to reelect him, or the economy is going to go belly up.

Maybe Trump wants a recession, but only if he loses the election.
 
ataraxia said:
Yeah. One was an emergency measure to dig us out of the greatest recession in our history. The other is ... I don’t know for what purpose.
Click to expand...
Over $150 Billion/yr is to pay interest on the debt accumulated 2009-2016. One quarter of the deficit is just interest on Obama era debt.

You asked, so there is that.
 
ataraxia said:
So educate us. My understanding was that the increased debt was due to the stimulus spending for the recession. After that, Obama was actually a pretty small spender. Smallest since Eisenhower.
Click to expand...
Your understanding is incorrect.
 
Jay59 said:
Over $150 Billion/yr is to pay interest on the debt accumulated 2009-2016. One quarter of the deficit is just interest on Obama era debt.

You asked, so there is that.
Click to expand...

And had it not been for Bush Dubya and his expensive wars, and his allowing the problems to build up (along with others), then Obama wouldn't have had this debt that had to be paid off, or the spending that came with dealing with the recession.
 
WillyPete said:
I think the more nuanced version is that some believe a recession is inevitable, due in some part to Trump's policies, and that it would be preferable to get it started before he's re-elected to enact more bad policy.
Click to expand...

recession are part of the economic cycle.
so far trumps policies have helped the economy for probably longer than it should have.

the trade deal with china needs to be resolved sooner rather than later but so far other than markets running on
emotion we have not seen too many of the doomsayer predictions.

So far there is no sign of a recession.
 
ataraxia said:
So educate us.

My understanding was that the increased debt was due to the stimulus spending for the recession. After that, Obama was actually a pretty small spender. Smallest since Eisenhower.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
Click to expand...

ataraxia said:
So educate us.

My understanding was that the increased debt was due to the stimulus spending for the recession. After that, Obama was actually a pretty small spender. Smallest since Eisenhower.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
Click to expand...

1st it is important to understand the Financial Crisis Occurred for several reasons. The most important reason was the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Originally passed under Jimmy Carter. At the time of its passage the idea went something like this:

The primary investment vehicle for people in the middle class is Real Estate (their home). People in the middle class will purchase a home and pay on it for years. They will raise a family and as they pay down the principle and with a steady moderate devaluation of the principle due to inflation they eventually own a home which has dramatically increased in value. For over 70 years the value of home real estate had risen every single year. The reason the poor are poor is because their credit is bad, their employment isn't as steady, and yada yada yada so they can't get loans to purchase a house. The idea was that if you can force banks to give out loans to the poor and others with bad credit (called subprime borrowers i.e. credit scores below 500) then poverty will be eliminated. Since housing will inevitably rise in value the poor can get loans to purchase their residence and then eventually make a profit just like those in the middle class. Whallaaahh! No more poverty.

When passed in the 1970's it was a dismal failure. But in 1998 the program was reawakened by the Democrats in the House Banking committee (now the house Financial Services something or another committee). They changed the name to detract attention from how bad they screwed everything up and caused the financial collapse of 2008. The committee was chaired by Barney Frank among other notable retards like Maxine Waters. What they did was give the CRA teeth. Instead of just encouraging banks to lend to subprime borrowers in low income neighborhoods the put into law a provision requiring at least 30 percent of their loans be given to subprime borrowers. Any bank which failed to do so would lose their government banking charter and would no longer be allowed to lend until the corrected the "situation". The CRA also created a government funded program in which $900 million would be provided to fund various organizations to go into these low income neighborhoods to "teach" these low income potential borrowers about the new program and help them apply for these government forced bank loans. Banks were actually going out looking for people with bad credit to give loans. ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) was given virtually all of the funding educate low income borrowers and much of this money was later discovered to have been mismanaged, lots of corruption and other illegal activity as well as returning a major portion of the money back to the members of the Congressional banking committees. What could go wrong?
 
