It's absolutely true that Carter had better job growth.
Now you have to eat crow:
poll:who was best Pres in your lifetime
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
It's absolutely true that Carter had better job growth.
Now you have to eat crow:
When I was a young Marine I thought Reagan was the greatest of all time. Then they blew up our barracks, and we didn't go to war. the Ronald is a lot like the Donald. Just talk and all about the money.
No, it was about $750B and most of it were tax cuts.
Which established consumer financial protection.
Because Republicans refused to do anything to help recover the economy because Obama represented a repudiation of all the Bush policies they supported that got us into that mess in the first place.
That is exactly what they do. You can do and say anything on this board except call a racist white man a child molester.......that's when the line gets crossed.
The stimulus should have been at least $1T and it should not have had any tax cuts at all.
Why? Tax cuts never deliver on any of the promises made of them; but spending does.
cawacko
Well-known member
How much more stimulus did you need?
It should have been at least $1T, and none of it should have been tax cuts.
Instead, it was about $750B and most of it were tax cuts.
So Conservatives, who screech about tax cuts like barnyard animals, opposed the tax cut-heavy stimulus bill simply because they were embarrassed that their policies created the environment for a black guy to be elected President.
cawacko
Well-known member
Shocking the Fed wants to abdicate responsibility for their actions. Yes we know what happened with lending standards. No one argues that. The reason is why did it get to that point. That's what your are missing
So once again, you're trying to gaslight because you don't like the fact that your garbage argument is so easily swatted down by the people who actually know what they're talking about.
The lending standards, and only the lending standards, are why there was a subprime bubble that formed in 2004.
No, pal, you're missing the point.
Lending standards had to be reduced because even at lower fed interest rates, there still wasn't demand among qualified borrowers.
So y'all manufactured demand and "qualified" borrowers by reducing lending standards.
Like I said before with Border Patrol; they couldn't find enough qualified applicants to fill the 20,000 jobs they had, so to fill those jobs, they simply lowered the qualifications for applicants.
Banks did the same thing; they couldn't find qualified borrowers, even at lower interest rates, so they simply lowered the bar on "qualified".
It's not that hard to figure out.
cawacko
Well-known member
You clearly have no idea what kind of tax cuts they were. And based on other comments about housing in California and pensions in California there is clearly a lot you don't understand overall. I'm going to surmise based on stating your location is the Dirty South that you're probably a millennial. I'll offer you some advice. Being partisan and trying to craft a narrative around that is much harder than just dealing with the facts.
cawacko
Well-known member
Honest question, how old are you? I'm trying to understand from the perspective of what you've lived through
No. I know exactly what kind of tax cuts they were. Anyone can find that out simply by Googling "stimulus tax cuts".
So now we are at the point in the conversation where you have to move the bar on what "tax cuts" are, just to obscure the fact that your whole opposition to them wasn't predicated on any economic or fiscal thought; but a gut reaction to the repudiation of your policies by the election of a black guy as President.
So you're just a lazy, racist moron.
cawacko
Well-known member
I'm sorry you don't understand the big picture involved here which is why you are having these challenges understanding itv
cawacko
Well-known member
Ahhhh, when all else fails call someone racist. The number one fall back in the liberal playbook. No wonder TTQ64 liked you so much.
The tax cuts were right out of Keynes playbook so funny you claim to hate them and don't work. Once again you clearly have no clue between the type of tax cuts supply siders support and those keynesians support
You don't know shit about what you're saying. Nothing. Like, less than nothing, if that's even possible.
You'd be better served not knowing anything at all instead of posturing your weak positions on this board.
I asked so many times about this pension crisis you seem to think CA has, only to hear crickets from you about it.
Like, for instance, saying how far out the liability actually goes? It's a pretty simple question; you screech about trillion-dollar unfunded liabilities, but don't know how far out those liabilities stretch! Is it 5 years? 10 years? 100 years? Since pensions are paid by tax revenues, and since tax revenues are notoriously hard to predict, how can you say there's a pension crisis when you don't even know how far out these liabilities you're claiming actually go? The answer, of course, is that you can't because you're just repeating propaganda you heard somewhere else in an attempt to appear like you have serious concerns when the reality is that you know about as much of the pension "crisis' as you do about open heart surgery; which is to say, nothing.
And, as I suspected before, the links you use to support your tragically and comically weak argument use revenues during the height of the Bush Economic Recession as the baseline, which obscures the picture of revenues because you're using a baseline from when revenues were at their lowest, rather than what they actually are now.
It's those not-so-clever rhetorical tricks that you use to try and make your argument sound serious, when it's nothing but a bunch of regurgitated BS.
You haven't presented any facts. What you do is regurgitate what others say so you don't have to do the hard work of thinking for yourself. And I can prove that with one simple question:
How far out do these pension liabilities you're screeching about actually go?
cawacko
Well-known member
Would you like me to post the same articles laying out the California pension crisis again?