As America Changes, Some Anxious Whites Feel Left Behind

cawacko said:
So if the dot com bubble had just continued we would have had no national debt by 2010? I mean hey, why not right?
Click to expand...

No. Paying off the debt didn't have anything to do with the dotcom bubble. Even with the bubble bursting in 2000, we had a record surplus that year. 2001 also had a surplus, but it was lower because some of the Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001.

If Conservatives had done literally nothing to the tax code, we could have paid off our debt by 2010. But Conservatives can't even do nothing right, so the debt was doubled by 2009 instead.
 
Truth Detector said:
:lolup: Liberal moron who thinks lying is winning.
Click to expand...

What about your pension screeching? What happened? You just gave up, didn't you because I called you out as just parroting what other people said about CA's pensions 8 years ago, and not bothering to understand it yourself.

Whatever.
 
The Twerp said:
1. 2005-8 was the mortgage bubble. So if you're trying to take credit for the economic growth during that period, you must also accept responsibility for the bubble that caused that growth.
Click to expand...

:lolup: Lying leftist won't quite babbling ignorant. :rofl2:

The Twerp said:
2. After 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts, the economy lost net 400,000 private sector jobs and we entered the worst Recession since the Great Depression.
Click to expand...

Please link us up to ONE Bush policy that led to the LIBERAL created mortgage implosion snowflake. It had NOTHING to do with tax cuts you ignorant dullard.

The Twerp said:
3. Which means that if you're going to blame Democrats for the housing bubble, which I suspect you will, then you must give them the credit for the economy gains from that bubble. Which means it wasn't the tax cuts that caused that growth. Which means your entire argument unravels before our eyes.
Click to expand...

See above; one link that suggests that anything Bush did led to the mortgage housing crisis. I think you know what it was or you wouldn't have brought up the Democratic Party of the Jackass.
 
cawacko said:
Actually the question of pensions hasn't disappeared and the budget surplus means little in regards to it.
Click to expand...

Actually, it has...and your shitty little opinion pieces, which also rely on old baseline revenue models, are clearly just a way for the right-wing fringe to interject themselves in a debate they know very little about, and choose to know very little about.
 
The Derp said:
FUCKING WRONG AGAIN.

Clinton raised taxes in 1993, spending increased every year of his term, and he left office with a budget surplus that you all squandered, and turned into record deficits.

Bush the Dumber and the Conservatives were so terrible that they produced 4 -FOUR- record deficits during Bush's 8 years including the all-time high deficit Bush left Obama. And that was after being handed a record surplus from Clinton.

2000: $236B surplus
2001: $128B surplus
2002: $157B deficit
2003: $377B deficit (A record)
2004: $412B deficit (A record)
2005: $318B deficit
2006: $248B deficit
2007: $160B deficit
2008: $458B deficit (A record)
2009: $1.4T deficit (A record)

#winning?
Click to expand...

1) 2006-2009 budgets written by a demmycrat Congress....
2) 2003-2004 creation of Homeland Security and expanded spending on local police and firemen......
 
The twerp said:
Yes. Bush took a series of steps in 2002-4 to create and inflate a subprime mortgage bubble in order to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of his tax cuts, when it was really as a result of debt.

From Bush's Working Group, 2008:

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

Conservatives were in full control of all three branches of government in 2004 through January 2007. Bush specifically dramatically weakened underwriting standards for subprime loans by having his regulators no enforce lending standards.

And the Federal Reserve said:

"Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "
Click to expand...

Watch this video if you want to watch how the Race hustling Democratic Party of the Jackass complained and impugned the very regulator trying to tell everyone they had a problem. Democratic policies lead to failure, malaise and poverty.

Let's also not forget that Franklin Raines, a connected Democrat was in charge of the rampant corruption going on at Fannie Mae. BIG Democratic donor too.

WATCH:

Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
 
The Derp said:
Yes. Bush took a series of steps in 2002-4 to create and inflate a subprime mortgage bubble in order to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of his tax cuts, when it was really as a result of debt.

From Bush's Working Group, 2008:

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

Conservatives were in full control of all three branches of government in 2004 through January 2007. Bush specifically dramatically weakened underwriting standards for subprime loans by having his regulators no enforce lending standards.

And the Federal Reserve said:

"Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "
Click to expand...

Bush controlled the Fed and made Greenspan leaves rates too low for too long? How was he able to do that?
 
The Twerp said:
Yes you did, and no it didn't.

You said revenue "always increases" following a tax cut; revenue for 2001-4 was below revenue for 2000. So your statement is false.
Click to expand...

There you go again being the dishonest dumbfuck. I love how you want to stop at 2004. But that is moronic just like your weak, stupid and pathetic arguments.
 
