The US Economy in the crapper starting Monday?

[FlashLackey]

Heh. Trickle-up economics already has a name; Communism.

[gerbick]

Heh. Trickle-up economics already has a name; Communism.

Yeah. Trickle Down Economics has really worked too. Yeah.

[FlashLackey]

[The term "trickle down economics" was invented by liberals, not conservatives. Contrary to popular belief.] But, whatever you want to call it, I'd say that it has worked quite well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._GDP_(nominal)

[gerbick]

Yes. Look at today. It works wonders. And next time you address me, liberal/conservative labels are honestly used when people either feel cornered or stupid... it's like cursing.

It ****ing might feel great, but you look just like every other sofa politician out there.

Jude Wanniski, a journalist, consultant and, most of all, a fierce and unconventional partisan who marshaled intellect and salesmanship to promote big tax cuts as the best cure for an ailing economy, a theory embraced and executed by President Reagan...

Jude T. Wanniski was born on June 17, 1936, in Pottsville, Pa. His grandfather was a Pennsylvania coal miner and a dedicated Communist who gave his grandson a copy of "Das Kapital" for his high school graduation. He was raised in Brooklyn, and the Dodgers popped up regularly in his writings...

From the NYT - right here. He sounded more radical than anything.

Anyway... I'm sure the conservatives are enjoying what's happening now. Enjoy.

I'm on the sidelines looking at the entropy. And it's damn near hysterical at the finger pointing.

[FlashLackey]

Yes. Look at today. It works wonders. And next time you address me, liberal/conservative labels are honestly used when people either feel cornered or stupid... it's like cursing.

It's funny that you should write this, considering how often you use expletives.

Assuming that you are referring to the downturn in the stock market today, that was not caused by what liberals have called trickle down economics. In fact, it was just the opposite. It was the end result of a liberal administration pursuing a policy of making home loans available to anyone who wanted one, regardless of their creditworthiness.

It ****ing might feel great, but you look just like every other sofa politician out there.

As opposed to an actual politician like yourself?

[gerbick]

Selective quoting will get you everywhere.

I'm definitely not a politician. I don't lie as much. But I almost qualify for pirate... curse, rum, and have a skull and crossbones fixation.

As opposed to an actual politician like yourself?

Better than able to fit under the classical definition of insanity - you know, doing things over and over and it just has the same outcome despite wanting a change?

Now, with your diversion tactic pushed very far aside, let's see you do it again, you seem to be very good at that one tactic, are you telling me that the trickle down economy - which amazes me, you stated that it came from "liberals" yet it was a nigh-radical son of a communist journalist that coined the term and you didn't address that you were quite wrong at all, per usual - is working right now?

Yes/No. And a few reasons why you'd say what you're going to say.

And no quotes from Fox News, O'Reilly, Wikipedia or others. I'm merely asking you own opinion; not the media's opinion.

Thanks in advance

[gerbick]

Assuming that you are referring to the downturn in the stock market today, that was not caused by what liberals have called trickle down economics. In fact, it was just the opposite. It was the end result of a liberal administration pursuing a policy of making home loans available to anyone who wanted one, regardless of their creditworthiness.

Like I stated earlier... the conservatives have no accountability nor plan to avert this downturn - which amazes me, it wasn't a downturn as recent as July/August according to the conservative administration that's been in office for the last 8 years.

Ahem...

According to the U.S. Department of Treasury guidelines issued in 2001, "Subprime borrowers typically have weakened credit histories that include payment delinquencies, and possibly more severe problems such as charge-offs, judgments, and bankruptcies. They may also display reduced repayment capacity as measured by credit scores, debt-to-income ratios, or other criteria that may encompass borrowers with incomplete credit histories."

...Although most home loans do not fall into this category, subprime mortgages proliferated in the early part of the 21st Century. About 21 percent of all mort gage originations from 2004 through 2006 were subprime, up from 9 percent from 1996 through 2004, says John Lonski, chief economist for Moody's In vestors Service. Subprime mortgages totaled $600 billion in 2006, accounting for about one-fifth of the U.S. home loan market.

Looks like the explosion of these sub-prime loans came about under the present conservative administration despite - which I already know you're going to say which already existed at 9% during the liberal reign of Clinton - which was preceded by 16 years of conservative leadership and the start of "trickle down economics"... as coined by the aforementioned party I had shown you the link to, not whomever you had erroneously pointed to.