Last edited:
Well for a time things were okay. There was a dramatic increase in home ownership. These low income borrowers were told you don't have to pay any rent, you don't have to make any mortgage payments. The banks were so anxious to avoid losing their charters if the lender couldn't afford the payments they would set up a balloon payment. They told these naive borrowers you don't have to pay a penny for the next 7 years or more. When the balloon payment comes due you can sell the house and since housing prices have risen 7 to 10 percent every year damn near forever and we are only requiring you pay back at 4 or 5 percent you can sell the house and make a profit. Great deal. No rent, no mortgage payment, 7 years later we cut you a check for thousands of dollars for the privilege of doing nothing. What could go wrong.

Major red flags were going up as it came time to call in the payments. So many of these subprime borrowers were selling their homes to cover the payment housing prices began to drop for the first time in many decades. Yet Barney Frank and Maxine Waters and others who were taking huge kick backs from ACORN and others gave deafening speeches about how fine everything was. They went so far as to say if we just kept pushing these loans they would be hailed as the victors over poverty. Despite the obvious warning signs these corrupt and incompetent politicians pushed forward.

The banks were also guilty as they had been all too willing to take the profits as demand pushed housing prices ever and ever higher. These loans didn't even require proof of employment. They would even give you a loan if you stated "I sell crack and traffic 2 hookers to make $28,000/year although I've never paid a bill in my life". It would have been bad enough, but these loans were insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie and Freddie insured 90% of the mortgages in the country. Since their inception investors had wondered what would happen if their was a major downturn in the housing market since this would likely mean FM & FM couldn't covered all the policies. Frank and Waters assured everyone it wouldn't come to that and if it did the government would back the policies.

Wall Street compounded the problem when they wanted a piece of the action and created derivatives, upgrading the quality of the investment even though it was supported by these ludicrous loans. Well long story short was housing prices dropped, these subprime borrowers couldn't repay and the houses had to be foreclosed on. Even middle class borrowers faced with the prospect of a 300,000 balance on a house whose market value was now half that just said screw it. Take the house. I'm not paying 300,000 for a house worth 150k or less. I'll just let the bank take the collateral then go out and purchase another home for 150k. The banks of course then all went to Fannie Mae demanding they pay off the insurance policy. FM of course didn't have the funds to cover so many foreclosures.

To make matters worse, no one knew which banks were more at risk than others. Banks had been claiming on their balance sheets they had over a trillion dollars in real estate assets propping up these outstanding loans. Investors started questioning their numbers. They may well have been worth what they claimed. But how do you determine the value of 200,000 mortgages? You really don't even know the value of a single home until it is actually sold. How do you evaluate 200,000 at a time when the housing prices are falling off a cliff. Banks started refusing to lend to other banks thinking the other bank might be even worse off than we are.

Banks (especially the big guys) make their money off their credit rating as strange as that seems. What they do is essentially this. The longer the term of a loan the worse the interest rate normally. For instance if I get a 10 year loan on my house my interest might be 3.5%. A 30 year loan might be 5%. It also depends on the risk. What the big boys do is say, "I've got 2 Trillion $ in assets. So I want to extend loans for 35 Trillion $ in mortgages and the term will be 30 or 60 days." Well if Merrill Lynch has 2 Trillion in assets what are the chances they won't be able to pay back the loans in 30 days? So they get ridiculous rates which are also at a reserve ratio. Every 30 to 60 days they just get new loans sufficient to cover the loans coming to terms minus some profit.
 
When the lenders began to question whether the mortgage back securities were actually worth what the banks were claiming they rightly decided the risk was much greater and the interest rates charged to these banks began to rise. This meant the banks were having to rollover loans at 12% to cover accounts which were only paying 3 to 6% if they were being repaid at all. Worse they couldn't prove what the collateral was worth until it was sold. So the problem the Dems caused was one of trust. So Bush stepped in and guaranteed 800 Billion in low interest loans to these banks in order to instill confidence they were solvent. But this was only a temporary measure.

