Cynthia Tucker writes Dumbest Article Ever

#26
#26
If Obama and God have only one thing in common, wouldn't that mean that EVERYTHING else would be differences?
 
#28
#28
droski said:
yes
Click to expand...

1. The continual deregulation of the financial sector.

2. The Bush tax cuts that even during expansion created no gains or negative gains in income for the majority of the country ( first time in American History), and then started the worst recession in 80 years.

3. The continual tax cuts of the top 2% that have created the largest income inequality in the United States since the 1920's.

4. The fact that our country was at a surplus when Clinton left office,and now is trillions in debt after Bush's presidency.

None of those things are the fault of Republicans?
 
#29
#29
Ed12111 said:
1. The continual deregulation of the financial sector.

2. The Bush tax cuts that even during expansion created no gains or negative gains in income for the majority of the country ( first time in American History), and then started the worst recession in 80 years.

3. The continual tax cuts of the top 2% that have created the largest income inequality in the United States since the 1920's.

4. The fact that our country was at a surplus when Clinton left office,and now is trillions in debt after Bush's presidency.

None of those things are the fault of Republicans?
Click to expand...

1. please be specific. what deregulations resulted in this problem.

2. please explain how tax cuts hurt the economy and started the recession. be specific.

3. see #2. and please explain how income inequality hurt the economy. be specific.

4. and none of this had to do with the biggest job bubble in US history aka the dotcom bubble? it's all policy huh?
 
Last edited:
#30
#30
droski said:
1. please be specific. what deregulations resulted in this problem.

2. please explain how tax cuts hurt the economy and started the recession. be specific.

3. see #2. and please explain how income inequality hurt the economy. be specific.

4. and none of this had to do with the biggest job bubble in US history aka the dotcom bubble? it's all policy huh?
Click to expand...

Holy cow sounds like you want an Econ 101 class taught to you on a message board. Some of this is just beyond the pail, "how does income inequality hurt the economy" are you serious? Regarding number 4 your only half-way decent deflection. (BTW biggest job bubble in US history is nonsense) In 1993 Clinton issued a tax increase on those earning over $200,000 economy boomed revenues skyrocketed etc. The Bush tax cuts for the top 2% cost 700 billion in revenue a year.
 
#31
#31
Ed12111 said:
Holy cow sounds like you want an Econ 101 class taught to you on a message board. Some of this is just beyond the pail, "how does income inequality hurt the economy" are you serious? Regarding number 4 your only half-way decent deflection. (BTW biggest job bubble in US history is nonsense) In 1993 Clinton issued a tax increase on those earning over $200,000 economy boomed revenues skyrocketed etc. The Bush tax cuts for the top 2% cost 700 billion in revenue a year.
Click to expand...

if it's so simple and obvious clearly you can answer the damn questions. or maybe you can just act like a jackass.

are you seriously arguing that the reason the economy boomed was clinton raising taxes? can you please explain page in the economics 101 textbook that shows that?

as for income inequality it's risen because the rich have gotten richer, not because the poor have gotten poorer.
 
#32
#32
droski said:
if it's so simple and obvious clearly you can answer the damn questions. or maybe you can just act like a jackass.

are you seriously arguing that the reason the economy boomed was clinton raising taxes? can you please explain page in the economics 101 textbook that shows that?

as for income inequality it's risen because the rich have gotten richer, not because the poor have gotten poorer.
Click to expand...

(It's risen because the rich rich have gotten richer..."
No, it hasn't. Yes the rich have gotten richer, but look up real wage increases for the country and you'll see "the poor" (almost everyone in the country) have gotten poorer, or at the very most stayed the same.

For the first one I was mainly referring to the deficit, but yes a middle class propels an economy.
 
#33
#33
Ed12111 said:
(It's risen because the rich rich have gotten richer..."
No, it hasn't. Yes the rich have gotten richer, but look up real wage increases for the country and you'll see "the poor" (almost everyone in the country) have gotten poorer, or at the very most stayed the same.

For the first one I was mainly referring to the deficit, but yes a middle class propels an economy.
Click to expand...

ok so if they stayed the same and the rich got richer than how can this explain how the economy got worse? what's your evidence a middle class propels the economy? rich people spending doesn't do anything i guess?

i'm still waiting for your specific deregulation examples and your explanation as to how bush's tax cuts caused this downturn. or do you need my economics 101 textbook?
 
#34
#34
Ed12111 said:
In 1993 Clinton issued a tax increase on those earning over $200,000 economy boomed revenues skyrocketed etc. The Bush tax cuts for the top 2% cost 700 billion in revenue a year.
Click to expand...

why is it a good thing that the gov't took more money from their citizens? Maybe they should spend less and we could all keep more. Just a thought though
 
#35
#35
droski said:
ok so if they stayed the same and the rich got richer than how can this explain how the economy got worse? what's your evidence a middle class propels the economy? rich people spending doesn't do anything i guess?

i'm still waiting for your specific deregulation examples and your explanation as to how bush's tax cuts caused this downturn. or do you need my economics 101 textbook?
Click to expand...

I don't see why I have to write a 10 page explanation of financial deregulation when it would be much simpler for you to google it. They aren't that hard to find it is public policy after all.