So with that said - and your nigh predictable "It all happened under Clinton" who actually had left a surplus on his way out, not two unfinished wars, more deaths than resolution and a war that honestly costs 10 billion per month where we're not going to ever recoup that cost... what's the real solution. Instead of finger pointing, or filibusters, seriously... let's see what the rest of the conservatives can come up with. Especially since it came from the conservative/outgoing administration.

Today's downturn almost hits right at my damn near mantra - Oh sorry, did I break your concentration with an expletive? I'll allow you to retort in a bit - of an expected 33-40% "correction".

It's not about downturns that has me laughing. It's really how chaotic things will become - and how stupid I was to think otherwise. In simpler terms so you can follow... I saw some folly coming, but not this.

The problem is bigger than just one sector of the market faltering. It seems we're about to see even more things "go wrong". Lord knows I want to be dead wrong.

And per usual, I'll preface things with "I'll more than likely be very wrong any way."

Look ma, no more expletives. Yee-haw.

[hanratty21]

And no quotes from Fox News, O'Reilly, Wikipedia or others...

What about quotes from Ralph, but attributed to the wrong person?

And, when the doctor said I didn't have worms any more, that was the happiest day of my life

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

[gerbick]

ooh, ooh. Bernanke next!

[FlashLackey]

Now, with your diversion tactic pushed very far aside, let's see you do it again, you seem to be very good at that one tactic, are you telling me that the trickle down economy - which amazes me, you stated that it came from "liberals" yet it was a nigh-radical son of a communist journalist that coined the term and you didn't address that you were quite wrong at all, per usual - is working right now?

lol. I didn't respond to your quote because it didn't make much sense. Now that I realize that you think it shows who coined "trickle down economics", I understand your mistake. The article describes a guy who coined the term "supply side economics." A term that some conservatives use to describe themselves. "Trickle down economics", as I already pointed out, is a derogatory term for what many conservatives believe. It is not in any way a description of how conservatives believe their policies work.

To answer your question, generally speaking, yes. Our efforts to keep government small are working to our benefit. However, there are equal if not greater efforts being made to make government larger. So, we find ourselves in situations like the one we are in now, not due to "trickle down economics" but rather increasingly liberal economic policies.

Please do not attempt to equate the Bush administration as being representative of the success or failure of conservative economic principles. To the degree that conservative principles were applied in policy, yes, it worked. However, the degree to which Bush was able to successfully apply such policies (despite trying and failing at times. to be fair) was disappointing. John F Kennedy was a more conservative president economically, in affect, than George W Bush.

Like I stated earlier... the conservatives have no accountability nor plan to avert this downturn - which amazes me, it wasn't a downturn as recent as July/August according to the conservative administration that's been in office for the last 8 years.

Actually, the conservatives do have a plan. I pointed it out to you once before already. Have you not looked into that yet?

40% of Democrats also voted against the bill today. But, as far as I know, they actually don't have an alternative plan.

Looks like the explosion of these sub-prime loans came about under the present conservative administration despite - which I already know you're going to say which already existed at 9% during the liberal reign of Clinton - which was preceded by 16 years of conservative leadership and the start of "trickle down economics"... as coined by the aforementioned party I had shown you the link to, not whomever you had erroneously pointed to.

What policy is this administration responsible for that led to the sub-prime mortgage boom?

See the 1994 National Homeownership Strategy.

Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded "kickbacks" to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/541234

So with that said - and your nigh predictable "It all happened under Clinton" who actually had left a surplus on his way out, not two unfinished wars, more deaths than resolution and a war that honestly costs 10 billion per month where we're not going to ever recoup that cost...

Obviously, the consequences are occurring now, under a different administration than the one responsible for the policies causing the problem. In fact, Bush did attempt to do something to correct Clinton's problems but was obstructed: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...080919-15.html

The problem is bigger than just one sector of the market faltering. It seems we're about to see even more things "go wrong". Lord knows I want to be dead wrong.

I agree that more is on the way. Particularly if Obama is elected. But, I'm just one vote. All I can do is hope that, when the going gets worse, people will return to the principles that work as they have done in the past. The solutions are available for those who bother to look and learn (or those who finally become exhausted with fairy tales).

[david petley]

Nero purportedly played a fiddle while Rome burned...these days, politicians would just talk about who started it and why everybody let them, who should put it out and how, and who had to pay.

my advice...grab a wet sack, don't invest in real estate...instead buy seeds, tools and a good sturdy pair of boots, find some dirt.

david

[FlashLackey]

It seems to me that they're always trying to go with the solution that is least likely to be attributed to them later if it doesn't work rather than going with what has the best chances for long term success.

