For once, I would like a GOP president to clean up their own economic mess

Please continue by responding to what I post then with something of substance. Try actually refuting what I post.

 

It's absolutely relevant and as we saw in 2008 Bush was made totally IRRELEVANT. Yet the Democrats will blame him for the deficit because somehow he didn't stop them even though they never presented him a budget.

Well we don't have kings. We have a beautiful separation of powers and a balance of power. The fact is the Congress controls the budget. The president submits his ideas, they have no effect on law and are routinely ignored. A president facing an opposition congress can do little but negotiate from a position of weakness, shutdown the government and get blamed for it. He can veto and the Congress override it. And when they are lamed ducked like Bush was little at all. That's political reality. It shows a very shallow understanding of the government and politics to hinge everything simply on who sits in the White House.

 

It appears you've forgotten your civics lessons. Congress can not act unilaterally. Even if they could.........WHICH THEY CAN'T.............the wheels were already in motion by January 2008. What in the world other than blind partisanship would cause you to lay blame at the feet of congressional Dems for inaction when Shrub was in the WH?

 

Dollarwise I made 6% more yet paid 3% less in taxes.

 

"Longest economic expansion". That's like saying I ran the longest race ever, because I crawled the whole way.

 

In case you hadn't noticed you aren't in control of this debate. You don't get to pick and choose what is discussed.

Please respond to.........Would you like to discuss how increasing the reserve ratio for investment banks to 33:1 effected their ability to deal with covering margin calls on CDS' once the RMBS (residential mortgage backed securities) began to fail?

 

I get the distinct feeling you are way, way over your head in discussing what happened that lead to the near total collapse of the banking system in the US. You apparently have no understanding of the magnitude of what Obama was facing when he sought to undo the damage from the financial collapse that occurred in 2008.

 

But when they are the majority player and hold the legislative body the burdens on them to pass appropriate legislation and send it to the President. Had they pass a bill make the tax rate permanent Bush would have signed it in a heartbeat. An acceleration of depreciation, bring it on. The entire list I posted and that's just a start.

OK they took back the Congress a year before January 3rd 2007. Whatever they did didn't work did it. They passed their stimulus claiming it would hold unemployment to 8% and it soared to 10% and stayed over 8% for over 4 years, that didn't work too good. While that unemployment rate was soaring the LFPR plummeted, that didn't work too good. People on government dependence soared and stayed at high levels of over 4 years, that didn't work too good.

What worked in what they did?

 

I get the distinct feeling you can't answer simple questions and respond to what I post and want to play wack-a-mole. The banking system didn't collapse due to the Bush bridge loans, that was dealt with. All the Democrats had to do was pass measures to help abate the slowdown/recession and get us into full recovery. They utterly failed and you want to go back to those policies.

 

That is correct. And the small positive temporary impact that the cuts had on the economy came mainly from that sector. But the bulk of the tax cuts, which went to Corporations and billionaires had no impact on the economy, but huge impact on the deficit.

I was hoping you understood how spending impacts GDP. Looks like you don't.... However I don't have the time or the drive to explain it to you.

 

The burden of proof is on you. Tell me exactly what legislation they should have passed that could have stopped the financial system from near total collapse. Before you answer, what legislation did Dubya propose be passed that could have had the same effect? Because partisanship blinds you you seem to think holding control of the Congress gave Dems magical powers to stop a series of events in the world of finance no legislation could stop.

 

You're assuming this; you haven't demonstrated this. How would you be able to measure who benefited more?

I'm always interested in learning something new. Explain how spending impacts GDP...

 

OMG. You have absolutely no understanding of what transpired and what caused the near collapse of the financial system. I should have known better than to expect an intelligent, informed conversation from a Trumpette.

All I can say is you should do some reading on the subject. If that's too dry watch "The Big Short." Maybe that will give you a rudimentary understanding of the forces in play. I just can't waste my time on this any longer with someone so clueless.

 

What would that have to do with why you think the Democrats would be better at responding to the next slowdown recession?

If you are not going to actually respond to what I post and the best you can do is state how I can't possibly understand to the topic there's not going to be much debate. And we can stick with the subject at hand I don't need to go down some theoretical rabbit hole because you think you can spout out a lot of big terms and theory and speculations, we have reality.

So do you want to have a discussion of the Democrats response to economic conditions versus the Republicans or not?

 

Go trade insults with someone else I have no interest in your wack-a-mole over subjects you can even debate.

 

The poster I was responding to was trying to make a point about deficits.

 

The 2008 recession was due to bad mortgage loans to minorities, which coincided with an unrelated housing bubble.

The Dems forced the bad loans on the banks. It wasn’t due to anything Bush did.

 

Residential housing hardly makes a blip on GDP, Bush recused the banks with TARP so there was no economic collapse and in fact we made money off of it. Heck Bush and the Republicans had the dot.com tech sector collapse which is a HUGE part of GDP and then 9/11 on top of that and with their policies we got through and into a full recovery and soaring tax revenues.

 

You had Harry Reid with a Dem Senate Majority and Nancy Pelosi as Speaker with a Dem House Majority in 2006. That's on Dems.

Gay Barney Frank was busy trying to get weed legalized and said the housing market didn't have a mortgage crisis 6 months before the crash.

Dems own it. Sorry but no Repubtards were in power except for Bush, who wasn't writing the laws.

 

I have laid out a list and you refuse to respond or try to refute anything. For one who claims to have this higher knowledge you sure don't know much about what actually happened.

 

No, it’s nothing at all like that.

 

Nope. 2007.

Nope. Republicans killed every single bill attempting to regulate Fanny/Freddy from 2001-2007. They are entirely responsible for the crash.

https://financialservices.house.gov...11/timeline_for_fannie_freddie_regulation.pdf

 

I wouldn't call 3% growth an "overstimulated" economy.

 

You can't possibly be serious.

Or, you are a Trump fan and you were trying to be clever.

 

The Group of Seven (G-7) summit is set to end without a joint communique for the first time in its 44-year history, after French President Emmanuel Macron decided to abandon the tradition citing “a very deep crisis of democracy.”

Macron said an attempt to produce a joint communique would most likely be a “pointless” exercise.

He referenced President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from a landmark climate agreement restricting global efforts to cut carbon as one example of why it would be difficult to display a united front.

Last year, at the G-7 summit in Ottawa, Canada, Trump threw typically stage-managed proceedings into disarray.

The U.S. president made an early exit from the meeting, refused to sign the collective final statement and engaged in personal insults over trade with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The summit appeared to demonstrate fraying ties between the U.S. and its traditional allies, with one photo seemingly summing up divisions in the room. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/22/g-7...es-expected-not-to-sign-joint-communique.html



Trump's followers think this is smart. They want Trump to isolate America from its allies. One of Trump's followers is a fella named Vladimir Putin. Putin wanted Trump to become our President, and he is quite proud of his protégé.