Trump Admin no longer forecasting 3% growth

[finebead]

You'll have to ask the radical left what the problem is but I am sure that raising taxes is certainly part of their solution. they claim that the Trump tax cuts never generated the promised benefits but the question is what was the "promised" benefit. I see people keeping more of what they earn a benefit, states and local gov't revenue a benefit, record charitable spending a benefit, record S&P dividends a benefit, but the radical left wants the gov't to get that money and believes that tax cuts don't increase economic activity enough to warrant and always look at deficits to justify their opinion never wasteful over-reaching spending.

Anyone can stimulate the economy for a year or two. A tax cut will do it (temporary for 3 years, or permanent), or a $900 billion Stimulus package spent over 3 years such as Obama did. As I say, you have to know what the negative effects of the stimulus are. Certainly higher deficits is a negative and we have that now, and they show every sign of getting worse according to CBO. Unless you are a proponent of modern monetary theory, that is a problem.

Your point about record local tax receipts, there is no proof that is a function strictly of the tax cuts. There are many factors that influence the performance of the economy, and increased population is one. Our GDP expands every year, that is another. Home values have risen annually for at least the last 8 years and that alone would drive up property tax receipts. You can't point at a tax cut and ascribe every good that occurs in the economy to the tax cut, many other factors are at work.

Like I say, if tax cuts were the simple always work solution, they would have worked after Bush 43 two tax cuts, and they did not work well. In fact the economy cratered in year 8 of Bush's presidency, and in year 8, that was not Clinton's fault, it was Bush's. All the two large tax cuts did was lead to a horrible deficit of $1 trillion per year that he handed over to Obama in 2009, and a broken economy to fix.

 

[Conservative]

finebead;1069864044]Anyone can stimulate the economy for a year or two. A tax cut will do it (temporary for 3 years, or permanent), or a $900 billion Stimulus package spent over 3 years such as Obama did. As I say, you have to know what the negative effects of the stimulus are. Certainly higher deficits is a negative and we have that now, and they show every sign of getting worse according to CBO. Unless you are a proponent of modern monetary theory, that is a problem.

No, actual tax cuts are ongoing and the benefits will last a few years not just a couple. The Obama stimulus did nothing but create the worst recovery from a recession in modern history. Re-writing history doesn't change it. I am a proponent of people keeping more of what they earn since the federal bureaucrats are going to do nothing but spend to buy votes and create dependence

Your point about record local tax receipts, there is no proof that is a function strictly of the tax cuts. There are many factors that influence the performance of the economy, and increased population is one. Our GDP expands every year, that is another. Home values have risen annually for at least the last 8 years and that alone would drive up property tax receipts. You can't point at a tax cut and ascribe every good that occurs in the economy to the tax cut, many other factors are at work.

States get their revenue mostly from sales and property taxes so I stand by my point, people with more spendable income spend and that boosts sales and excise taxes.

Like I say, if tax cuts were the simple always work solution, they would have worked after Bush 43 two tax cuts, and they did not work well. In fact the economy cratered in year 8 of Bush's presidency, and in year 8, that was not Clinton's fault, it was Bush's. All the two large tax cuts did was lead to a horrible deficit of $1 trillion per year that he handed over to Obama in 2009, and a broken economy to fix.

tax cuts don't lead to deficits, tax cuts lead to economic activity that grows revenue. The economy wasn't broken when Obama took office, TARP recapitalized the banks, very little of the Obama stimulus was spent and we came out of recession in June. That is history and reality

 

[finebead]

tax cuts don't lead to deficits, tax cuts lead to economic activity that grows revenue. The economy wasn't broken when Obama took office, TARP recapitalized the banks, very little of the Obama stimulus was spent and we came out of recession in June. That is history and reality

Show how the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 did not lead to larger deficits.

Or, show how the Trump tax cuts did not lead to a larger deficit.

 

[Born Free]

Show how the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 did not lead to larger deficits.