These Government loans counted on GW Bush's deficit. But they were repaid during the first 18 months of the Obama administration, increasing Bush's perceived debt and reducing Obama's. Fiurthermore, the Geithner Plan and the Paulson Plan were entirely Obama's. There is still much debate about the wisdom of both. But it could hardly be considered "getting us out of the recession". He got the banks out of a jam and he had We The People pay for it. Supposedly for our benefit but I disagree completely. With the amount of money given to the banks to get them out of hot water he could have let them suffer the consequences of the risk and take the loss. You and I don't get bailed out if our business ventures go South. The famous "Too big to fail" mentality. With the amount of money we paid we could have let the banks fail and use the money to create a whole new banking system. Obviously since this same money created the system they now own which was worthless before we had to pay the price.

Furthermore, a note about expansion. Our population grows by about 2.5% per year not counting illegals. This means if we have ZERO progress in productive capability the minimum growth in GDP should be 2.5%. Any less and the standard of living is falling. A Zero % increase results in a dramatic DECREASE in standard of living because 102.5% are living on what 100% used to live on. When we are in recession economic forces naturally tend to stimulate the economy causing the business cycles. It is a negative feedback system which is why it is cyclic and sinusoidal. You may not be aware but all negative feedback systems result in sinusoidal outputs. So even if Obama kept the growth in GDP above 2.5% this would be an utter failure in economic terms. Essentially holding us fixed at the bottom of a cycle preventing recovery and prolonging agony. But he didn't even do that. He managed to FURTHER increase our agony by somehow managing to reduce our productivity below even maintaining efficiency. A 1.5% GDP growth for 8 years with a population growth of 2.5 percent or higher represents untold agony and economic malaise. And the audacity to then claim "8 years of growth under Obama" is worse than laughable, it is callous and downright vomit inducing. Compound this with ridiculous trade and foreign policy to the point it could have been considered having a subversive in the White House.

I'm sure you are aware of the Laffer curve and in all likelihood you poo-poo the entire notion. But the Laffer curve is not an economic policy\strategy. It is a Law of Economics so simple in it's axiom and to be easily understood and without question. Keynesian economics is now a mathematically proven fallacy. Yet you and others still contend its legitimacy. You are provably wrong.
 
Under our current political process it is obviously infeasible to reduce spending. Only in the 4 years under Clinton with complete GOP control was spending even held fixed. It just isn't going to happen because our elected officials earn their corruption through the power of the purse. It is possible to on occasion reduce taxes since these are at least popular among the voters if not the politicians. So if you are going to fix our monetary policy the only method of doing so is to reduce taxes improving our position on the Laffer Curve. Obama did the opposite. He attempted to spend his way into prosperity. The Stimulus money was entirely wasted and a burden on the back of the taxpayers. Make work projects are doomed to failure. Reagan did the opposite. Reagan decreased taxes and the Democratic controlled Reagan Congress just kept right on spending. This resulted in dramatic economic expansion and a preferable position not due to the spending but due to the tax cuts (something the Dumbs refused to accept). There is a notable delay in the response to tax reductions. But in time the expansion does reduce the debt to GDP ratio. Obama took the debt to GDP ratio from 60 to over 130. That is an abysmal decline all with a dramatic decline in standard of living. Nothing to show for creating such a generational burden.

Trump has done one better. Trump increased military spending to about 800 Billion and achieved moderate spending cuts to offset some of it. His success was in dramatic reduction in taxes across the board. Since there is a delay in the effects of the tax-cut stimulus this will very definitely result in an increase in deficits initially. Still nothing compared to Obama's deficits which didn't even include the Bush loan paybacks. But the distinction is important. There is a big difference between temporary deficits caused by tax stimulus and permanent deficits caused by wasteful spending. These expenditures are still in the budget and will likely never be cut from the budget. It just isn't in their nature.

