- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,380
- Reaction score
- 10,655
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Really, how did I respond in your name?See, you're "talking" to yourself again...
Really, how did I respond in your name?See, you're "talking" to yourself again...
Ok, I made a mistake.
It was S.190 and I was refering to the bill not getting a vote in the Senate, plus it was a Senate Comittee.
HR1461 was watered down for the House Comittee's Democrats and actually added in up to 700,000 dollar jumbo loans AND it created a Slush fund AND it put off the transition for a new regulatory controller to take the reins away from HUD for a year.
Good reason for it being voted down.
Never the less S.190 was not allowed a vote because of Democrats threats of Fillibuster.
Excellent post! I especially enjoyed the analogies you used! :thumbs:
IMO, the doctor shortage is going to be a real problem very soon, considering the fact that baby boomers are retiring at a rate of 10,000 a day, straining an already fragile system!
Really, how did I respond in your name?
Pre-sacktly. Imagine how many young people today would be willing to invest hundreds of thousands in education expenses towards a medical career that the government will control. Here in California, there have been recent articles indicating the Doctor compensation for a patient visit will be $12. Imagine. Unless a doctor sees about 50 patients an hour, there is no chance to pay for all the debt, office expense, insurance, staff, etc. and survive.
Not to worry they say, a Physicians Assistant will be calling those shots. Sorry, that may be fine, but that's not the same.
Odd that the same people who are in agreement with $12 an hour for a doctor visit are the same ones screaming for $12 an hour for a Wal-Mart employee. Maybe Wal-Mart personnel can be forced to help 50 people an hour, just to keep things fair? Only in America.... :argue:
Is this your attempt to show that 81 was worse than 08...again? It was worse because of my misunderstanding of leadership?And you continue to lack a basic understanding of leadership apparently believing that the 81-82 recession ended on its own without leadership.
That is correct, IN RELATION TO TAX CUTS.Once again, maybe you think people won't read what you post. This comes from the article:
"A temporary increase in food stamps has the biggest stimulative effect"
Yes, I did, that doesn't negate the fact that the article was a comparison of tax cuts to stimulus.And you also wrote out that SNAP was stimulus.
There is no backtracking, you misunderstand what the article is about.So I don't understand the backtracking at this point.
You sure spend a lot of time on things that don't matter to you.But it doesn't matter to me.
Um, Bush was in for 8 years.What matters to me my countries economic health. We had two years worth of complete loony tune leadership that set the stage for a bigger disaster than the great depression. At least the major bleeding was stopped after that.
Is this some twins secret language?Have you considered sending the stress blurb to the White House?
Is this your attempt to show that 81 was worse than 08...again? It was worse because of my misunderstanding of leadership?
Does this come form that same fountain of knowledge you mentioned before....the "actual data not reported data"?
The funny thing is, you subsequently use wiki, which if I am not mistaken uses reported data.
That is correct, IN RELATION TO TAX CUTS.
Yes, I did, that doesn't negate the fact that the article was a comparison of tax cuts to stimulus.
There is no backtracking, you misunderstand what the article is about.
You sure spend a lot of time on things that don't matter to you. Um, Bush was in for 8 years.
Is this some twins secret language?
I have already told you today, that in 81 they lasted for a short period of time since they were driven by oil prices. I experienced it, I studied it. I am still waiting for you to say what "actual data" instead of "reported data" you are relying on. I know you are talking about your own experience, but I see every day you forget everything from the last time we debated, so I don't know why you would depend on your memory.What do the textbooks tell you about high inflation, high unemployment and slow economic growth?
News flash: More than half own a home, for most it is their primary asset, which lost value, which added to depressed demand. I experienced it, I studied it.Are you telling me that more than half the country owns a home?
Again, you loop back to this mysterious "info" you are privy to. Spell it out, Con.What is it about people like you who only buy information that you want to believe?
Sorry, what difference does it make if I was working part time and going to college? Again, I don't base how bad each recession was just on personal experience, it is also based on study.I already know you weren't working in 81-82 in a full time job and my bet is you didn't owe a home yet for some reason you want to believe this recession was worse.
Trust me, our experience in this recession was far worse, but again, my understanding of these recessions goes beyond personal experience.Tell me how this recession hurt you and your family and I will give you horror stories, not that you care, about the 81-82 recession.
I'm right here, Con.Keep running from reality for that is all you do.
Well I guess if most find that I am wrong then I lose credibility, but nearly all that know a lot more than I do about recessions agree that this is far worse. All of the data bears this out.Are there ever any consequences for you being wrong?
There it is again.....this "actual data"....very mysterious!Actual data never puts a face or behavior to the data and simply ignores human behavior and the effects of negative conditions on that behavior.
And they did in '81? I have no idea what this cryptic message means.People in this recession didn't get that new pair of Air Jordan's or into that concert they wanted.
Where did I say that, Mr Straw?Since tax cuts don't matter in your world ...
Gimmesometruth;1062045556]I have already told you today, that in 81 they lasted for a short period of time since they were driven by oil prices. I experienced it, I studied it. I am still waiting for you to say what "actual data" instead of "reported data" you are relying on. I know you are talking about your own experience, but I see every day you forget everything from the last time we debated, so I don't know why you would depend on your memory.
.News flash: More than half own a home, for most it is their primary asset, which lost value, which added to depressed demand. I experienced it, I studied it
Again, you loop back to this mysterious "info" you are privy to. Spell it out, Con.
Sorry, what difference does it make if I was working part time and going to college? Again, I don't base how bad each recession was just on personal experience, it is also based on study.