Or, show how the Trump tax cuts did not lead to a larger deficit.

And tell me how Obama's doubling the national debt helped anyone

 

[Conservative]

Show how the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 did not lead to larger deficits.

Or, show how the Trump tax cuts did not lead to a larger deficit.

Bush tax cuts led to a 30+ increase in Federal Revenue so you tell me how increasing revenue causes deficits? Tax cuts don't lead to deficits they lead to less dependence and should lead to less gov't spending but that never is the case with bureaucrats who use the money to buy votes and create career politicians.

 

[Kushinator]

Since fiscal policy is so important what exactly is the democratic party fiscal policy since taking over the House?

The Democratic party didn't run on fixing the economy. Your strawman has no power in this discussion.

7 interest rate hikes in 2 years has negatively affected GDP Growth and that isn't an excuse that is reality.

You can't show this to be true. The Fed has monitored the economic situation with great success. When they first raised rates, it did not bring the effective fed funds rate out of the neutral zone. The neutral zone is a point in which the overnight federal funds rate is neither easy or tight... hence it does not have a negative (or positive impact) on economic growth. It should be noted that there was a time when an interest rate of 0 was still too tight, where a negative OFFR rate was warranted. Spare me the desperate excuses.

Democrats now control the House so what are they proposing to improve economic growth and activity

The Democrats are not running on improving the economy. Again... your strawman has no power in this discussion.

Since you now appear concerned about economic growth and the deficit how are the Democrats in Congress addressing both?

I maintain a relationship with reality, so i know not to believe we are going to magically tax/regulation cut our way to economic growth rates of the past. That's what ignorant partisan fools fall for, and they continue to do so every time another excuse is blurted.

You predict a recession in 2021 based upon your view of the yield curve totally ignoring the factors that affect the yield curve.

It's not my view of the yield curve. You should be versed in this subject before making matter-of-fact statements.

Factors change so do the PROJECTIONS.

It's cheaper to borrow 10 years out than it is for 1 year. Such an event cannot happen in a healthy economy. Had the Trump administration's economic policy been as good as you've claimed, this wouldn't be happening. Long-term interest rates would move higher in a healthy growing economy. This is simply a matter of fact.

 

[Conservative]

The Democratic party didn't run on fixing the economy. Your strawman has no power in this discussion.



You can't show this to be true. The Fed has monitored the economic situation with great success. When they first raised rates, it did not bring the effective fed funds rate out of the neutral zone. The neutral zone is a point in which the overnight federal funds rate is neither easy or tight... hence it does not have a negative (or positive impact) on economic growth. It should be noted that there was a time when an interest rate of 0 was still too tight, where a negative OFFR rate was warranted. Spare me the desperate excuses.



The Democrats are not running on improving the economy. Again... your strawman has no power in this discussion.



I maintain a relationship with reality, so i know not to believe we are going to magically tax/regulation cut our way to economic growth rates of the past. That's what ignorant partisan fools fall for, and they continue to do so every time another excuse is blurted.



It's not my view of the yield curve. You should be versed in this subject before making matter-of-fact statements.

It's cheaper to borrow 10 years out than it is for 1 year. Such an event cannot happen in a healthy economy. Had the Trump administration's economic policy been as good as you've claimed, this wouldn't be happening. Long-term interest rates would move higher in a healthy growing economy. This is simply a matter of fact.

Wow, nothing you posted does anything other than prove my statements accurate and as I have shown you to be not very good at even analyzing your posts. When did the Democrats not run on fixing the economy, 2008? or 2017? There wasn't anything to fix in 2017 and the House went Republican with 40 seats won, the GOP won over 60 in 2010 but the real measurement were the statewide Senate races where the Republicans gained seats.