That pattern has become clear in this case as Democrats howl about Republicans leaving business unregulated when it was Republicans calling for increased regulation for Fannie and Freddie just four years ago and were shouted down by Democrats. It's unbelievable to watch them now talk like that never happened. It shows that they know it works. The people have a finite attention span apparently.

[japangreg]

Please do not attempt to equate the Bush administration as being representative of the success or failure of conservative economic principles. To the degree that conservative principles were applied in policy, yes, it worked. However, the degree to which Bush was able to successfully apply such policies (despite trying and failing at times. to be fair) was disappointing.

Wow. So, when conservative principles work, that's indicative of the truth of the conservative world-view, yet when they fail, that's the failure of government to properly implement them.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

Your logic is so circular I bet your knives are spoons...

[japangreg]

That pattern has become clear in this case as Democrats howl about Republicans leaving business unregulated when it was Republicans calling for increased regulation for Fannie and Freddie just four years ago and were shouted down by Democrats. It's unbelievable to watch them now talk like that never happened. It shows that they know it works. The people have a finite attention span apparently.

I'll bite on this one - go find the bill. Look at the votes and see where it died in the Senate. Then we'll meet back here and discuss.

[FlashLackey]

Wow. So, when conservative principles work, that's indicative of the truth of the conservative world-view, yet when they fail, that's the failure of government to properly implement them.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

Your logic is so circular I bet your knives are spoons...

To borrow a phrase from Obama, the problem here is that you're using a hatchet when a scalpel is required.

Growing the government is against conservative principles. Therefore, Bush either did not pursue or failed to execute conservative principles in that regard.

No administration that I am aware of has exclusively exercised only conservative or only liberal policies. My objection is to the notion that it is logical to criticize a principle based on the performance of an administration, regardless of their adherence to that principle.

Follow?

I'll bite on this one - go find the bill. Look at the votes and see where it died in the Senate. Then we'll meet back here and discuss.

Are you referring to this recent bill that didn't pass yesterday?

[japangreg]

Are you referring to this recent bill that didn't pass yesterday?

No, as you seem to be talking about the bill from 05. Unless there actually was one from 04, of which I am unaware?

Let's see some links, some documentation, roll calls and then we'll talk. Can't do all your homework for you...

[FlashLackey]

No, as you seem to be talking about the bill from 05. Unless there actually was one from 04, of which I am unaware?

Let's see some links, some documentation, roll calls and then we'll talk. Can't do all your homework for you...

I'm not referring to a bill.

I'm referring to how, in 2003, it came to light that Fannie and Freddie were fudging the books and headed toward the tubes. As a result, numerous investigations and hearings took place, during which, Democrats in congress claimed that nothing was wrong with Fannie and Freddie and Republicans called for action to create stronger regulation.

[japangreg]

I'm not referring to a bill.

I'm referring to how, in 2003, it came to light that Fannie and Freddie were fudging the books and headed toward the tubes. As a result, numerous investigations and hearings took place, during which, Democrats in congress claimed that nothing was wrong with Fannie and Freddie and Republicans called for action to create stronger regulation.

Then I hope you know more about what was going on than just that YouTube video you posted in the VP thread - it wasn't more regulation they were proposing, they were trying to create a brand new agency specifically to 'regulate' Fannie and Freddie; essentially moving the problem from one 'shell' to another in an attempt to eventually privatize them, hence the Dems resistance.

[FlashLackey]

Didn't I already explain that? Perhaps it was in the other thread that seems to have converged onto the same topic.

Yes. Republicans have always wanted to deregulate Fannie and Freddie. You know; less government meddling, market motivations work. Had they been deregulated we wouldn't be in this mess.

Short of that goal, increased over-sight, 4 years ago when the Republicans called for it, would have helped.

Are you saying that creating the new regulatory agency would not have helped increase regulation of Fannie and Freddie?

Are you saying that the Democrats were justified in resisting increased regulation that would have helped because they were scared of Fannie and Freddie being deregulated?

Why would the Democrats be afraid of a deregulated Fannie and Freddie? Could the millions of dollars in political contributions have anything to do with it (Republicans aren't clean in that regard either, btw)?

[david petley]

this thread seems to have moved quickly away from discussion of the economic problems, back to a blame game...who is responsible??

Well, I think it doesn't matter really, it's not 'who', it's 'what'.

fannie and freddie and all these other failures are just very obvious symbols of an economic philosophy that is basically flawed because it depends on perceptions of constant growth.

They should burn down all of the stock markets around the world, stop trading on futures and go and do some real work that doesn't depend on greed.

Seems that the lesson of the great depression was well learnt by some...if you have skimmed enough before it happens, it doesn't hurt as much.

david