If it was worse for you, so be it....but not everyone shared your experience.
Trust me, our experience in this recession was far worse, but again, my understanding of these recessions goes beyond personal experience.
Well I guess if most find that I am wrong then I lose credibility, but nearly all that know a lot more than I do about recessions agree that this is far worse. All of the data bears this out.
There it is again.....this "actual data"....very mysterious!
And they did in '81? I have no idea what this cryptic message means.
Where did I say that, Mr Straw?
This was where you were supposed to show that I said "tax cuts don't matter".obviously isn't as important
That's total bull**** as well:
Republicans love say Barney Franks and other Democrats kill the attempt to fix Fannie and Freddie by stopping The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 from coming out of committee. The bill went to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in 2005. At the time, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs was controlled by the GOP. Richard Shelby (Alabama R) was the chairman and Paul S. Sarbanes was the ranking member. At that time the GOP had a two person majority over the Democrats. The Democrats publicly criticized the bill but it would have been impossible for them to kill it.
Additional Details
S. 190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
Introduced Jan 26, 2005
Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Reported by Committee Jul 28, 2005
Senate Vote (did not occur)
House Vote (did not occur)
Signed by President (did not occur)
How did Democrats stop the bill to reform Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac when Republicans had the majority? - Yahoo! Answers
No Bull Sh** is a liberal using Yahoo as a reference.
S. 190 passed through the Senate Commitee on party lines with a 11-9 vote but the Democrats threatened Fillibuster so it never got a vote.
Hr1460 was loaded with things like a slush fund and put off new regulatory action for a year so it was useless anyway.
Please, if your confused just say so. Barney Franks personal influence in the Sub-Prime Collapse is easily documented.
But I figure youv'e been embarassed enough already.
What is quite telling is how Obama
supporters want to blame the economic results today on programs from 2003-2007 while ignoring that Obama has been in office for over 4 years and could have made any changes he wanted the first two years of his term. He refused to do so and the results today are totally and completely his. Obamabots believe you can delegate responsibility and that is one of the biggest failures of any so called leader.
No Bull Sh** is a liberal using Yahoo as a reference.
S. 190 passed through the Senate Commitee on party lines with a 11-9 vote but the Democrats threatened Fillibuster so it never got a vote.
Hr1460 was loaded with things like a slush fund and put off new regulatory action for a year so it was useless anyway.
Please, if your confused just say so. Barney Franks personal influence in the Sub-Prime Collapse is easily documented.
But I figure youv'e been embarassed enough already.
Yea I know, its why they fight so vehemently when the Sub-Prime debate comes up.
I've got loads of data on the Sub-Prime Collapee and if you want I can send you what I have through a PM.
Anyway, first, something that systemic, that historically destructive HAS to come from a President like Bush, even though it's well documented that Bush was trying to head the whole thing off.
For his entire Presidency he tried to impliment reform on Fannie and Freddie who were 1) out of control and 2) run by Corrupt Democrats.
So when you take that away from them, when you reveal to them that at the heart of the biggest scam in the ever loving world were DEMOCRATS, they no longer have that pathetic excuse, that blame nearly 5 years into a Presidency.
If there was no vote, then chalk that one up to Republican stupidity.
That's a different situation, the Republican's had control of the Senate, yet the leadership never brought S.190 to the floor, that's stupidity. I have no idea what or why Reid is not bringing them to the floor.There was no vote on House bills passed that are sitting in Harry Reid's desk, is that Democrat stupidity?
That is correct, IN RELATION TO TAX CUTS.
Yes, I did, that doesn't negate the fact that the article was a comparison of tax cuts to stimulus.
There is no backtracking, you misunderstand what the article is about.
You sure spend a lot of time on things that don't matter to you. Um, Bush was in for 8 years.
Is this some twins secret language?
No doubt some economists side with SUPPLY SIDE tax cuts.....and that was part of this Administrations policy.....but the funny thing is.....you finally got it......the article WAS A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TAX CUTS AND BENEFITS AS STIMULUS.This is getting a little bizarre but it's all in fun.
It would be down right criminal as lousy as our economy is in, for our elected leaders not to have every American citizen, every illegal alien, every tourist and anybody else that happen to be within our borders, not on food stamps if they were a stimulus. At the end of the day, no matter how it's figured out long term, food stamps are a drag on the economy. And if they were worth a hoot as short term stimulus, the inflationary pressure alone they would put on the price on food would more than wipe out any gains.
Back to the article, tax cuts and so forth. I'll side with this part of the article way before I'll side with some nonsense on how food stamps are better stimulus than tax cuts:
"Finally, economic researchers Andrew Mountford from the University of London and Harald Uhlig from the University of Chicago wrote in a July 2005 paper that "the best fiscal policy to stimulate the economy is a deficit-financed tax cut."
It's all in the article you posted. I completely understand what the article was about and did from the start. What I don't know is if you bothered to read all of it before posting it for all to read. Just as a reminder, Bush hasn't been the President for going on 5 years now. It's all on Obama. And it ain't good.
That's a different situation, the Republican's had control of the Senate, yet the leadership never brought S.190 to the floor, that's stupidity. I have no idea what or why Reid is not bringing them to the floor.
No doubt some economists side with SUPPLY SIDE tax cuts.....and that was part of this Administrations policy.....but the funny thing is.....you finally got it......the article WAS A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TAX CUTS AND BENEFITS AS STIMULUS.
FFS...how many posts did it take for you to comprehend this basic, first fact? It took what, 2 days?
Geez.