When Madmen Reign

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Lemon law
We are addicted to Voodoo economics and will vote for anyone who promises to provide a $1.00 of government service for only 75 cents in taxes.

You mean like Obama, who promises to cut taxes for 95% of Americans while offering all kinds of new government spending?

No, because Obama has 'paid' for his plan with ending tax cuts and loopholes for some corporations and the top 2% of taxpayers - and taken the political heat for it.

His paid-for program has allowed McCain to constantly call him a 'tax raiser', which ha a political price however dishonest it is for McCain not to give the context.

The tax gap exploded from $127 billion in 1992 to $350 billion in 2001. Health care programs in Massachusetts have come in billions of dollars over budget.

Funny how 'tax the rich' never works out quite as well as some claim.

You're ignorant. The right wing predicted - to a man and woman - doom for our economy if Clinton's 1993 tax increase passed. The opposite of what they predicted happened.

What they failed to understand, or rather, predict, was the tech-driven economic boom and the Fed-created bubble that started to bust just before Clinton left office.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Pelosi has been charge for 6 months. What did she do about it? Did she start and investigation of the housing industry or did she protect it? Isnt she from California and is not California a big part of the problem? I guess she is a rich business woman who does not care about the poor.

A year and a half, not 6 months.

What is really sad is that this crisis is happening so close to the election that the people who are really at fault won't be known 100% until after the election.

I suspect that after all the hearings are done and the books are written it will be decided that we should have done something about this problem back in 2004 when it was brought before congress.

 

[ProfJohn]

BTW Reagan LEFT office 20 years ago!!!!!!

20 years!!!!! Half the people in college today were not even born when he left office.

Anyone under 28 was not even alive when Reagan took office.

We have had 3 different Presidents since he left office.
12 years or Republican congress and 8 years of Democrats.

We have had at least 6 or 7 MAJOR tax increases or decreases since Reagan left office.
We balanced the budget!!! And then turned around and unbalanced it.

So much has happened in the past 20 years that trying to blame Reagan for our current economic problems is asinine.

Also, the idea that this was caused by deregulations is 100% BS. The banking industry is HIGHLY regulated and always has been.

 

[Vic]

Even though the OP used my name, I would like to say that my thread was actually a complaint about exactly the kind of blame-game tactic he is using here in his thread.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Lemon law
We are addicted to Voodoo economics and will vote for anyone who promises to provide a $1.00 of government service for only 75 cents in taxes.

You mean like Obama, who promises to cut taxes for 95% of Americans while offering all kinds of new government spending?

i thought those 95% didn't pay any taxes in the first place


btw if mccain wants my vote, he can offer to raise my taxes, i would vote for him then

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Lemon law
We are addicted to Voodoo economics and will vote for anyone who promises to provide a $1.00 of government service for only 75 cents in taxes.

You mean like Obama, who promises to cut taxes for 95% of Americans while offering all kinds of new government spending?

No, because Obama has 'paid' for his plan with ending tax cuts and loopholes for some corporations and the top 2% of taxpayers - and taken the political heat for it.

His paid-for program has allowed McCain to constantly call him a 'tax raiser', which ha a political price however dishonest it is for McCain not to give the context.

And Reagan 'paid' for his tax cuts with spending cuts... of course those cuts never happened. Why do I get the feeling that we will the same thing with Obama?

Also, isn't it strange that Bush 43 is the only recent President to keep his tax promise?

Bush 41 raised taxes after promising not to raise them.
Clinton raised taxes after promising a middle class tax cut.

Obama... there is NO way he can follow any of his plans unless he makes them MUCH smaller or he raises taxes. With the economy on the down swing there will be NO money. Hell he can raise corporate taxes 100% and still get nothing because the corps won't be making any money the next year or two.

didn't reagan pay for his tax cuts by raising them 2 years later?

 

[ProfJohn]

Not sure you can say that Reagan 'paid' for them via the tax increase.

But if you look at the numbers in terms of GDP or constant dollars you will see that the deficit for his last year in office was just a little bit bigger than his first year in office.

 

[sactoking]

As far as I'm concerned, 'Reaganomics' was a success. Reganomics > Jimmy Carter stagflation

The economy may be broken now, but that has to be the failure of GHWB, Clinton, and GWB along with their respective Congresses. Regan had one primary goal, economically, and that was to erase the damage that Carter and Paul Voelker caused the country, which he accomplished.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sactoking
As far as I'm concerned, 'Reaganomics' was a success. Reganomics > Jimmy Carter stagflation

The economy may be broken now, but that has to be the failure of GHWB, Clinton, and GWB along with their respective Congresses. Regan had one primary goal, economically, and that was to erase the damage that Carter and Paul Voelker caused the country, which he accomplished.

