- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,186
- Reaction score
- 14,274
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The question is how did the recession of 1981-82 affect the American people compared to 2007-2009 and the answer is in the misery index as well as the unemployment rate. Charts comparing balance sheets are irrelevant, different time and different income levels.
Paying 17.5% for a home loan and having 10.8%unemployment compared today doesn't compare at all.
Reagan did the right thing, empowered the American people with tax cuts and Obama has empowered the American govt. and believes the govt. creates jobs, apparently just like you.
The point being, there was not a downward slope, at any time, during the Reagan Presidency in terms of household net worth. How can households be suffering when their net worth continued to appreciate?
Exactly, we would be begging for such a situation now.
Of course tax cuts were a necessity; top rates were @ 90% and tax cuts helped pull prices downward.
Stop with the charades and admit the $16 trillion figure is a misrepresentation of the various lending facilities offered by the Fed. I do have to admit i kinda set you up for the failure, but it would have not have been attainable if you bothered to check your sources.
Adios!
Household net worth was nowhere near what it is now
nor did they have the ability to rebound as quickly as they do now.
Living during both and working during both, the high inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment affected the majority more than the 2007-09 recession even though Household net worth dropped.
People don't live off net worth
they live off their personal income which took a direct hit because of high inflation
high interest rates, and high unemployment that hurt the economy more than the 07-09 recession
Living during both you cannot convince me that this one was worse so we will just agree to disagree.
Let me know when a loan is not a loan. Speaking of misrepresentation ... if you had already researched this you would have known there was a bailout ... or as you might say liquidity challanged.
If you basing your debate on a loan is not a loan .... errr you win the debate. Based upon that logic GE and GM were not bailed out ... it was ahh an overnight adjustment to liquidity. Here ... let me make it revolving.
A loan is not a loan and because we are friends ... we will just call it ... not a loan ... its a special kind of GFEWZ adjustment to the liquidity challenged.
Don't attempt to change the nature of the debate because you were wrong.
The $16 trillion figure was intellectually dishonest. Time to man up!
Lie #1.No one is condoning the amount "Bush" Spent but Bush never ran trillion dollar deficits
Lie #2.and Bush had 9/11 which GAO puts the cost at over a trillion dollars in direct and indirect costs.
Lies #3 and #4.I wasn't happy with Bush but faced with the alternative of Gore or Kerry, I chose wisely.
Umm, discouraged workers declined by 142,000. 331,000 jobs gained last month.Take your opinion to the American people and see if they agree. Currently they don't. It does appear that you don't realize that discouraged workers enter and leave the market and that affects the labor force number with impacts the unemployment rates. I would have thought someone of your superior intelligence and experience would know that.
Why should I man up to a loan not being a loan? Also a bailout that you stated did "not" exist ... but you have found a new name for to support your debate ... the liquidity challenged. I wonder why one takes loans ... lmao ... is it because they are liquidity challenged? So what do you call the trillion plus you accounted for? Time to step up and stop being "intellectually dishonest".
"The $16 trillion in secret loans is a bailout." comment was bull****. Even the senator who would stand behind such a ridiculous statement is a complete moron.
There was not $16 trillion in secret loans, as has been explained to ad nauseum. So quit replying with the intent to build straw men, as i do not respond to fallacious arguments. Instead, i call them out
"The $16 trillion in secret loans is a bailout." comment was bull****. Even the senator who would stand behind such a ridiculous statement is a complete moron.
There was not $16 trillion in secret loans, as has been explained to ad nauseum. So quit replying with the intent to build straw men, as i do not respond to fallacious arguments. Instead, i call them out
Lie #1.
2008 and 2009 weren't trillion dollar deficits?
Bush's budget deficits:
2002: 420,772,553,397.10
2003: 554,995,097,146.46
2004: 595,821,633,586.70
2005: 553,656,965,393.18
2006: 574,264,237,491.73
2007: 500,679,473,047.25
2008: 1,017,071,524,649.92
2009: 1,885,104,106,599.30
Lie #2.
