Quote:Keeping the Iraq war off the books was all Bush.
Repealing banking regulations began under Clinton (he signed it, but it was pushed for by the gop run Congress) and was exacerbated under Bush. The sub prime crises was all on Bush....
And there went the last shred of your credibility...
Quote: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.
LOL! Which democratic policies, exactly from the 1990's lead to the sub prime crises? Tell us exactly. You know nothing of economics except what's fed to you.
Quote:And there went the last shred of your credibility...
You keep telling me this. Like this is the 5th or 6th time I've lost my last shred of credibility in your eyes... Do I keep earning the last shred back, and then say something you don't like that makes me lose my last shred of credibility again?
Quote:You may claim to be libertarian, but your posts about policy show your beliefs. Based on your posts you are a Marxist. At the very least you should accept the more accurate label. Stop trying to pretend you're something you're not.
Saying you're more libertarian than two statists is like saying you're more amphibious than a desert tortoise.
You may or may not be more of a libertarian than Trump. Who really knows what he actually believes? He changes his stance all the time.
I have no idea how libertarian David Duke is. Unlike you, I don't frequent his website, follow him on twitter, and/or subscribe to his E-mails.
First of all, I'm no Marxist. If I'm a Marxist, then we have been living in a Marxist society for almost a century now. As for your dig about David Duke, you're hilarious. But your childish insult belies the fact that you are voting for a man that David Duke thinks is championing his cause. Just something to wrap your steel trap of a mind around.
2nd of all. Define Libertarian...
Here's my policy positions - I'm against miltary interventionism. I think we need to get out of the middle east all together. I'm against all the military bases we have all over the world. I'm against the state controlling decisions I make in my own house when it comes to how I live my life and how I raise my family. I'm a Constitutionalist, which means I'm not opposed to 2nd Amendment rights. It's not my most important issue, but I'm not in favor of repealing it. I'm for fair markets that allow small businesses to thrive and I'm against chrony capitalism.
These are my policies. I'm pretty much right there with libertarians.
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.
never mind a basic contradiction in libertarianism and keynsian economics, the historical average of American recoveries from recession is roughly around 3% annual GDP growth. Obama is going to fall well short of that. He is going to be the first president in history never to achieve 3% economic growth. And this is with effectively 0% interest rates, the FHA handing out 7500 dollars to first time home buyers, trillions upon trillions of QE money being forced into the economy by the fed, etc.
Not to mention the fact, that the housing bubble was caused by Fannie Mae (government entity to systemically intervene in the housing market divorced form market forces) the CRA and the Clinton Treasury/justice department leaning on banks to make speculative loans.
Your basic assertion doesn't acknowledge the role of interventionism in the crash and doesn't acknowledge the patent objective failure of subsequent interventionism to provide meaningful economic growth! (even failing in its own stated goal of keeping unemployment below 8% at the time of its passage.) We are in the middle of the largest government expansion since the New deal, and just like the new Deal all the thousand page bills through congress to reimburse political allies with tax payer dollars couldn't put the economy back together again.
When you compare this recovery, with the Reagan recovery during the 80's and consider the fact that people had to pay 19% in some cases to buy a home with actual down payments etc. there is no comparison.
In any objective measure, the last 8 years has DISPROVEN keynsianism, interventionism, and to a certain degree monetarism as legitimate means to provide sustained economic growth in the economy.
Quote:Literally what?
![[Image: snap2.jpg]](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-24SxDeBMZQo/Vt5jv5LOUJI/AAAAAAAAJs8/segdV7zLaDU/s1600/snap2.jpg)
Food Stamps
The number of people receiving food stamps dropped again since our last report, by nearly 142,000. As of October, the most recent month on record, nearly 45.4 million Americans were still receiving the food aid, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
That’s 5.1 percent lower than the record level set in December 2012, but still nearly 42 percent higher than it was when Obama took office in 2009.
But as we noted when Republicans called Obama the “Food Stamp President,” 14.7 million people were added to the food-stamp rolls during George W. Bush’s time in office. By comparison, the net gain under Obama now stands at just under 13.4 million — and it’s slowly declining as the economy improves.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/obamas-numbers-january-2016-update/'>http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/obamas-numbers-january-2016-update/</a>
Quote:As for the sub prime crises, the increase in sub prime Lending happened under Bush. That's just a fact.