That's because you're ignorant about Ragan's economics. If you weren't, you would understand how much credit goes to the policies reflected by the appointment of Paul Volcker, the Fed Chief under Reagan who put in place the actual measures to get inflation under control - who was appointed by Jimmy Carter; you would understand how much of Reagan's gains were paid for by terrible deficit borrowing and other issues.

You say that Ronald Reagan had one primary goal including undoing the damage from Paul Volcker, who was appointed by Carter - but in fact, Reagan re-appointed Volcker.

Volcker is widely credited by both political sides with getting inflation under control.

Your opinions reflect no solid basis in any facts, only a political partisanship.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW Reagan LEFT office 20 years ago!!!!!!

20 years!!!!! Half the people in college today were not even born when he left office.

Anyone under 28 was not even alive when Reagan took office.

Those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

We have had 3 different Presidents since he left office.
12 years or Republican congress and 8 years of Democrats.

Not this BS *again* ad nauseum. We've had only Republican presidents and a corporatist Democrat, and that's the relevant thing for the overall direction.

We have had at least 6 or 7 MAJOR tax increases or decreases since Reagan left office.
We balanced the budget!!! And then turned around and unbalanced it.

So much has happened in the past 20 years that trying to blame Reagan for our current economic problems is asinine.

No, it's not. Reagan had a lasting impact, he was the cause of a political shift. For several decades before Reagan the top tax rate, for example, was 70% or higher - it's been half of that or less since, just as an anecdote, but his overall anti-government ideology has had great, lasting, damaging impact on the nation. Right-wing kooks used to be fring to the political system, now they dominate the Republican party and are a main faction. Reagan's putting the nation on the course of huge deficits has continued to this day.

Also, the idea that this was caused by deregulations is 100% BS. The banking industry is HIGHLY regulated and always has been.

Sorry, you have to be 3' tall to ride the ride. If you can't learn the *basics* of the issue of deregulation before you mouth this stuff, you're wasting our time.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

This disaster was brought to you via big government, and both the Republicans and Democrats have a lot of blame to share.

Those people who really do support free market economics predicted this mess and even tried to prevent it.

Point blank; you are utterly clueless and everyone here knows it.

 

[StageLeft]

How dare you? Reagan is second only to Christ, his name revered among all in this country who are at their essence American. He had no faults. Whispering his name brings glory and you dare defile it? Damn you, you are beyond redemption!

Sarcasm aside, there is blame to go around, but we've seen this crisis really peak under Bush, not under Clinton because of some 1999 law that he helped push. The Republicans have done what they do best which is increase government spending and blow up the deficit. Like drunks they ran up a tab and what drunk doesn't like a friend to drink with? So they watched us run ours up, too. Then we could all share in the hangover, from a bad personal mortgage all the way up to mind boggling deficits.

I've a mild fear the repubs will win in November but it's only minimal. I have more of a fear that Obama will win, will do half decently, and yet the self-defeating republican spin machine will have the repubs come in 4 or 8 years from now rewrapped but the same gift, essentially lipstick on a pig, and we'll go through this again.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: sactoking
As far as I'm concerned, 'Reaganomics' was a success. Reganomics > Jimmy Carter stagflation

The economy may be broken now, but that has to be the failure of GHWB, Clinton, and GWB along with their respective Congresses. Regan had one primary goal, economically, and that was to erase the damage that Carter and Paul Voelker caused the country, which he accomplished.

That's because you're ignorant about Ragan's economics. If you weren't, you would understand how much credit goes to the policies reflected by the appointment of Paul Volcker, the Fed Chief under Reagan who put in place the actual measures to get inflation under control - who was appointed by Jimmy Carter; you would understand how much of Reagan's gains were paid for by terrible deficit borrowing and other issues.

You say that Ronald Reagan had one primary goal including undoing the damage from Paul Volcker, who was appointed by Carter - but in fact, Reagan re-appointed Volcker.

Volcker is widely credited by both political sides with getting inflation under control.

Your opinions reflect no solid basis in any facts, only a political partisanship.

I was about to make the same post about Volcker. Funny how everyone conveniently forgets that Volcker's policies were started under Carter and continued under Reagan. And when the benefits finally started appearing, under Reagan, Voila! - Reaganomics is wonderful!.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
-snip-
Bolded are what I thought were the most important parts. Agreeing largely with the article I don't have much more to say, other than to make a few points to ward off those wanting to deflect blame from this failed ideology. No, I'm not trying to say that Reaganomics or its adherents in policy positions are solely the cause for the present problems in the economy.

Obviously they didn't force those on Wall Street and elsewhere engaging in greedy and stupid policies, not did they force those who clearly could not afford what they were buying to do so. But the facts of the matter are that, during and since the years of the Reagan administration, these small government, anti-regulation, free-market zealots have steadily eroded the federal government's capacity to carry out its regulatory role in the economy to prevent such stupidity and greed. And at the same time, they have put into place policies that have steadily increased inequality in America while creating huge budget deficits by embarking on insanely costly ventures like the Iraq war while adamantly refusing to raise taxes to cover it (instead, just the opposite).

[Golf clap] Way to be stupid, excuse my (rude) candor.

Only a deluded pro-government zealot could believe the govenment could possible regulate greed and stupidity away. The government ITSELF is rife with greed and stupidity.

Look, a well intentioned government trying to give poor people an ability (beyond their means) to buy homes, coupled with turning quasi-governmental agencies such as Freddie and Fannie into a cheap money machine to fuel the home-buying market caused this mess.

Shut off those spigots and risk being called a racist or worse; simply put people without money etc shouldn't be given credit. But that's not *PC* is it?.

Everyone knows that the housing bubble, and the resulting credit avaible from refi's for inflated home values, drove the consumerism in this country (and others, we used artificially inflated values to drive China's economy for some time now) that fueled our economy.

The housing bubble funding this false economic crap has burst, now we're headed for the *new bubble* - government money to the tune of $700Billion.

Say goodbye to the old bubble, and welcome to the new bubble (compliments of the USA Treasury).

Fern

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
-snip-
Bolded are what I thought were the most important parts. Agreeing largely with the article I don't have much more to say, other than to make a few points to ward off those wanting to deflect blame from this failed ideology. No, I'm not trying to say that Reaganomics or its adherents in policy positions are solely the cause for the present problems in the economy.

Obviously they didn't force those on Wall Street and elsewhere engaging in greedy and stupid policies, not did they force those who clearly could not afford what they were buying to do so. But the facts of the matter are that, during and since the years of the Reagan administration, these small government, anti-regulation, free-market zealots have steadily eroded the federal government's capacity to carry out its regulatory role in the economy to prevent such stupidity and greed. And at the same time, they have put into place policies that have steadily increased inequality in America while creating huge budget deficits by embarking on insanely costly ventures like the Iraq war while adamantly refusing to raise taxes to cover it (instead, just the opposite).

[Golf clap] Way to be stupid, excuse my (rude) candor.

Only a deluded pro-government zealot could believe the govenment could possible regulate greed and stupidity away. The government ITSELF is rife with greed and stupidity.

Look, a well intentioned government trying to give poor people an ability (beyond their means) to buy homes, coupled with turning quasi-governmental agencies such as Freddie and Fannie into a cheap money machine to fuel the home-buying market caused this mess.

Shut off those spigots and risk being called a racist or worse; simply put people without money etc shouldn't be given credit. But that's not *PC* is it?.

Everyone knows that the housing bubble, and the resulting credit avaible from refi's for inflated home values, drove the consumerism in this country (and others, we used artificially inflated values to drive China's economy for some time now) that fueled our economy.

The housing bubble funding this false economic crap has burst, now we're headed for the *new bubble* - government money to the tune of $700Billion.

Say goodbye to the old bubble, and welcome to the new bubble (compliments of the USA Treasury).

Fern

Your point continues to be Moot. Those Policies had nothing to do with the current crisis.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Your opinions reflect no solid basis in any facts, only a political partisanship.

Now THAT is g-d effing hilarious!

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: Vic
Even though the OP used my name, I would like to say that my thread was actually a complaint about exactly the kind of blame-game tactic he is using here in his thread.

Uh, well that wasn't my intention for this thread, and I don't think that's what I did. As I tried to explain in my first post, I wans't trying to lay exclusive blame on for the crisis on any one factor, and elaborated that, despite my and other's belief that this ideology and its adherents in Washinton were important contributing factors to the crisis, obviously they didn't cause banks, lenders, etc to make all of these risky loans, nor did they force home owners to spend way beyond their means.

Now, as far as ideology is concerned, I probably came off too one-sided as far as the political factors for the crisis. So to clarify, while I think one party is broadly more at fault than the other, that's not to blame every Republican or praise every Democrat. In fact, I've been rather disappointed with the Democrats (again, in a broad sense) for not having acted force-fully enough to oppose these stupid policies. Granted, they were out of power most of Bush's term, only are in power now with slim majorities (in the Senate they only have a 51-49 majority by including an independent senator who spoke at the Republican convention), but still at least some were partially if not totally complacent in the crisis. And obviously I'm in no way trying to argue that all deregulation is bad or anything like that.

So, to summarize (since, after being up 22 hours straight I don't count on the above being totally coherent) basically I don't believe there's any one thing, person, or action to blame, not just for this crisis, but in general with any major political problems. My thread was just focusing in on one of the factors I feel is responsible for it.