How can anyone actually post that 7 interest rate hikes didn't impact the GDP growth in this country? Keep posting and keep embarrassing the education system that taught you

As I pointed out the inverted yield curve has indeed been an indicator of an upcoming recession but not the true proof that one will happen much to your dismay and that of the rest of the radical left. Not once have you offered any solutions to prevent that from happening but you certainly do celebrate when negative news hits the media and the American people. It isn't in your DNA to celebrate success, offer alternatives, promote America first which is why you and the rest of the radical left are so miserable all the time

 

[Conservative]

The Democratic party didn't run on fixing the economy. Your strawman has no power in this discussion.



You can't show this to be true. The Fed has monitored the economic situation with great success. When they first raised rates, it did not bring the effective fed funds rate out of the neutral zone. The neutral zone is a point in which the overnight federal funds rate is neither easy or tight... hence it does not have a negative (or positive impact) on economic growth. It should be noted that there was a time when an interest rate of 0 was still too tight, where a negative OFFR rate was warranted. Spare me the desperate excuses.



The Democrats are not running on improving the economy. Again... your strawman has no power in this discussion.



I maintain a relationship with reality, so i know not to believe we are going to magically tax/regulation cut our way to economic growth rates of the past. That's what ignorant partisan fools fall for, and they continue to do so every time another excuse is blurted.



It's not my view of the yield curve. You should be versed in this subject before making matter-of-fact statements.

It's cheaper to borrow 10 years out than it is for 1 year. Such an event cannot happen in a healthy economy. Had the Trump administration's economic policy been as good as you've claimed, this wouldn't be happening. Long-term interest rates would move higher in a healthy growing economy. This is simply a matter of fact.

Having a hard time sleeping, Kush? Rather late to be posting, isn't it? I have always heard that going through withdrawal and losing is tough to take and that is what you are proving. Per your request regarding interest rate hikes affecting GDP growth. Probably part of that indoctrination you have received about an economy that needs gov't spending like Europe and the need for more revenue to fund that spending. Oh, well, guess that reality coming to roost makes for sleepless nights.

Four components of GDP but apparently in the liberal world consumption isn't affected by higher costs in that liberal world of yours. Not sure where you got your education but doesn't look like it is a place that most people should go for their education. Left wing professors continue to make you look foolish as well as left wing economists like Krugman

How does the interest rate affect the GDP? - Quora

 

[Obscurity]

No, liberal morons called the tax cuts 'armageddon'

The tax cuts are a catastrophe and a total farce. Only the rich truly benefit, and **** them anyway.

 

[KLATTU]

Show how the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 did not lead to larger deficits.

Or, show how the Trump tax cuts did not lead to a larger deficit.

Ok ...here. notice that after 2004- when the effects of the tax cuts started to kick in- the deicit shrank for 3 consecutive yeras and would have ben close to zero in 2008.
Then the economy tanked, but that had nothing to with tax cuts.

 

[Fletch]

The tax cuts are a catastrophe and a total farce. Only the rich truly benefit, and **** them anyway.

Not true. I run a small business and every one of my employees received a tax cut.

 

[Obscurity]

Not true. I run a small business and every one of my employees received a tax cut.

Anecdotes are useless. The numbers say otherwise. Sorry.

 

[Fletch]

Anecdotes are useless. The numbers say otherwise. Sorry.

No, the tax rates went down. Thats how payroll works. You withhold based upon rates set by the government and those rates went down. Sorry.

 

[Obscurity]

No, the tax rates went down. Thats how payroll works. You withhold based upon rates set by the government and those rates went down. Sorry.

Anecdotes are not evidence. Sorry.

Fact: The MAJORITY of benefits of this hideous tax bill were folks who needed and deserved it the absolute least, rich business owners or corporate heads or investment managers that have throughout time destroyed the middle class by eliminating perks like profit sharing and other things that enabled a strong middle class.

Folks who own businesses act like they're owed something simply because they "create jobs." **** that noise, you wanted to open a business, you have a need for employees, the public doesn't owe you jack **** because you went out and opened a store.

 

[finebead]

And tell me how Obama's doubling the national debt helped anyone

Obama stopped the downcycle of the economy, worst recession since the Great Depression. Following the TARP Bush signed on 10/3/2008, conveniently putting it in Obama's first fiscal year, the stock market continued to implode until March 9, 2009, when the market could see the Obama Stimulus bill being signed.

Good things about the Obama stimulus. It was temporary, to address a temporary problem, the Bush recession. Much of the debt was due to Bush and his recession, which caused massive layoffs in the country, and with it, huge decline in income tax revenue. When spending goes up (the stimulus) and revenue goes down, you get a very large deficit.

But, it is the prescription for a steep recession. And it worked. After the Stimulus in March 2009, the nation exited recession in Q3 2009.

The recovery was not robust, but this is also a function of a backward Chinese economy in the late 20th century, transitioning successfully to a 20th century economy by 2000. They took many manufacturing jobs from the US, most of them left during Bush 43 term. Bush lied to the country, he said if we cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, the wealthy would take the savings, start new businesses and increase jobs. It did not work. The rich saved the tax cut, and the made their existing companies more efficient by moving the jobs to cheaper labor China, S. Korea, and India (call centers and programmers). That is why the Obama recovery was weak, the world changed and never before had we tried to come out of a recession with 1.3 billion people who would work for dirt low wages taking many jobs out of the US.

 

[finebead]

Bush tax cuts led to a 30+ increase in Federal Revenue so you tell me how increasing revenue causes deficits? Tax cuts don't lead to deficits they lead to less dependence and should lead to less gov't spending but that never is the case with bureaucrats who use the money to buy votes and create career politicians.

That is a cool argument, except it is wrong. The Bush tax cuts DID NOT lead to a 30% increase in Federal Revenue.

The numbers for individual income tax are as follows, year by year, in billions of dollars. Corp. tax is a small fraction of individual income tax.

2000 - 1,004
2001 - 994 - first bush tax cut
2002 - 858
2003 - 793 - second bush tax cut
2004 - 809 - SEC allows the biggest banks, the investment banks, to increase their leverage to triple former level, and allows them to self monitor.
2005 - 927
2006 - 1,044
2007 - 1,163
2008 - 1,145
2009 - 915
2010 - 898
2011 - 1,091

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 | Tax Foundation

So, if we take Bush's final individual income tax receipts in 2008 as 1,145 and subtract his start number of 994 from 2001, the difference is 151, and divided by his start number of 994, that is 15% after 8 years. However, my initial statement was that anyone can stimulate the economy, just cut taxes or spend stimulus money, the question is what damage will the stimulus do? In the case of the Bush administration, it helped blow up the housing market in an unstable unsustainable way (combined with abnormally low interest rates and inadequate banking regulation), and the result was the real estate crash, mortgage crisis of 2008. The layoffs really took off across the whole economy in 2009, greatly reducing the income tax receipts that Obama had coming in.

The 15% increase in income tax revenue under Bush was built on quicksand. It was unstable, and unsustainable, and that is the legacy he gave to work with. By 2009, the individual income tax rev. was below the level that Bush started with, because his financial policies had decimated the economy.

 

[finebead]

Ok ...here. notice that after 2004- when the effects of the tax cuts started to kick in- the deicit shrank for 3 consecutive yeras and would have ben close to zero in 2008.
Then the economy tanked, but that had nothing to with tax cuts.

You cannot show that the deficit shrank due to the tax cuts, when Clinton turned over a balanced budget, and Bush never came close to having a balanced budget.

While the deficits came down for 3 years, they were based on an over-stimulated under-regulated unstable economy that was running hot, until it imploded.

That is NOT the type of economy the nation wants or needs. That hurt the nation for a decade.

 

[Conservative]

That is a cool argument, except it is wrong. The Bush tax cuts DID NOT lead to a 30% increase in Federal Revenue.

The numbers for individual income tax are as follows, year by year, in billions of dollars. Corp. tax is a small fraction of individual income tax.