Quote:LOL! Which democratic policies, exactly from the 1990's lead to the sub prime crises? Tell us exactly. You know nothing of economics except what's fed to you.
Since you are university
indoctrinated educated you should have no problems with
this paper from San Jose University Department of Economics. It explains it pretty accurately.
The whole paper is worth a read, but here are a couple of relevant excerpts.
Quote:In the 1990's under the administration of Franklin Raines, a Clinton Administration appointee, Fannie Mae began to demand that the lending institutions that it dealt with prove that they were not redlining. This meant that the lending institutions would have to fulfill a quota of minority mortgage lending. This in turn meant that the lending agencies would have to lower their standards in terms of such things as down payments and the required incomes. These subprime borrowers would be charged a higher interest rate. Having put the lending agencies into the position of granting subprime mortgages Fannie Mae then had to accept lower standards in the mortgages it purchased. That set the ball rolling. If a bank granted a mortgage to a borrower that was not likely to successfully pay off the mortgage then all the bank had to do was to sell such mortgages to Fannie Mae. The banks typically earned a loan origination fee when the mortgage was granted. The lending agencies could then make substantial profits dealing in subprime mortgages.
Quote:It was in the late 1990's, as shown below, under the urging of the Clinton Administration
that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began to operate as social welfare agencies instead of financial institutions. The insurance premiums on subprime mortgages were too low for the risks involved. No rational buyer would have purchased those subprime mortgages except at a drastic discount; Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac did purchase them. No amount of securitization could alleviate the fact that the subprime mortgages were not good investments. The practice of securitization and the credibility of Fanny Mae allowed the bad investments of the U.S. subprime mortgages to be spread throughout the world.
So your "increase in sub-prime lending happening under Bush" comment is pretty much false.
Quote:
Since you are university indoctrinated educated you should have no problems with this paper from San Jose University Department of Economics. It explains it pretty accurately.
The whole paper is worth a read, but here are a couple of relevant excerpts.
So your "increase in sub-prime lending happening under Bush" comment is pretty much false.
Why am I not surprised that you copied and pasted the parts that make your argument, and delete the parts that shoot down your argument? No wonder you couldn't hack it at a University. You'd fail all your classes with the way you do research.
As I said, the sub-prime crises happened under Bush for a reason. Just because sub-prime lending began under Clinton, doesn't mean that Clinton is responsible for it. There are plenty of programs that are dangerous if not regulated properly...
It was not sub-prime lending that caused the crises - it was the deregulation of how banks supplied these loans and how they were able to handle and repackage these loans that caused the crises!! The deregulation occurred under Bush.
But you know that. You just decided to delete out this key factor in order to make your INCORRECT point. I'm on to you, JIB. After you did this same thing to one of my quotes, it became apparent. You provide half truths or facts that are misleading, or just plain leave out key facts to make your points.
It's intellectually dishonest. But, par for the course.
Best........ TA
Quote:Let me add, you sure know a lot about David Duke. How do you know that David Duke believes Trump is championing he cause unless you read stuff that David Duke has written?
As far as libertarian, it means opposition to government control of personal lives and businesses. You are a big supported of the income tax, and using it to redistribute wealth. You support ending free speech with your opposition to Citizens United, which was a conglomerate of individuals combining their wealth to make a political statement. If people aren't free to make political statements, then there is no freedom of speech. You are a big supporter of government regulations, and not just common-sense safety regulations.
Libertarians and Leftists agree on some policies. Accepting the libertarian policies that agree with your Leftist agenda while disagreeing with those that don't makes you a Leftist, not a libertarian.
Thank you for the clarification about the Duke thing. I'm just repeating back what I've read on the internet from reports... I don't follow Duke on any social media. I've read on CNN.com, NYTimes.com, and also on TV about Dukes words. I'm assuming that these news outlets are telling me the truth about what Duke is saying.
As for your analysis of my political views and how they line up with "leftist" politics and not Libertarian policies and principles... Well, I guess you have some merit in these arguments.
But I wonder... If we agree on so many positions, why not open up the libertarian tent to allow more people in? You guys are gonna stay on the fringes if you try to pick and choose the way you are. I think there are alot of places I'm willing to bend on in terms of economic policies.
Your qualifier on regulations is also interesting to me. I agree that public safety regulations are a no brainer. But would you not see regulations that ensure the economic safety of workers and small businesses just as important?
