Trumpeting a $4 Trillion Unpaid Tax Cut | What's Wrong With This Picture?

As I posted earlier, the govt will overspend no matter what happens. Its ingrained in the fiber of every politician in DC. If Hilary or Bernie had won, spending would be out of control. With Trump, deficit spending might be reduced - but probably not since DC is full of big spenders in both parties.

So just cut taxes, let some more people get jobs, let businesses expand, let some people on welfare get off of welfare. And maybe (but doubtful) the big govt types will see the benefit and drop their foolish Keynesian fantasy (but Keynes was actually against what the Democrats and "progressives" want).

 

The "Bush economy" did see a boost with Bush's tax cuts. Growth would have been lower without the tax cuts.

And the collapse in 2008 was not his fault. Dems forced the banks to make bad loans to minorities. Those loans all went bad, causing 2008.

 

Still don't know how business works other than the progressive narrative?

 

In some areas, that may have been true, but in the hot housing markets, the flippers were the main drivers of the collapse. They were buying like crazy in the Miami area - $300,000 to $3 million dollar range and when the market hiccuped - they walked away from the property, sometimes multiple properties. It wasn't the poor who were buying in that price range.
56% of foreclosures in 2007 -2009 were non-Hispanic and white nation wide.

 

Yes, that was a problem. Everyone assumed home prices would just keep appreciating at a very fast rate and it was unsustainable.

 

Yet you had no problem just blaming it on minorities - and then agreeing that "everyone" - including the 56% of white buyers were to blame. So was your blaming minorities just a bit of knee-jerk bigotry, or are you just confused?

 

Labor is not the dominant factor in production that it once was.

 

It was a combination of both situations. The Republicans warned in 2002 that forcing the banks to make loans to unqualified borrowers was a recipe for a collapse. And that's what happened. It was going on at the same time that the housing market became overvalued.

The bad loans was a festering situation for many years and it worsened from 2000 to 2008. Then the market prices became overvalued and that was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I mention the bad loans (forced by government) because that was the central issue. But when the financial meltdown is discussed by libs, all they can say is, "Bush! Wall Street! Big banks!". Bush had nothing to do with it.

 

Nonsense!
Averaging their annual deficits they are ranked from worst to best:
Obama -5.8%
Reagan -4.1%
Bush (41) -3.8%
Carter -2.4%
Bush (43) -1.9%
Clinton -0.8%

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist01z2.xls

 

I voted for Trump, and if I could go back in time, I'd do it again.

But I have always been opposed to this tax plan. Your PF budget Nazi says it again.... If we spend it, we pay for it.

 

It's not so "out-of-control" actually. How did we get this huge national debt? We got it because of policies. When wages began to stagnate in the 1970s, consumption began to suffer, and that meant business began to suffer in response. So to keep consumption increasing even with stagnant wages, the government and banking began to work to increase consumer debt. Credit cards were easily available and many people had many different cards. Consumer debt boomed as people kept their lifestyles by using credit. Then it spread to housing and sub prime loans. In fact, the big banks loaned too much. Corporations had invested their booty in commercial banks and they began to see the excess. They (corporations) began to worry about the debtors' ability to pay back the loans of their money made by commercial banks. So corporations went to the banks and warned them that they were going to stop the flow of cash to the banks due to concerns that they would never see their money again. Meanwhile the housing crash had begun and banks were getting squeezed. Their interest income was drying up. So they went to the government and said that they needed to be bailed out and if they weren't, they would bring down the whole economy. So the government bailed them out and incurred plenty of debt in the process.

So rather than "wildly out of control spending" being the problem, it was banking policy favoring debt in order to keep the system afloat and keep profits growing. IT WAS THE SYSTEM, NOT WASTEFUL SPENDING. And it took people's homes, 401k plans, and investments. Meanwhile the corporations have done fine while the people have suffered. And now, cutting spending means cutting services to the people more, causing more suffering. It will make the people pay dearly for what was done by the capitalist system and which has already hurt them. Cutting spending is not the answer.

You drank the republican Kool-Aide. You bought their lies and now you're doing their work of spreading their propaganda.

But in the end it's ok because the people will end up in very, very hard times, and they will then awaken, and they will rebel and bring about a complete change of system.

 

So your magical thinking is if you just let business keep more of their profits they are going to hire more people out of the goodness of their little corporate hearts?

 

The driving force behind the increase in bad loans was the banks ability to write bad loans , securitize the loans this getting them off the originators books and then selling the derivatives both at home and abroad. The fact that the rating agencies gave these securities good ratings when they were in retrospect highly risky didn't help much either.

The Bush administration did not originate the problem but they also did nothing to deal with the issue which did spiral out of control during the administration.

 

Republicans were very aware of the problem. But they were called racists for highlighting this situation. So they just let it go.

 

No the stupid Republicans just blamed the people who took out the loans rather than the banks that gave the loans, securitized them and then passed the risk on to investors. Sorry but it wasn't about race, it was about banks taking advantage of financially unsophisticated people to collect loan origination fees and then collateralize the loans and pass the risk on to US and overseas investors who were missled by security rating agencies and were suckered in by the hope of making money in what was essentially a derivative Ponzi scheme.

That by the way is not to totally excuse the borrowers who on some level probably knew they were getting a better deal than their credit rating actually deserved. But you know it really is hard to pass up what appears to be free money in an ever escalating financial market. Of course the music does eventually stop and in this case the government did bail out the banks while leaving the borrowers to swing in the wind.

 

Wrong! The Democrats forced the banks to write loans to unqualified minorities, otherwise they were going to take away the banks' licenses to make loans.

 

That like most simple explanations is just simply untrue although widely accepted by those who want to blame it on Fannie and Freddy instead of bothering to learn what really happened. Lots of really good books on what actually happened should you care to educate yourself. Start with" And Then The Roof Caved In " and when you finish thst we can continue with your education.