Anyway, the most notable would be Glass-Steagall, and the lack of regulation of complex derivatives. Like CDO's you know the things that collapsed the economy.
 
#36
#36
Ed12111 said:
Holy cow sounds like you want an Econ 101 class taught to you on a message board. Some of this is just beyond the pail, "how does income inequality hurt the economy" are you serious? Regarding number 4 your only half-way decent deflection. (BTW biggest job bubble in US history is nonsense) In 1993 Clinton issued a tax increase on those earning over $200,000 economy boomed revenues skyrocketed etc. The Bush tax cuts for the top 2% cost 700 billion in revenue a year.
Click to expand...

the economy boomed when Clinton move to the center after the GOP took control of Congress in 1994. Income taxes were high, but he cut taxes on capital gains.

before you accuse others of needing a class in Econ 101, I suggest you try history 100.
 
#37
#37
utvolpj said:
why is it a good thing that the gov't took more money from their citizens? Maybe they should spend less and we could all keep more. Just a thought though
Click to expand...

Because libertarianism like communism has only ever worked in theory. The sad fact is people need a government.
 
#38
#38
Ed12111 said:
I don't see why I have to write a 10 page explanation of financial deregulation when it would be much simpler for you to google it. They aren't that hard to find it is public policy after all.

Anyway, the most notable would be Glass-Steagall, and the lack of regulation of complex derivatives. Like CDO's you know the things that collapsed the economy.
Click to expand...

Great response by someone who clearly is talking out of his arse.

Glass-steagall didn't prevent long term capital, the russian debt crisis, or the savings and loan crisis. it wouldn't have prevented this one either. please explain specifically how it would have changed things. thanks much. as for lack of regulation of complex derivatives what type of regulation would you have suggested? and what is yoru evidence clinton properly regulated said derivates? and please explain specifically how this lack of deregulation hurt the economy. specifically. give me an example.
 
Last edited:
#39
#39
MG1968 said:
the economy boomed when Clinton move to the center after the GOP took control of Congress in 1994. Income taxes were high, but he cut taxes on capital gains.

before you accuse others of needing a class in Econ 101, I suggest you try history 100.
Click to expand...

The internet boom had a little to do with it.
 
#41
#41
MG1968 said:
the economy boomed when Clinton move to the center after the GOP took control of Congress in 1994. Income taxes were high, but he cut taxes on capital gains.

before you accuse others of needing a class in Econ 101, I suggest you try history 100.
Click to expand...

Revisionist history perhaps? The capital gains was at 28% under Clinton until 1997 when it was lowered to a then unheard of 20%. Bush lowered it to 15%
Of course these are overwhelmingly tax cuts for the wealthiest.
 
#43
#43
Ed12111 said:
Because libertarianism like communism has only ever worked in theory. The sad fact is people need a government.
Click to expand...

speak for yourself. The people need a limited gov't and not one that gets involved in every aspect like the current socialist-leaning one. It's just getting worse but hopefully gets slowed down in a couple weeks.

keep believing that the gov't wants what's best for you and we'll continue laughing
 
#48
#48
droski said:
Great response by someone who clearly is talking out of his arse.

Glass-steagall didn't prevent long term capital, the russian dept crisis, or the savings and loan crisis. it wouldn't have prevented this one either. please explain specifically how it would have changed things. thanks much. as for lack of regulation of complex derivatives what type of regulation would you have suggested? and what is yoru evidence clinton properly regulated said derivates? and please explain specifically how this lack of deregulation hurt the economy. specifically. give me an example.
Click to expand...

Your argument is all over the place of course not regulating derivatives didn't prevent a savings and loan crisis. I gave you one example of deregulation. Anyway, if you don't think that the mass proliferation of CDo's causing the collapse of Bear Stearns and all that other jazz hurt the economy I don't know what to tell you. As for how you would regulate derivatives it wouldn't be that complicated make sure there is a certain percent of real capital backing your funny money. That's pretty common practice as far as bank regulation goes.
 
#49
#49
Some of you guys act as if the Tech boom was the only boom in the history of the United States. You know we have booms all the time. We even had one during Bush's presidency the difference being that under Bush's presidency the boom was only gained by the top 5%. That has never before happened in American history.
 
#50
#50
Ed12111 said:
Your argument is all over the place of course not regulating derivatives didn't prevent a savings and loan crisis. I gave you one example of deregulation. Anyway, if you don't think that the mass proliferation of CDo's causing the collapse of Bear Stearns and all that other jazz hurt the economy I don't know what to tell you. As for how you would regulate derivatives it wouldn't be that complicated make sure there is a certain percent of real capital backing your funny money. That's pretty common practice as far as bank regulation goes.
Click to expand...

ok cashvillian. your "funny money" comment shows who you are. i'll answer this even though you've stated this many many times and never provided actual real examples.

i'm taking about glass steagal. specifically how does glass stegal prevent the current problem? in your opinion woudl banks have not been able to sell credit default swaps with glass stegal still in place? if so why? be specific.

so how do you determine how much capital is needed? do you assume a 100% loss? even if in the history of these instruments there were never large losses? what do you consider capital? cash? bonds? stocks? be specific. but yeah it's oh so easy to do right?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top