GAO estimated the total cost at $639 billion
GAO:The New York State Senate Finance Committee estimated losses of $639 billion to the United States through 2003 and $22 billion to New York State (in current dollars).
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02700r.pdf
Lies #3 and #4.
You voted for Bush twice for governor, twice for president, and would vote for him again if he could run. And to claim you voted wisely is ridiculous coming from someone who votes strictly party line. Bonzo the Chimp could run and you would vote for him if he ran as Bonzo-R.
Umm, discouraged workers declined by 142,000. 331,000 jobs gained last month.
And you remain under the delusion that the unemployment rate remained at 9.1% without gaining jobs even though 150,000 jobs are needed just to keep the rate at 9.1%.
You still haven't admitted there was a bailout by the FED of any amount!!! You fight for honesty whats your response?
Get off the ropes and stop playing rope a dope!
Who cares, i never stated there were never any bailouts dude, so quit trying to side step the entire point of this discussion. You made an error by stating $16 trillion in secret loans which of course were in no way secret.
AIG got bailed out
BOA got bailed out
Fannie May got bailed out
Freddie Mac got bailed out
GM and Chrysler got bailed out
C got bailed out
However, the Feds various credit facilities are not, and were never intended to be used to "bail out" anything. they are there simply to provide liquidity and credit during times of need for member banks; when credit markets fail to function in an appropriate manner.
So get over it. You lost, you were wrong, and you definitely have no business in these discussions because you lack the knowledge base and familiarity with the industry to keep up with those that do.
I don't buy that. I believe attacks like that can indeed be thwarted. If they couldn't be, then there's no point in fighting terrorism. But one thing is for certain -- doing absolutely nothing will not prevent an attack.Okay now that you are getting somewhat reasonable, I don't blame Clinton for the attack .... and I didn't blame him for the first. I don't blame Bush for the attack either. When people are willing to jump into the seat of an air line and crash that plane killing themselves ..... there is "NO" way to stop such an act. If you are lucky you can make it more difficult, but you aren't going to stop anyone that intent on killing people.
And under those circumstances, you or I would do everything within our power to protect ourselves. Neither one of us would simply sit back and accept our fate was doomed, believing that person was so intent on killing us that they would succeed. We wouldn't do what Bush did, which was to ignore the warnings and do absolutely nothing to protect the nation he led.That same holds true, if someone wanted you or I dead, and they made up that mind that at any cost they were going to get us, then by gawd I'll be willing to bet he would.
I find that analogy rather absurd. You are basing a potential crime based on statistics and not on intelligence and comparing that with a terrorist attack which had a mountain of intelligence. Even so, L.A. police will be working vigilantly to prevent crime, whereas Bush did nothing.But hey .. if you really feel that way .. here is some intel for you . . in LA, sometime this week .. . there is going to be a drive by shooting. It's going to be done by gang members. Now I expect that to be stopped ... .after all .. I narrowed it down to a week, gave you the city, and narrowed it down to one of the gangs there. That intel is 250 time more specific then was given to Bush. So there should be no problem right ?
Bush blaming clinton (and Reagan) for 9.11 ...Oh and one other piece of information, show me one time that Bush ever blamed Clinton for the attacks of 9/11..... show Me one time where Bush was running around pointing fingers at Clinton for him inheriting the dot com bust. Yet here we are nearly 3 years after Obama takes office, and we are "still" hearing how it's Bush's fault .. . or the Republicans fault, or the tea party's fault .... Pardon me for saying this, but I think that speaks volumes as to the character of both of them.
Post# 670 A loan is not a bailout.
As you recall I stated the FED bailed out the gamblers, I wasn't about TARP. Was it 16 trillion in loans ... definitely yes. Were the PDCF loans long term credit ... no, were the PDCF loans used long term ... YES.
Did I state by the way ... the FED bailed out gamblers with 16 trillion in secret long term loans or did I state the FED bailed out gamblers with 16 trillion secret loans? I don't consider the TAF loans very long term. The term was long enough to turn the gamblers fortunes around ... long enough, which in the end was the whole point of the FED bailing them out.
Did you think the FED tried to avoid and discourage the investigation so the public would lose faith ... was because all was rosy at the farm? Did they want people to know about the shady practices and junk backing loans?
So you think by stating the "company" mission policy of the FED ... you change what actually happened? Is that "honest"?
Read your post again and tell me anything you stated ... anything which supports the debate I was wrong!
That reply was empty ... and you finish with an insult. A no substance post declaring victory. Right wingers like you always pull that crap.
I've presented evidence of a bailout by the FED. Evidence of 16 Trillion in loans. Goldenboy you have not presented 1 shred of evidence to the contrary.
Nyah, Nyah, I win the debate and I'm smarter then you, and you have no knowledge of the industry ... is not evidence. As you purport to support honest debate and you will swoop in to challenge dishonesty, its disappointing to see you not present evidence to support your contentions.
I win is not evidence of supporting your debate.
Note: The dollar amounts borrowed for each loan were term-adjusted by multiplying the loan amount by the term to maturity for the loan and dividing by 365 days. Term to maturity is calculated as the difference between the original loan maturity date and the trade date and does not reflect repayments of loans that occurred before the original loan maturity date. Total borrowing is aggregated at the parent company level and generally includes borrowing by branches, agencies, subsidiaries, and sponsored ABCP conduits that we could identify. Total borrowing for each parent company consolidates amounts borrowed by acquired institutions following the completion of acquisitions. PDCF totals include credit extensions to affiliates of some primary dealers and TSLF totals includeloans under the TSLF Options Program (TOP).
There were not $16 trillion in loans; that much is certain. As explained, the counting techniques employed for the $16 trillion figure were factored to reflect term, and therefore they loans in question amounted to about $1.39 trillion, if i remember correctly.
It was in no way an insult, just an honest observation made by assessing the content of your posts in regards to the subject at hand.
You were given the evidence, and lacked the will to actually respond to anything i have stated; choosing instead to hide behind straw men as though they have any meaning.
It was not $16 trillion.
Page 146 of the GAO report outlines the actual loan amounts on a term adjusted basis.
View attachment 67115539
to which it is stated directly under that real amount:
Now please end your desperate attempt to save face, as this is really getting boring.
BTW, you were given adequate evidence from your own source. But because you failed to actually read the report, your argument failed with it.
Original Evidence
Uh-oh!This really is getting old, I am now convinced that you really aren't that smart as you say the same things over and over again all in hopes that if you say it often enough it will be accurate.
Aside from the fact that Bush's budget ran trhough September, 2009, plus TARP, plus supplimentals for his wars, he's responsible for well over a trillion dollars, the FY2008 deficit also topped a trillion dollars.Bush did not have a trillion dollar deficit in 2009 unless he ran that deficit from Dallas.
Well I've offered you many opportunities to show where in that GAO report it said the cost was above the $639B it stated was the "estimated loss" "to the United States," but you folded like a bad poker hand; I asked many times for you to show where it stated that $639B was not the total cost, but you ran away like a frightened schoolgirl; I challenged you to show where that report stated direct + indirect costs exceeded a trillion dollars, but you failed like the 2008 Lions.Regarding 9/11, do you know the difference between direct and indirect costs? Of course not.
Speaking of sickness ... I've posted those side-by-side comparisons about 5 times now and yet you're still waiting for them. :roll:Get over your BDS, it really is a sickness. If Bush ran against Obama I would vote for him again as I will take the Bush results vs. Obama's any day. Still waiting for you to put them side by side using nominal numbers.
It is true that I'm not an expert in Economics. However common sense goes a long way. As I said I don't consider any of the loans "long term" but they were long enough to get these business back on their feet, through the efforts of the FED. The FED helped most of them succeed by accepting their junk.
Now none of these loans were long term and does 16 trillion translate to 3 trillion when considered like an auto loan? Probably, I'm not sure the way they rolled the PDCF loans over daily. What type of term are you trying to translate them into? So approach the term as you will, unless the investigators are lying (the FED agreed with the conclusions) there was 16 trillion in various terms, providing different benefits.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?