2000 - 1,004
2001 - 994 - first bush tax cut
2002 - 858
2003 - 793 - second bush tax cut
2004 - 809 - SEC allows the biggest banks, the investment banks, to increase their leverage to triple former level, and allows them to self monitor.
2005 - 927
2006 - 1,044
2007 - 1,163
2008 - 1,145
2009 - 915
2010 - 898
2011 - 1,091

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 | Tax Foundation

So, if we take Bush's final individual income tax receipts in 2008 as 1,145 and subtract his start number of 994 from 2001, the difference is 151, and divided by his start number of 994, that is 15% after 8 years. However, my initial statement was that anyone can stimulate the economy, just cut taxes or spend stimulus money, the question is what damage will the stimulus do? In the case of the Bush administration, it helped blow up the housing market in an unstable unsustainable way (combined with abnormally low interest rates and inadequate banking regulation), and the result was the real estate crash, mortgage crisis of 2008. The layoffs really took off across the whole economy in 2009, greatly reducing the income tax receipts that Obama had coming in.

The 15% increase in income tax revenue under Bush was built on quicksand. It was unstable, and unsustainable, and that is the legacy he gave to work with. By 2009, the individual income tax rev. was below the level that Bush started with, because his financial policies had decimated the economy.

Here is your problem 2008 cost the treasury a lot of money as the Democratic Party in control of the Congress wanted the WH more than preventing a recession and then when getting the WH they created the worst recovery in modern history because most liberals have no understanding of the private sector, no understanding of initiative, no understanding as to the role of the state and federal governments.

In 2008 4 million jobs were lost due to the recession and that is 4 million taxpayers. FIT growth which was significant only increased 15 billion dollars in 2008. The Bush tax cuts were fully implemented in July 2003 and the best years for tax revenue was 2004-2007 when Republicans controlled the Congress.

 

[Conservative]

You cannot show that the deficit shrank due to the tax cuts, when Clinton turned over a balanced budget, and Bush never came close to having a balanced budget.

While the deficits came down for 3 years, they were based on an over-stimulated under-regulated unstable economy that was running hot, until it imploded.

That is NOT the type of economy the nation wants or needs. That hurt the nation for a decade.

Can you explain to me how the Clinton balanced budget led to 1.4 trillion added to the debt??

 

[Born Free]

Obama stopped the downcycle of the economy, worst recession since the Great Depression. Following the TARP Bush signed on 10/3/2008, conveniently putting it in Obama's first fiscal year, the stock market continued to implode until March 9, 2009, when the market could see the Obama Stimulus bill being signed.

Obama borrowed 10 trillion in just 8 yrs doubling our national debt. And all we got for it was the worst economic recovery in US History.

Good things about the Obama stimulus. It was temporary, to address a temporary problem, the Bush recession. Much of the debt was due to Bush and his recession, which caused massive layoffs in the country, and with it, huge decline in income tax revenue. When spending goes up (the stimulus) and revenue goes down, you get a very large deficit.

I repeat all we got for 10 trillion doubling our national debt was the worst recovery in US History.

The recovery was not robust

That is a understatement, for 10 trillion doubling our national debt, all we got was the worst economic recovery in US History.

but this is also a function of a backward Chinese economy in the late 20th century, transitioning successfully to a 20th century economy by 2000. They took many manufacturing jobs from the US, most of them left during Bush 43 term. Bush lied to the country, he said if we cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, the wealthy would take the savings, start new businesses and increase jobs. It did not work. The rich saved the tax cut, and the made their existing companies more efficient by moving the jobs to cheaper labor China, S. Korea, and India (call centers and programmers). That is why the Obama recovery was weak, the world changed and never before had we tried to come out of a recession with 1.3 billion people who would work for dirt low wages taking many jobs out of the US.

Yeah those manufacturing jobs Obama said were never coming back, and losing those manufacturing jobs under Obama escalated. And in fact he was on the move to shut down some of our country's industries. Obama did nothing to renegotiate NAFTA, not a damn thing, Obama did not do a damn thing about China ripping us off on Trade and Obama could care less that China was stealing our intellectual capital. Obama did not do a damn thing to pull in NK's nuke program, instead he gave NK the green light to make all the Nukes they wanted and make all the missiles they wanted. Obama did not do a damn thing about the UK ripping us off on trade. And he never asked NATO to pay their fair share of the NATO agreement, which is 2% of their GDP and none of the members were paying up, except us. And while we were soldering all the expense of NATO, Obama did nothing. Christ I could go on and on and on about Obama's failure.

 

[finebead]

Here is your problem 2008 cost the treasury a lot of money as the Democratic Party in control of the Congress wanted the WH more than preventing a recession and then when getting the WH they created the worst recovery in modern history because most liberals have no understanding of the private sector, no understanding of initiative, no understanding as to the role of the state and federal governments.

In 2008 4 million jobs were lost due to the recession and that is 4 million taxpayers. FIT growth which was significant only increased 15 billion dollars in 2008. The Bush tax cuts were fully implemented in July 2003 and the best years for tax revenue was 2004-2007 when Republicans controlled the Congress.

Wrong again. The financial crisis was NOT created by the dems, it was created by the repubs in 2001 - 2006. The first mortgage company to go broke was in early 2007, and the bad loans that wrecked it were issued in 2004, 2005, and 2006 under the repubs. Republican Fed Chair Greenspan later testified to congress that he had made a mistake. He thought that CEO's wanted to preserve their companies and they would not make wildly unstable decisions, so he did not have to regulate the mortgage instruments they were issuing. That was HIS MISTAKE. Greenspan retired in 2006, before the dems took over congress. His successor, Ben Bernanke was never charged with causing the financial collapse, it was Greenspan who failed to regulate adequately. And Greenspan admitted it.

The problem was clear in April 2007, witness:

April 3 2007

CNNMoney.com - New Century Financial Corp. said Monday it will immediately cut 3,200 jobs, or 54 percent of its work force, as part of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization.

The Irvine, California-based company also said it agreed to sell its servicing assets and platform to Carrington Capital Management LLC for $139 million, subject to bankruptcy approval.

Separately, New Century said CIT Group Inc (up $0.67 to $53.98, Charts). and Greenwich Capital Financial Products have agreed to provide up to $150 million of debtor-in-possession financing to keep the company in business as it reorganizes.

New Century had been the largest U.S. independent provider of home loans to people with poor credit histories before collapsing amid rising subprime delinquencies and defaults

But after defaults started rising last year, the subprime mortgage market imploded in February, contributing to a sell off in the stock market and fueling fears that more weakness in housing, and tighter credit in general, would hurt the economy, and possibly even spark a recession.

New Century files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy - Apr. 2, 2007

By early 2007, when the dems took over congress, the bankrupcies had already started, and the subprime marketplace fostered by the repubs in 2004 - 2006, was imploding. You can't lay that on the dems in 2007 and after, the problem was already occurring when they took over the congress.

As I said, anyone can stimulate an economy. That is easy. The question is what negative side effects of the stimulus will occur, in the short run and/or in the long run, since both are important. The repubs overstimulated the economy, Greenspan took the Fed Funds rate down to 1%, they failed to regulate the mortgage and banking industry, and they let the financial sector implode and bring the whole economy down in recession.

 

[finebead]

Can you explain to me how the Clinton balanced budget led to 1.4 trillion added to the debt??

Define specifically what you are asking. Clinton turned over a balanced budget in 2000 to Bush. Over what period do you think anyone put on 1.4 trillion of debt?

The budget is an annual process. THe national debt is an accumulation. They are two different things.

 

[finebead]

Obama borrowed 10 trillion in just 8 yrs doubling our national debt. And all we got for it was the worst economic recovery in US History.