But Trump went further and has succeeded in bringing in Trillions of dollars worth of investments which have accrued over 30 plus years as a result of ludicrous trade deals. He made a campaign promise to do so and he fulfilled that promise. Personally I did not believe he would or could fulfill the promise. I wrote it down as more broken promises from the campaign trail. I was wrong. The guy is a financial genius. The impact has been immediate and in fact he is correct in assessing this is just the beginning. He has revealed a whole new technique for economic policy. We can continue this sane/fair policy and recoup the damage done by previous administrations over the past 50 years for at least the next 15 years. He is in fact purposefully implementing his monetary policy slowly.

Why? Because you don't want it all flooding back in at once. This will only cause a dramatic overshoot and wasting of our precious capital. When banks are awash in capital they go looking for people to borrow. Inevitably the capital is loaned out to increasingly risky ventures. If the banks only have a little money interest rates are higher and only the soundest of borrowers are given loans. When banks have more cash than they can lend the interest rates drop to point where any venture no matter how impractical can get funding. This is very wasteful. Trump has wisely taken the position we need to slowly return the 30 years of economic theft, sustaining the expansion for many many more years. This influx in capital is what resulted in the inversion recently publicized. All recessions are proceeded by inversions, but not all inversions are followed by recession. Only 30% of inversions are followed by recession. What delineates between the two. The answer lies with whether the inversion is the result of an influx in foreign capital or a reduction in domestic capital investment and risk. Increases in GDP are also of paramount importance as inflation is staved off if consumer spending is on par with increases in GDP. This is precisely the situation we see today. GDP is increasing, foreign investment is pouring in, the debt to GDP ration is dropping or at least holding steady. Wages are up and unemployment is down. More important than the unemployment rate is the employment rate which is recovering from the disastrous years under Obama.

And by the way, Obama was an enormous spender. This alone exposes your bias.
 
Last edited:
Jay59 said:
Over $150 Billion/yr is to pay interest on the debt accumulated 2009-2016. One quarter of the deficit is just interest on Obama era debt.

You asked, so there is that.
Click to expand...

And Trump fixed it by doing what? Cutting his personal taxes?
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
And Trump fixed it by doing what? Cutting his personal taxes?
Click to expand...

Regurgitating talking points and spouting off what you believe to be witty quips about cutting taxes only for the rich doesn't change the reality. Whether you acknowledge it or not doesn't change the facts.

Taxes were cut across the board. The tax cuts were even weighted heavily towards the lower income side. As usual the Libs attempt to obfuscate the truth by looking at the theoretical total dollar amount and claiming "tax cuts for the rich". There is no way to cut taxes in any meaningful way PERIOD without reducing taxes for the wealthy. This is of course due to the fact the liberals have already managed to skew the scale so heavily towards the Rich. How would it even be possible to cut taxes by say a paltry 3% when 95% of of taxes are paid by the top 20% of wage earners. It is almost a mathematical impossibility. And the Libs go even farther by suggesting it isn't just the top 20% of wage earners who are rich. They consider anyone in the top 40-50% as "the rich". So please spare us the Left Wing rant, quit insulting our intelligence, and stop making yourself appear a disingenuous halfwit.
 
Last edited:
LibDave said:
Regurgitating talking points and spouting off what you believe to be witty quips about cutting taxes only for the rich doesn't change the reality. Whether you acknowledge it or not doesn't change the facts.

Taxes were cut across the board. The tax cuts were even weighted heavily towards the lower income side. As usual the Libs attempt to obfuscate the truth by looking at the theoretical total dollar amount and claiming "tax cuts for the rich". There is no way to cut taxes in any meaningful way PERIOD without reducing taxes for the wealthy. This is of course due to the fact the liberals have already managed to skew the scale so heavily towards the Rich. How would it even be possible to cut taxes by say a paltry 3% when 95% of of taxes are paid by the top 20% of wage earners. It is almost a mathematical impossibility. And the Libs go even farther by suggesting it isn't just the top 20% of wage earners who are rich. They consider anyone in the top 40-50% as "the rich". So please spare us the Left Wing rant, quit insulting our intelligence, and stop making yourself appear a disingenuous halfwit.
Click to expand...

Did you get the 10% tax cut Trump promised in September 2018?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom