As a Keynesian, the stimulus was exactly the right thing to do and the fact that the economy isn't in shambles right now proves it. The stimulus should have been larger in terms of investment in infrastructure and would have helped workers faster and at higher levels.
As a libertarian, a agree that the bank bailouts should not have happened. As an American/Nationalist the auto bailouts were the right move.
At the end of the day, you're right that we're not whole yet. But you can't deny we are on the right track.
Quote:But you can't deny we are on the right track.
You can, quite easily actually.
Quote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the trillion dollar war effort under bush not booked?
As for the economy under bush, it was a bubble that rightly popped. The outsourcing of america and the housing corruption was already taking it's toll by 2006. I remember it very clearly. It all came to a head, rightly so, under Bush, since it was his policies that caused it.
It's just nice to see the economy gaining speed for American Workers. I'm sure we're all happy that Americans are doing better under Obama.
That's false.
The housing bubble started back in the 90's when sub-prime lending started. It only accelerated in the 2000's even though the Bush Administration tried to stop it. Remember Barney Frank declaring that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were just fine?
Quote:As a Keynesian, the stimulus was exactly the right thing to do and the fact that the economy isn't in shambles right now proves it. The stimulus should have been larger in terms of investment in infrastructure and would have helped workers faster and at higher levels.
As a libertarian, a agree that the bank bailouts should not have happened. As an American/Nationalist the auto bailouts were the right move.
At the end of the day, you're right that we're not whole yet. But you can't deny we are on the right track.
Again wrong. Had those particular banks failed it would have taken not only the U.S. economy down, but also the world economy. The auto bailouts were wrong as was the failed "Cash for Clunkers" program.
Quote:That's false.
The housing bubble started back in the 90's when sub-prime lending started. It only accelerated in the 2000's even though the Bush Administration tried to stop it. Remember Barney Frank declaring that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were just fine?
Again wrong. Had those particular banks failed it would have taken not only the U.S. economy down, but also the world economy. The auto bailouts were wrong as was the failed "Cash for Clunkers" program.
Lol, you fell for that too big to fail mularky. I didn't.
And it must be nice to be an American employed by the government within our globalist war machine to sit on your high horse and tell us how hard working Americans in the auto industry don't need to have their jobs. Lets just let other countries have an auto industry. That's nonsense.
As for the sub prime crises, the increase in sub prime Lending happened under Bush. That's just a fact.
Quote:Lol, you fell for that too big to fail mularky. I didn't.
And it must be nice to be an American employed by the government within our globalist war machine to sit on your high horse and tell us how hard working Americans in the auto industry don't need to have their jobs. Lets just let other countries have an auto industry. That's nonsense.
As for the sub prime crises, the increase in sub prime Lending happened under Bush. That's just a fact.
Wrong again on many counts.
First of all, when Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail, there were three other banks that were in basically the same position. Other banks were basically forced to buy out two of the troubled banks (Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch) while another bank received some relief from the Fed (Goldman Sachs). Those banks held the vast majority of the nation's debt as well as a large majority of assets. Had they fell as well the stock market(s) would have basically collapsed not only here, but globally.
Second of all, I am not employed by the government. I happen to work for a contractor (Boeing) that is under contract with the government. Two different things. Just because the company that is employing me happens to be under contract doesn't make me any different than any of the other millions of hard working employees in other fields.
The auto industry got themselves in trouble mainly because of union demands. How did the bailout of Chevrolet and Chrysler work out for places like Detroit?
Even now domestic auto production is moving out of the country because of high costs mainly related to over-regulation and union demands.
Regarding the sub prime crisis, it started in the late 80's/early 90's. You are probably too young to remember, but back then there weren't a whole lot of "check cashing" and "payday loan" types of places. As rules eased up these lenders started springing up everywhere (and it's still happening). Banks were often "encouraged" (forced) to loan to people that couldn't afford the terms. The practice did accelerate during the early 2000's, but a democrat congress refused to do anything about it.
Like the good liberal that you are you want to blame Bush for the economy and the housing crisis, but the truth is very different.
LOL... a celebration of a one time event, after seven years of the country being driven downward under failed policy?
Quote:As for the sub prime crises, the increase in sub prime Lending happened under Bush. That's just a fact.
Since you didn't know, the legislation that caused it was penned by none other than Dodd and Frank. Indisputable fact.
That's the danger when government meddles in industry without having the required mastery of the subject. If we'd actually learned from that, the economy wouldn't have been held down by 0bamacare, either. More indisputable fact.
Quote:As a Keynesian, the stimulus was exactly the right thing to do and the fact that the economy isn't in shambles right now proves it. The stimulus should have been larger in terms of investment in infrastructure and would have helped workers faster and at higher levels.
As a libertarian, a agree that the bank bailouts should not have happened. As an American/Nationalist the auto bailouts were the right move.
At the end of the day, you're right that we're not whole yet. But you can't deny we are on the right track.
Truth is, after a larger initial hit, the rebound would have been much larger and all better off without them.
If the government would get out of the way, we would be growing stronger and faster. The "Keynesian" problem is a big one. Another bubble about to burst when the necessary corrections that have been kicked down the road must be made.
Quote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the trillion dollar war effort under bush not booked?
Here's a hint: the president isn't who declares war.
You can thank me later.
I don't recall any speaker of the house ever saying, "If you want to know about the war, you must go to war."
I'm sure you liberals haven't ever heard anything like that before.......
Quote:I don't recall any speaker of the house ever saying, "If you want to know about the war, you must go to war."
I'm sure you liberals haven't ever heard anything like that before.......
Isn't this what trump says all the time????
Quote:You are not a libertarian. You apparently don't even know what "libertarian" means. You are 100% a Marxist.
The auto bailouts were unnecessary. Those companies would have recovered under normal bankruptcy law without government intervention. And had the Feds stayed out of it, maybe Chrysler wouldn't now be owned by Fiat.
Yeah, maybe they wouldn't exist at all.
By the way I'm more of a libertarian than Donald Trump or David Duke.
But I appreciate the fact that you think you can diagnose what I identify with from way up there on your high horse.
LOL. I don't understand it. When liberals try to rewrite history, it always backfires on them, yet they continually do it. It is an interesting phenomena when a liberal tries to claim that they are other than liberal (libertarian).
Quote:LOL. I don't understand it. When liberals try to rewrite history, it always backfires on them, yet they continually do it. It is an interesting phenomena when a liberal tries to claim that they are other than liberal (libertarian).
There's a lot you don't understand, economic principles is definitely one them.
Thinking the sub prime crises was from the 90s confirmed it.
Quote:There's a lot you don't understand, economic principles is definitely one them.
Thinking the sub prime crises was from the 90s confirmed it.
So throughout the 1990's you were probably trying to either fondle "Mary rotten crotch" or "wrestling" with "Sebastian" while in high school correct?
You have no idea about how the economy has unfolded over the years before TARP and/or the ridiculous "auto company bailouts".
I happened to actually live through all of that as an adult. I personally can see in hindsight how democrat policies pretty much led to all of it. It's not just about who or which party occupies the White House, more importantly it's about which party is the majority in Congress.
I certainly understand economics and use my knowledge to my advantage. Here's a bit of a hint. The swings that the market has made just this week has netted me a nice little bit.
Quote:LOL. I don't understand it. When liberals try to rewrite history, it always backfires on them, yet they continually do it. It is an interesting phenomena when a liberal tries to claim that they are other than liberal (libertarian).
Is that like when a conservative tries to claim the Republicans have been consistently on the side of civil rights?
Quote:Is that like when a conservative tries to claim the Republicans have been consistently on the side of civil rights?
Don't bother. They are supporting a liberal in this election. If they think Trump is the conservative leader they worship, they've been bamboozled. The word " liberal" is thrown around all over the place, like it's an insult, yet they will vote for one. Oh, the irony.
Then...wait for...it's still better than her. Yet, he may very well be more liberal than Clinton.