I repeat all we got for 10 trillion doubling our national debt was the worst recovery in US History.

That is a understatement, for 10 trillion doubling our national debt, all we got was the worst economic recovery in US History.

Yeah those manufacturing jobs Obama said were never coming back, and losing those manufacturing jobs under Obama escalated. And in fact he was on the move to shut down some of our country's industries. Obama did nothing to renegotiate NAFTA, not a damn thing, Obama did not do a damn thing about China ripping us off on Trade and Obama could care less that China was stealing our intellectual capital. Obama did not do a damn thing to pull in NK's nuke program, instead he gave NK the green light to make all the Nukes they wanted and make all the missiles they wanted. Obama did not do a damn thing about the UK ripping us off on trade. And he never asked NATO to pay their fair share of the NATO agreement, which is 2% of their GDP and none of the members were paying up, except us. And while we were soldering all the expense of NATO, Obama did nothing. Christ I could go on and on and on about Obama's failure.

Bush 43 doubled the national debt, and presided over the collapse of the financial system, leading to the worst recession since the great depression. He did nothing about NAFTA, or China, or NK.

Obama succeeded in bringing the US economy out of the worst recession in 70 years, and following the initial rescue he did NOT depend on gimmicks that could have boosted the economy temporarily, but would have had negative consequences down the line.

The Trump tax cuts stimulated initially, but after a 2018 - 2.0% Q1, 4.2% Q2, 3.4% Q3 and 2.2% in Q4 (which typically is a good quarter), for 2.9% for the year, just matching 2015. However the Fed is forecasting GDP to grow by only 2.1% in 2019, and that has been the norm under Obama after the recovery took hold. It looks like the tax cut has been more of a sugar high under Trump, not a permanent boost to the economy.

 

[Conservative]

Wrong again. The financial crisis was NOT created by the dems, it was created by the repubs in 2001 - 2006. The first mortgage company to go broke was in early 2007, and the bad loans that wrecked it were issued in 2004, 2005, and 2006 under the repubs. Republican Fed Chair Greenspan later testified to congress that he had made a mistake. He thought that CEO's wanted to preserve their companies and they would not make wildly unstable decisions, so he did not have to regulate the mortgage instruments they were issuing. That was HIS MISTAKE. Greenspan retired in 2006, before the dems took over congress. His successor, Ben Bernanke was never charged with causing the financial collapse, it was Greenspan who failed to regulate adequately. And Greenspan admitted it.

The problem was clear in April 2007, witness:


By early 2007, when the dems took over congress, the bankrupcies had already started, and the subprime marketplace fostered by the repubs in 2004 - 2006, was imploding. You can't lay that on the dems in 2007 and after, the problem was already occurring when they took over the congress.

As I said, anyone can stimulate an economy. That is easy. The question is what negative side effects of the stimulus will occur, in the short run and/or in the long run, since both are important. The repubs overstimulated the economy, Greenspan took the Fed Funds rate down to 1%, they failed to regulate the mortgage and banking industry, and they let the financial sector implode and bring the whole economy down in recession.

Your opinion noted as is your loyalty to liberalism and the failed economic policies of the democrats. not worth the effort reliving the financial crisis but the bubble started in the late 90's when Bush was still governor of TX. Failure to regulation the banks had little to do with the crisis as "your" President signed Glass-Steagall

Stunning it how easy it is to indoctrinate some people and how loyal you are even when the facts don't support your claims

 

[Conservative]

Define specifically what you are asking. Clinton turned over a balanced budget in 2000 to Bush. Over what period do you think anyone put on 1.4 trillion of debt?

The budget is an annual process. THe national debt is an accumulation. They are two different things.

Then you better call Treasury and tell them their data is wrong. The so called balanced budget used "borrowed funds" from the SS and Medicare Trust fund leaving a hole in that trust fund and added debt. We pay debt service on public PLUS inter-government holdings.