The Derp said:
No. Paying off the debt didn't have anything to do with the dotcom bubble. Even with the bubble bursting in 2000, we had a record surplus that year. 2001 also had a surplus, but it was lower because some of the Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001.

If Conservatives had done literally nothing to the tax code, we could have paid off our debt by 2010. But Conservatives can't even do nothing right, so the debt was doubled by 2009 instead.
Click to expand...

You are talking about budget projections. Those projections were made before the bubble burst. We weren't paying off any debt in a recession.
 
cawacko said:
Our economy has been on fire but do you have any numbers to back up your claim that we've grown the fastest?
Click to expand...

1. I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS THE FASTEST. If you're not going to fully comprehend and read what is written, don't respond to my posts.

2. CA's GDP growth outpaced the country's since it raised taxes, beginning in 2013. You can see that here (2013), here (2014), here (2015), here (2016).



cawacko said:
Housing is the biggest reason for our wealth gap. That is a state and local issue. We choose not to build enough housing and thus force out middle and working class people. That's not a federal gov't issue. People coming into the state are well educated higher earners and immigrants. The inequality is only going to continue to grow.
Click to expand...

Section 8 is not a state/local issue. Section 8 housing is federal. Who was it who cut Section 8? Oh right, Conservatives. So now Conservatives complain about a wealth gap caused by housing which is caused by their cutting of Section 8.

It's like...at this point, I feel like Conservatives deliberately create problems just so they can complain about them.
 
The Derp said:
Actually, it has...and your shitty little opinion pieces, which also rely on old baseline revenue models, are clearly just a way for the right-wing fringe to interject themselves in a debate they know very little about, and choose to know very little about.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So this is very political to you and I see facts are secondary
 
The Twerp said:
What about your pension screeching? What happened? You just gave up, didn't you because I called you out as just parroting what other people said about CA's pensions 8 years ago, and not bothering to understand it yourself.

Whatever.
Click to expand...

Cawacko tried to lecture on that stupidity; but facts appear to just bounce right off you and you continue ranting ignorantly. At some point, smart people stop trying argue with idiots and just start pointing at them and laughing.

That pension debt exceeds $1.3 trillion. But it's nothing to Democrats; they have taxpayers dontchyaknow! :rofl2:
 
The Derp said:
1. I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS THE FASTEST. If you're not going to fully comprehend and read what is written, don't respond to my posts.

2. CA's GDP growth outpaced the country's since it raised taxes, beginning in 2013. You can see that here (2013), here (2014), here (2015), here (2016).





Section 8 is not a state/local issue. Section 8 housing is federal. Who was it who cut Section 8? Oh right, Conservatives. So now Conservatives complain about a wealth gap caused by housing which is caused by their cutting of Section 8.

It's like...at this point, I feel like Conservatives deliberately create problems just so they can complain about them.
Click to expand...

Lol, you think our housing crisis is because of section 8 vouchers? You have as little understand of housing as TTQ64. Don't talk so much trash when you don't even understand the basics
 
The twerp said:
Every time you post a meme, it's just more validation for me that I'm right and you're too deficient to mount a defense of the positions you have.
Click to expand...

After trying to educate an idiot, and realizing it is fruitless, what is left? You're so far off the fucking topic it isn't even in the same galaxy anymore.

You have an issue with facts. I get it. You have an issue with reality. I get it. I am uninterested in your thread derailment and if you want start a thread to debate the economics of the Bush Presidency, the idiocy of the democratic agenda, I suggest you start that thread. You can even make it about me and how you think I mopped the floor with your empty head.
 
cawacko said:
Spending on education out of pocket? Do you have an example?
Click to expand...

Yeah...tuition.

So here's a great example: KS cut taxes in 2012, promising that they'd be "a shot of adrenaline" into the arm of KS' economy. Obviously, they weren't and what happened instead was that KS' budget surpluses were erased and replaced with massive deficits. It was so bad that KS had to raid its Highway Fund just to balance their budget. Now, when massive deficits occur, that is what Conservatives use as an excuse to cut the spending on things they oppose, specifically health care and education. So KS cut taxes, which reduced revenues, which produced deficits, which were closed with cuts to spending. One of the first targets for spending cuts was the KS State University system. So the Conservatives cut education spending, which forced the KS State University Board of Regents to raise their tuition, which means KS residents had to spend more (or borrow more) out of pocket in order to cover the increase in tuition caused by the cuts to education, caused by the deficit, caused by the tax cut.

CA, on the other hand, raised taxes and poured more money into education, so much so that tuition costs for state colleges and universities were among the lowest in the nation on a price-per-credit basis.

So that's how tax cuts result in increase out-of-pocket spending for things that should be essential services.

They did the same thing with Medicaid in KS too; they cut it which increased co-pays, drug costs, coinsurance, etc. All because KS had to cut taxes for the rich. Why? Who fucking knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top