Again, you're gonna stay on the fringes if you never actually start moving your libertarian views closer to being pro-american instead of being completely anti-government. Just my thoughts.
I think I strattle the fence between being a "lefty" and being a "libertarian". Which means, I'm gonna continue to identify myself as such.
Quote:Thank you for the clarification about the Duke thing. I'm just repeating back what I've read on the internet from reports... I don't follow Duke on any social media. I've read on CNN.com, NYTimes.com, and also on TV about Dukes words. I'm assuming that these news outlets are telling me the truth about what Duke is saying.
As for your analysis of my political views and how they line up with "leftist" politics and not Libertarian policies and principles... Well, I guess you have some merit in these arguments.
But I wonder... If we agree on so many positions, why not open up the libertarian tent to allow more people in? You guys are gonna stay on the fringes if you try to pick and choose the way you are. I think there are alot of places I'm willing to bend on in terms of economic policies.
Your qualifier on regulations is also interesting to me. I agree that public safety regulations are a no brainer. But would you not see regulations that ensure the economic safety of workers and small businesses just as important?
Again, you're gonna stay on the fringes if you never actually start moving your libertarian views closer to being pro-american instead of being completely anti-government. Just my thoughts.
I think I strattle the fence between being a "lefty" and being a "libertarian". Which means, I'm gonna continue to identify myself as such.
Sorry bro, you're completely in the Leftist pasture. You can tell by the quality of the manure you shovel.
Quote:Why am I not surprised that you copied and pasted the parts that make your argument, and delete the parts that shoot down your argument? No wonder you couldn't hack it at a University. You'd fail all your classes with the way you do research.
As I said, the sub-prime crises happened under Bush for a reason. Just because sub-prime lending began under Clinton, doesn't mean that Clinton is responsible for it. There are plenty of programs that are dangerous if not regulated properly...
It was not sub-prime lending that caused the crises - it was the deregulation of how banks supplied these loans and how they were able to handle and repackage these loans that caused the crises!! The deregulation occurred under Bush.
But you know that. You just decided to delete out this key factor in order to make your INCORRECT point. I'm on to you, JIB. After you did this same thing to one of my quotes, it became apparent. You provide half truths or facts that are misleading, or just plain leave out key facts to make your points.
It's intellectually dishonest. But, par for the course.
Best........ TA
So what you are saying is that you didn't even bother reading the paper that I posted a link to. You are upset because I quoted a couple of excerpts from the paper and answered your question "Which democratic policies, exactly from the 1990's lead to the sub prime crises?". I would think that a free thinker like you being university
indoctrinated educated and all could figure that out.
Regarding the part in bold, yes it was. Under pressure from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, banks were forced to issue loans that were bad. They in turn sold those loans (mortgages) to Fannie and Freddy as a direct result of pressure from the Clinton Administration.
What that created was so-called "mortgage institutions" that got in on the business (think Countrywide Home Loans). All they had to do was write the mortgage, then sell it off to Fannie or Freddie. It didn't matter that the borrower didn't have a good credit history. It didn't matter that the borrower couldn't put any money down. The borrower's income wasn't even a factor because it was all backed by the government.
Where it got worse was when banks started buying the mortgages and packaging up a bunch of them and selling them as securities. That had nothing to do with deregulation. It was considered a "safe" investment because the mortgages were backed by Fannie and Freddy. These securities were bought and sold on the stock market just like a regular stock or bond.
There were a couple of huge flaws in this program. First, home prices were going up artificially because of the numbers of mortgages. Second, many of the "no money down" loans were made with a variable interest rate. Eventually, when interest rates were adjusted many people started defaulting on these loans.
There is a whole lot more to the story, but you are very much wrong.
Please show where deregulation of banks under President Bush caused the crisis. That's simply not the case.
Quote:LOL... a celebration of a one time event, after seven years of the country being driven downward under failed policy?
Yay! It only took 7+ years. What amazing progress and wonderful times under Obama.
I know Im tarty to the party but the sub primes themselves were a good idea. The problem was when they were sold as something they weren't. I fully agree in the principle that home ownership is good for the country and doubly so for the lower middle class. That said those securities were not properly rated by our watch dogs. People didn't understand what they were buying (which the oracle says you should never do) and trusted the AAA ratings.