Jump to content
commando

challenge for trump supporters

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Well, yours is an op-ed that sort of uses anecdotal evidence to draw a conclusion while mine actually is conduced by economists looking at a large amount of data, analyzing it and having it actually peer reviewed.

 

So...yeah....I'll take my link. You can have yours.

 

FYI....here's the LINK to the research paper.

 

 

 

I edited my previous post. If you can find anywhere in your article where it says anything about tax cuts do not cause recession, I will eat crow. It doesnt. It claims tax cuts do not cause economic GROWTH. Which is what Ive been claiming this whole time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frott Scost said:

 

I edited my previous post. If you can find anywhere in your article where it says anything about tax cuts do not cause recession, I will eat crow. It doesnt. It claims tax cuts do not cause economic GROWTH. Which is what Ive been claiming this whole time. 

Wait....

 

Your exact words (from memory) were "One constant is tax cuts for the rich before every recession".  Which, implies that there is a correlation there....which would be that tax cuts for the rich played a major part in the recession.

 

Now....if all you're saying is that tax cuts don't automatically cause growth and there's no correlation between the two....then I would agree.

 

But....then your original post was somewhat misleading.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Wait....

 

Your exact words (from memory) were "One constant is tax cuts for the rich before every recession".  Which, implies that there is a correlation there....which would be that tax cuts for the rich played a major part in the recession.

 

Now....if all you're saying is that tax cuts don't automatically cause growth and there's no correlation between the two....then I would agree.

 

But....then your original post was somewhat misleading.

 

What I said is a true statement. Before every recession/depression, there was a tax cut. This is a fact. I never claimed it was the sole reason for the recession, just a constant. If we have a recession, a tax cut recently preceded it. Your article states what I am trying to: tax cuts do not stimulate the economy or cause growth, which is what republicans claim they do every single time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

What I said is a true statement. Before every recession/depression, there was a tax cut. This is a fact. I never claimed it was the sole reason for the recession, just a constant. If we have a recession, a tax cut recently preceded it. Your article states what I am trying to: tax cuts do not stimulate the economy or cause growth, which is what republicans claim they do every single time. 

 

I actually don't think the bolded is true.  For instance, the economic down turn that Reagan dealt with in 81-82 was not preceded by Carter cutting taxes.  Reagan cut taxes DURING the down turn...but not prior.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told this was a forum filled with liberal group-thinkers.

 

What are you guys doing having different opinions?

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

The statement was realistic as it was. You can structure the economy to mitigate the boom bust cycle. Just because its structured that way doesn't mean it will work, just that it is structured with that intention. Do you in all honesty think our current economy is structured in a way that mitigates boom bust cycles? In my opinion the structure of our economy lends itself to this type of cycle.

 

Post 1929, the economy was structured to ensure that banks behaved like banks, protecting the deposits of customers, maintaining a guaranteed minimum cash:loan reserve, investing in the community, and avoiding the more high risk investments allowed other financial institutions. After awhile, all those regulations got whittled down, allowing traditional banks, insurance companies, and basically anyone holding huge amounts of other people's money to live the high risk/high reward lifestyle of Goldman Sachs, tying the U.S. and world economy to a doomed ponzi scheme those regulations were designed to avoid. 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Good times don't last forever, the economy cycles just like the weather.

 

I really am interested in hearing what "Good times" you're talking about.  Again, I thought Trump told us that everything in the last 10 years has been horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

After awhile, all those regulations got whittled down, allowing traditional banks, insurance companies, and basically anyone holding huge amounts of other people's money to live the high risk/high reward lifestyle of Goldman Sachs, tying the U.S. and world economy to a doomed ponzi scheme those regulations were designed to avoid. 

 

Good post. But please do not just dump that statement there as some kind of mic drop on the behemoth multinational banks without also pointing out that our own government has made a mockery of fractional reserve banking with what the Fed does with Quantitative Easing and basically-free lending vis-a-vis squashed interest rates. We are enabled to go into debt with this paradigm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Good post. But please do not just dump that statement there as some kind of mic drop on the behemoth multinational banks without also pointing out that our own government has made a mockery of fractional reserve banking with what the Fed does with Quantitative Easing and basically-free lending vis-a-vis squashed interest rates. We are enabled to go into debt with this paradigm.

 

I can assure you that I have never, ever, supported the mocking of fractional reserve banking. 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I can assure you that I have never, ever, supported the mocking of fractional reserve banking. 

 

Ha ha, +1 Guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 3:47 PM, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Post 1929, the economy was structured to ensure that banks behaved like banks, protecting the deposits of customers, maintaining a guaranteed minimum cash:loan reserve, investing in the community, and avoiding the more high risk investments allowed other financial institutions. After awhile, all those regulations got whittled down, allowing traditional banks, insurance companies, and basically anyone holding huge amounts of other people's money to live the high risk/high reward lifestyle of Goldman Sachs, tying the U.S. and world economy to a doomed ponzi scheme those regulations were designed to avoid. 

This is bass ackwards.   Banks failed all the time before the creation of central banking in the Federal Reserve. And they still make profits as they're supposed to in capitalism.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

This is bass ackwards.   Banks failed all the time before the creation of central banking in the Federal Reserve. And they still make profits as they're supposed to in capitalism.

Uh, you didn't really dispute what he was saying, and he didn't mention anything about the Fed. So... What's backwards about ensuring that banks aren't engaged in wild speculation with people's life savings?

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

This is bass ackwards.   Banks failed all the time before the creation of central banking in the Federal Reserve. And they still make profits as they're supposed to in capitalism.

What? You don't think the regulations put in place after the Great Depression kept banks for failing until the Great Recession? In particular, Glass-Steagall which was rolled back in 1999. 

 

Also, banks not only failed to make a profit but many would have gone bankrupt had the government not bailed them out just a decade ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

This is bass ackwards.   Banks failed all the time before the creation of central banking in the Federal Reserve. And they still make profits as they're supposed to in capitalism.

 

Seems like you didn't read the post, or had your response crafted regardless. I know it's lonely for you here, but try to do your homework first. 

 

Anyway......this isn't really a partisan debate as much as it is a simple fact. Glass-Steagall is a good place to start. Cause and effect is pretty obvious.

 

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

This is bass ackwards.   Banks failed all the time before the creation of central banking in the Federal Reserve. And they still make profits as they're supposed to in capitalism.

 

This is a really interesting subject for me.  I remember somewhere around the end of 2005 or in 2006 sitting with my father and several other people.  Remember, this was when things were really flying high. Economy was booming.  We were discussing what worries us about the economy.  My father, being much younger and was a very smart man....mentioned the bank deregulations.  He thought it was a really bad idea to allow banks to also be involved in insurance and investing.  Fast forward a year or so and the entire system crashed.

 

Deregulating this under the Bush and Clinton administrations was a horrible HORRIBLE idea and lead directly to the great recession and banking crisis.  


Interestingly now....my father is much older and his mind isn't what it used to be...he sits and watches Fox News all day and he somehow thinks deregulation of the banking industry is a great idea and those horrible Socialist Democrats are ruining America by burdening our financial system with so much red tape and regulations.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Seems like you didn't read the post, or had your response crafted regardless. I know it's lonely for you here, but try to do your homework first. 

 

Anyway......this isn't really a partisan debate as much as it is a simple fact. Glass-Steagall is a good place to start. Cause and effect is pretty obvious.

 

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp

 

 

I actually did misread the beginning of your post, it was a long day.  Found this on the same site too

 

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/050515/did-repeal-glasssteagall-act-contribute-2008-financial-crisis.asp

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

I actually did misread the beginning of your post, it was a long day.  Found this on the same site too

 

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/050515/did-repeal-glasssteagall-act-contribute-2008-financial-crisis.asp

Ummm....no.

 

The main cause was deregulation of the financial markets and repealing this was a big part of that.

 

LINK

 

Quote

In 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act, repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. The repeal allowed banks to use deposits to invest in derivatives. Bank lobbyists said they needed this change to compete with foreign firms. They promised to only invest in low-risk securities to protect their customers.

 

 

Deregulation allowed for the entire sub prime mortgage industry to escalate.  Behind the scenes of that, were the trading of derivatives.

 

Was the Glass-Steagall Act the main reason?  I would say no.  That was more of other issues with both Clinton and Bush pushing for easier access to mortgages so more people could buy homes.  This also required some deregulation to push Fannie May and Freddie Mac to allow more and more sub prime mortgages.  


The trading of those and the associated derivatives exacerbated the issue to the point that it nobody even knew how to unwind it.

 

People who poo poo the repeal of Glass-Steagall are doing a real disservice in an effort to push an agenda that regulations are bad and we should deregulate more and more industries.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right back at ya

Quote

The government has promoted bad loans not just through the stick of the CRA but through the carrot of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which purchase, securitize and guarantee loans made by lenders and whose debt is itself implicitly guaranteed by the federal government.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Right back at ya

 

That article is from 7/18/2008. That's before the Great Recession officially started in December of 2008.

 

There was a congressional commission that looked into the causes of the GR and here's what they found:

Quote

 

Causes of the Great Recession
According to a 2011 report by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, the Great Recession was avoidable. The appointees, which included six Democrats and four Republicans, cited several key contributing factors that they claimed led to the downturn.

First, the report identified failure on the part of the government to regulate the financial industry. This failure to regulate included the Fed’s inability to curb toxic mortgage lending.

Next, there were too many financial firms taking on too much risk. The shadow banking system, which included investment firms, grew to rival the depository banking system but was not under the same scrutiny or regulation. When the shadow banking system failed, the outcome affected the flow of credit to consumers and businesses.

Other causes identified in the report included excessive borrowing by consumers and corporations and lawmakers who were not able to fully understand the collapsing financial system.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

And they did that by deregulating the mortgage industry. 

There was a clip floating around of Barney Frank blowing off a hearing to reform Freddie and Fannie just before the collapse. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

There was a clip floating around of Barney Frank blowing off a hearing to reform Freddie and Fannie just before the collapse. 

:facepalm:

 

 

Yeah.....that's what caused it.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:
9 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

There was a clip floating around of Barney Frank blowing off a hearing to reform Freddie and Fannie just before the collapse. 

:facepalm:

 

 

Yeah.....that's what caused it.

 

Definitely.  Freddie and Fannie were the only big firms to fail during that time and caused it all.... (since we're rewriting history).

 

It wasn't the 160+ in 2008 and 2009 that failed due to subprime lending practices caused by deregulation.  That could never be it.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

Definitely.  Freddie and Fannie were the only big firms to fail during that time and caused it all.... (since we're rewriting history).

 

It wasn't the 160+ in 2008 and 2009 that failed due to subprime lending practices caused by deregulation.  That could never be it.

 

I suddenly feel the need to watch The Big Short again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheSker said:

I don't consider Trump a great businessman or a great negotiator, so I don't care about these political theatrics.

But, based on other posts,  you do think he is backed by some influential people that are directing him to make some decisions that are actually good for some people.  Maybe even yourself.

 

Do you think those same  influential people would back another GOP candidate?  Why or why not?  

 

If yes?  Why does the GOP insist on putting us through the embarrassment if another candidate is capable of the same results.

If no? Why do we as Americans allow a "bought and paid for" man to run our country.

 

I just don't get why anyone who claims to be a reasonable adult is okay with this guy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TheSker said:

I don't consider Trump a great businessman or a great negotiator, so I don't care about these political theatrics.

 

Then explain why you put so much weight on influential people supporting him?  It sure seems like you are using that as proof that he's a great business man and negotiator and why we should support him.

 

I noticed you didn't answer my questions on this.  Why does it matter that these "influential people" support him?

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Then explain why you put so much weight on influential people supporting him?  It sure seems like you are using that as proof that he's a great business man and negotiator and why we should support him.

 

I noticed you didn't answer my questions on this.  Why does it matter that these "influential people" support him?

Influential people supporting him has nothing to do with Trump not being a great negotiator or businessman.

 

It takes money and influence to run a campaign and win the presidency.

 

That's why Harris on the Democratic side did the fundraiser in the Hamptons.

 

I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else who to support.  To each their own.

 

I'm saying i wouldn't sell Trump short about having influence and funding behind him.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, funhusker said:

But, based on other posts,  you do think he is backed by some influential people that are directing him to make some decisions that are actually good for some people.  Maybe even yourself.

 

Do you think those same  influential people would back another GOP candidate?  Why or why not?  

 

If yes?  Why does the GOP insist on putting us through the embarrassment if another candidate is capable of the same results.

If no? Why do we as Americans allow a "bought and paid for" man to run our country.

 

I just don't get why anyone who claims to be a reasonable adult is okay with this guy...

I do not think there is another available GOP candidate.  Romney would be the closest at a far, far distance.

 

And no, I'm not even close to being a person of influence.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Influential people supporting him has nothing to do with Trump not being a great negotiator or businessman.

 

It takes money and influence to run a campaign and win the presidency.

 

That's why Harris on the Democratic side did the fundraiser in the Hamptons.

 

I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else who to support.  To each their own.

 

I'm saying i wouldn't sell Trump short about having influence and funding behind him.

 

OK, because your previous posts made it look like you supported Trump because he had "influential people" who supported him.

 

That's not what you were getting at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TheSker said:

I do not think there is another available GOP candidate.  Romney would be the closest at a far, far distance.

 

And no, I'm not even close to being a person of influence.

Bill Weld.  But the GOP won't even acknowledge his candidacy.

 

This is a general question for everyone, GOP or not: why???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

OK, because your previous posts made it look like you supported Trump because he had "influential people" who supported him.

 

That's not what you were getting at?

Nope.

 

The question gets asked who would support this guy??

 

The answer is a lot of people, including some very influential and wealthy names.  These people aren't vocal about their politics.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheSker said:

The answer is a lot of people, including some very influential and wealthy names.  These people aren't vocal about their politics.

 

It's an answer, it's just not a good answer.

 

Lots of people supported Hitler, too. Influential ones at that.

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 8/20/2019 at 10:30 AM, BlitzFirst said:

 

Definitely.  Freddie and Fannie were the only big firms to fail during that time and caused it all.... (since we're rewriting history).

 

It wasn't the 160+ in 2008 and 2009 that failed due to subprime lending practices caused by deregulation.  That could never be it.

 

You're equating those two with a private investment firm?

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

 

You're equating those two with a private investment firm?

You’re pinning the “Great Recession” on those two?

 

 

good talk...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 1:00 AM, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

On 8/20/2019 at 1:30 PM, BlitzFirst said:

 

Definitely.  Freddie and Fannie were the only big firms to fail during that time and caused it all.... (since we're rewriting history).

 

It wasn't the 160+ in 2008 and 2009 that failed due to subprime lending practices caused by deregulation.  That could never be it.

 

You're equating those two with a private investment firm?

 

 

I'm equating them with money lenders which is what they are.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×