Love this article on trickle down economics (Reagonomics)

How naive/uniformed you must be to think you can pinpoint the perpetrator or the exact cause of this. Its a snowball effect.

 

FYI People are only democrat or republican when it serves them. Nobody grows up thinking like this. This is just how you are brainwashed growing up. You think you have it all figured out but to really understand it you must realize that you cant figure it out. Some things are too complex. 

How naive/uniformed you must be to think you can pinpoint the perpetrator or the exact cause of this



It isn't complicated.

I just love how you didn't really engage the issue. Want to guess why that is?

Its a snowball effect.

Yes, a snowball effect of 20+ years of Barney Frank writing federal housing policy.

A snowball effect of Democrats, through Fannie & Freddie, encouraging "affordable housing" to people who couldn't afford a house.

Who did that work out?

Didn't say it was high, only that it rose to that after being only 4.2% when he took office & this was BEFORE the actual subprime meltdown. After it rose to 7.8 by the time he left so while it's near impossible to draw exact correlations between tax & unemployment rates (because of the other relevant factors involved), there is no evidence whatsoever that the tax cuts did anything in terms of job creation. Taking it as a whole, unemployment rose from 4.2% to 7.8% during the Bush admin yrs while he had the benefit of a record budget surplus & the housing bubble & then also the subsequent meltdown whereas it's gone up 1.4% under Obama who took the brunt of the fallout. 

Obama also inherited a record deficit & the worst recession since the great depression with 2 wars & no real industrial/job base to speak of. Yes, Bush's record is very distinctive:

Ran up a record deficit with the help of a false flag war cusing 100's of thousands needless deaths

Worst job creation in history while cutting taxes 3 times while more jobs than ever went overseas

Left the worst recession & record deficit with 2 screwed up wars to his predecessor

What does Reid & Pelosi being sworn in had to do with a discussion of the possible correlation between tax cuts & the unemployment rate? Tax cuts were in place & stayed the same. And the only think I originally responded to that you said WAS wrong. Bush came in with 4.2% unemployment & after 3 tax cuts but before the actual meltdown took place, it was at a 14yr high of 6.5%.

Unbiased overall gander at his economic policy/record & some different points of view from others:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W_Bush_administration

"successor" not predecessor. Busy mornin & need a couple beisbol winners 

Taking it as a whole, unemployment rose from 4.2% to 7.8% during the Bush admin yrs

Uh, that would be false. The unemployment rate was 4.7% and climbing when Bush took office.

Ran up a record deficit with the help of a false flag war cusing 100's of thousands needless deaths

Er, the deficit was $165 billion when Nancy & Harry took over.

Or is this the part when you ask what they had to do with increased spending?

Left the worst recession & record deficit with 2 screwed up wars to his predecessor

Actually, it was a mild recession and the deficit is entirely the fault of the Democrats.

after 3 tax cuts but before the actual meltdown took place, it was at a 14yr high of 6.5%.

Again, false.

Before the recession began, there were 6 million jobs created under Bush.

Then Harry & Nancy took over and the increased spending and calls for more regulation began.

 

Well, I looked at a few sources & they varied from 4.2% to 4.7%. I went with wikipedia because they generally are accurate with their numbers. See my link doesn't come up - if interested, yo can just punch in "Unemployment rates under Bush" & look for yourself. In any case, your original statement that you repeated was absolutely wrong not to mention you never give any perspective or your own thinking other than Repubs, good - Obama/Dems bad

Again, trying to put all the political blame on the dems. Very sad, you only sound like a Rush or Hannity puppet. FYI, the Bush admin was just as stridently in support of Freddie/Fannie & affordable housing as was Clinton & the dems. Difference being that the economy was booming when Clinton signed off & he had no way of knowing of the unethical leveraging/bust that would come to pass whereas there were already credible rumblings of impending probs during the Bush yrs (when the repubs controlled congress 6 of the 8 yrs) & they did nothing about it.

Sorry, should clarify. The "signing off" by Clinton referred to the repeal of Glass/Steagal that was brought by republicans & led by Phil Gramm from TX.

I went with wikipedia because they generally are accurate with their numbers

False.

Wikipedia isn't an objective source of information.

In any case, your original statement that you repeated was absolutely wrong

Except for the fact you can't prove me wrong.

Clarify for me, just so we are clear, you are under the assumption that from day one a new political leader "takes over" that the following results are 100% their responsibility?

Um, considering they amended the FY '07 budget to add more spending, yes, yes it is.

there is absolutely zero way you can either prove this or draw a conclusion like that.

The subprime mortgage meltdown and associated recession are the fault of the Democrats. Mainly because a) they got us into the subprime mess and b) I've already provided valid information to that fact.

Now you can go on pretending it didn't happen, but that says a heck of a bit more about you than it does me.

Again, a "mild recession" is your definition.

Considering the unemployment rate went from 6.5% to 7.2%, I would say that is accurate.

Of course then Barry went wild with "stimulus" and "bailouts" which made things worse.

I guess you have some solid historical proof to back up this absurd comment right?

You mean other than the fact that after the auto bailouts (which scared investors away from bonds) and the stimulus, things got worse? You mean other than those facts?

FYI, the Bush admin was just as stridently in support of Freddie/Fannie & affordable housing as was Clinton & the dems.

FYI: that is the 4th out & out fabrication you've posted.

Fact:
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

...

'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

-------------

Now is this the part where you ignore the facts or reply that I'm wrong?

when the repubs controlled congress 6 of the 8 yrs)

FYI: this is the 5th out & out fabrication you've posted.

Tom Daschle was the Senate Majority Leader from June 2001-January 2003.

He is a Democrat.

Democrats controlled the Senate during that time.

Again, trying to put all the political blame on the dems

It isn't "political blame" to point out that it is their fault

You can't accept this, so you go on pretending the issue is "bi-partisan" when it was not.

 (The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."  (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)


Are you deliberately lying?

 

By EVERY source, be it from a low of 4.2% to a high of 4.7% when he took office which you cited, your statements were false & also wrong even before the meltdown occurred. Are they all wrong? Try again -

14daroad..blames the Dems for this..see his moronic post above..yet the GOP and BU$HCO gave us two UNFUNDED wars and an UNFUNDED prescription drug plan for seniors with no ability to negotiate drug prices! They ALSO gave us the tax breaks for companies sending American jobs overseas! while we cannot stop that..why give the corps. a tax break for fukking the American workers?? 14daroad is a stooge for the Corps and the GOP..whose mantra remains.."Party and Profits over Country!"! What we have is Trickle-UP economics-and the middle class gets squeezed even more--and they get poorer,too!

14,

Yes, the repubs did control Congress from '01 to '07 which is all I said. What kind of a childish partisan flake are you? 

If you think that an 07 amendment to a budget is the end and only blame for where we currently sit

I was talking specifically about the deficit. Bush did not "hand" Obama any "large deficit"

Obama was in Congress.

Obama supported higher spending

The Democrats controlled Congress when Obama took office.

Yes, the repubs did control Congress from '01 to '07 which is all I said.

How did they "control Congress from '01 to '07" when the Democrats controlled the Senate from June 2001 to January 2003?

Oh, they didn't.

Yet you keep lying.

BTW...subprime had little if anything to do with the government,

Actually, it had a lot to do with the government since Fannie & Freddie started buying them.

Note: In 1995, President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans.