Cynthia Tucker writes Dumbest Article Ever

#126
#126
volinbham said:
Your quote



you claimed the Bush tax cuts started the worst recession in 80 years; presumably via income inequality.

Let's start there. what is the causal link between the income inequality (that occured in the last 5 years) and this recession?
Click to expand...

Well that's a bit of cherrypicking, but yes income inequality does not bode well for the economy. When 95% of the nation's wages stagnate it shouldn't be too hard to realize the economy is not going to grow. People aren't going to be able to keep buying things without taking on more credit and eventually they won't be able to pay it (like mortgages) I'm a bit confused why i even have to explain this how do you think an economy grows without more income? These aren't particularly wild claims.
 
#127
#127
Ed12111 said:
The entire bit about the expansion of Fannie. What a lame attempt to blame the poor. Wall street was just a poor innocent bystander and these knucklehead poors thought they deserved homeownership. The creation of countless trillions in CDO's backed by money that didn't exist and pushed off on ignorant investors had nothing to do with the recession. Nope it was because the government slightly encouraged homeownership.
Click to expand...

I never blamed the poor nor excused Wall Street. I simply showed some factors that contributed to the recession and pointed out how those factors had both Democrat and Republican fingerprints on them.

I'm not blaming dems, reps, wall street, mainstreet, Obama or Bush. They/We all contributed to the situation. Your jump into this thread was an attempt to lay this all at the feet of Bush and Republicans. Such singular attribution shows partisan focus rather than economic understanding.
 
#128
#128
Ed12111 said:
Well that's a bit of cherrypicking, but yes income inequality does not bode well for the economy. When 95% of the nation's wages stagnate it shouldn't be too hard to realize the economy is not going to grow. People aren't going to be able to keep buying things without taking on more credit and eventually they won't be able to pay it (like mortgages) I'm a bit confused why i even have to explain this how do you think an economy grows without more income? These aren't particularly wild claims.
Click to expand...

what is wild is claiming that stagnant wage growth for a significant portion of the population started the greatest recession in 80 years.

Further, income inequality doesn't mean wage stagnation necessarily (though it may have been true in this case). If the top is growing faster than the bottom inequality grows but so does the economy assuming the bottom grows as well.
 
#129
#129
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - New York Times

Ed, you must have missed this article while playing in the sandbox in 1999

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Click to expand...
 
#130
#130
volinbham said:
what is wild is claiming that stagnant wage growth for a significant portion of the population started the greatest recession in 80 years.

Further, income inequality doesn't mean wage stagnation necessarily (though it may have been true in this case). If the top is growing faster than the bottom inequality grows but so does the economy assuming the bottom grows as well.
Click to expand...

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. Because what you just wrote is the opposite of both my premise and reality.
"but so does the economy assuming the bottom grows as well" they haven't and in this case "the bottom" is almost the entire country. If you refuse to believe me please look it up real income growth over the past ten years. These numbers are hardly hidden.
The fact that you didn't even care to understand my point and vehemently disagree shows partisan focus rather than economic understanding.
 
#132
#132
Ed12111 said:
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. Because what you just wrote is the opposite of both my premise and reality.
"but so does the economy assuming the bottom grows as well" they haven't and in this case "the bottom" is almost the entire country. If you refuse to believe me please look it up real income growth over the past ten years. These numbers are hardly hidden.
The fact that you didn't even care to understand my point and vehemently disagree shows partisan focus rather than economic understanding.
Click to expand...

I indicated that real income growth was stagnant for most of the population. I was simply pointing out that income inequality can grow without stagnant real income growth.

You are getting excited - I did understand your point but believe you failed to show how stagnation (bascially no income growth for a large portion of the population) leads to a major recession (largest in 80 years). The causal link you provided suggests why growth would be sluggish (slightly positive or slightly negative). It does not explain large drops in growth - the recession.

The wildness of your claim remains; the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 started the greatest recession. The data you are using doesn't explain the phenomenon.
 
#133
#133
Ed12111 said:
No, I know all about that article you were linked to on a conservative website. I know that Fannie expanded, but that is so far from causing the recession I just don't see your point.
Click to expand...

Amazon.com: The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine (9780393072235): Michael Lewis: Books

Read this book, then you might understand that people who had no business buying houses, not only bought an overvalued house, but multiple houses. These people had no intent on making payments because they thought they could just flip it before paying an actual payment
 
#134
#134
Ed12111 said:
No, I know all about that article you were linked to on a conservative website. I know that Fannie expanded, but that is so far from causing the recession I just don't see your point.
Click to expand...

no further from causing it than Bush tax cuts. In fact, I'd say it has much more to do with the recession than the tax cuts
 
#135
#135
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Amazon.com: The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine (9780393072235): Michael Lewis: Books

Read this book, then you might understand that people who had no business buying houses, not only bought an overvalued house, but multiple houses. These people had no intent on making payments because they thought they could just flip it before paying an actual payment
Click to expand...

I have read the book it's pretty good Lewis is a nice storyteller. However, the book claims that CDO's were largely responsible for the collapse. Look, I know people were buying houses with the intent of flipping them to make a quick profit. Often falsifying their income to get a loan, but I'm not sure why you're using this as an argument. That would be an argument for more regulation of the lending industry, no?
 
#136
#136
volinbham said:
I indicated that real income growth was stagnant for most of the population. I was simply pointing out that income inequality can grow without stagnant real income growth.

You are getting excited - I did understand your point but believe you failed to show how stagnation (bascially no income growth for a large portion of the population) leads to a major recession (largest in 80 years). The causal link you provided suggests why growth would be sluggish (slightly positive or slightly negative). It does not explain large drops in growth - the recession.

The wildness of your claim remains; the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 started the greatest recession. The data you are using doesn't explain the phenomenon.
Click to expand...

You are either being willfully obtuse, or are lying about those advanced degrees. Nowhere did I say that the Bush tax cuts alone caused a recession as you keep asserting. I claimed that they along with deregulation and other things helped cause the recession, and that the GOP was largely responsible for those two things. That is the whole point of this thread.
 
#137
#137
Oh, and the other point I actually made about the Bush tax cuts was in reference to the growing deficit. Not sure why you are purposely obfuscating my point.
 
#138
#138
Ed12111 said:
I have read the book it's pretty good Lewis is a nice storyteller. However, the book claims that CDO's were largely responsible for the collapse. Look, I know people were buying houses with the intent of flipping them to make a quick profit. Often falsifying their income to get a loan, but I'm not sure why you're using this as an argument. That would be an argument for more regulation of the lending industry, no?
Click to expand...

No it would lend to letting those hang themselves financially for their own stupidity.
 
#139
#139
Because you claim the Bush Tax Cuts caused the recession when the availability of easy money and lax lending standards/expanding of Freddie and Fannie balance sheet forced by Clinton and Barnie Frank had nothing to do with it? Get your head out of the sand
 
#141
#141
Ed12111 said:
I have read the book it's pretty good Lewis is a nice storyteller. However, the book claims that CDO's were largely responsible for the collapse. Look, I know people were buying houses with the intent of flipping them to make a quick profit. Often falsifying their income to get a loan, but I'm not sure why you're using this as an argument. That would be an argument for more regulation of the lending industry, no?
Click to expand...

Maybe different regulation is a better term. Back to what I posted that you blew of as coming from Beck - congress, Clinton and Bush all had hands in keeping this type of regulation from changing as did Fannie and Freddie and their leaders.

No one is denying the role of CDOs. What we are saying is your laying of all this at the feet of Bush is simply not an accurate depiction of events.
 
#142
#142
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Because you claim the Bush Tax Cuts caused the recession when the availability of easy money and lax lending standards/expanding of Freddie and Fannie balance sheet forced by Clinton and Barnie Frank had nothing to do with it? Get your head out of the sand
Click to expand...

Easy money and lax lending? Are you talking about easy money for would be homeowners(very small in size and mostly paid off), or the easy money in trillions given to Wall street by the republicans. Seems you're angry at the wrong people.
 
#143
#143
Ed12111 said:
Oh, and the other point I actually made about the Bush tax cuts was in reference to the growing deficit. Not sure why you are purposely obfuscating my point.
Click to expand...

I assume you are talking to me. I'm simply going on your claim that tax cuts led to the recession. Your words not mine.

When pressed to explain this you resort to claiming it's so basic that it's obvious yet somehow needs 600 pages to explain. Then it's working through changes in income inequality but you can't connect the dots there either.

Now you are backing away from your claim.

Did the Bush tax cuts increase the deficit - yes. Has anyone here said otherwise?

Did they cause the recession? I don't see a clear connection and you've failed to show any.
 
#144
#144
Ed12111 said:
Easy money and lax lending? Are you talking about easy money for would be homeowners(very small in size and mostly paid off), or the easy money in trillions given to Wall street by the republicans. Seems you're angry at the wrong people.
Click to expand...

So was it Okay for people to buy a house or multiple houses with no money down?
 
#145
#145
volinbham said:
Maybe different regulation is a better term. Back to what I posted that you blew of as coming from Beck - congress, Clinton and Bush all had hands in keeping this type of regulation from changing as did Fannie and Freddie and their leaders.

No one is denying the role of CDOs. What we are saying is your laying of all this at the feet of Bush is simply not an accurate depiction of events.
Click to expand...

You're getting into two seperate things. The regulation of mortgage lenders and securities are very different. As to your second point, the reason I started posting was in response to someone "laying all the blame at the feet" of Obama or Democrats which is preposterous.
 
#146
#146
Ed12111 said:
That's what happened to those people. The lenders got bailed out not the people.
Click to expand...

Not really breaking news.

The point was, neither should have got a pass. Those that took a 200k house with a 125k salary played a bad hand.
 
#147
#147
Ed12111 said:
You're getting into two seperate things. The regulation of mortgage lenders and securities are very different. As to your second point, the reason I started posting was in response to someone "laying all the blame at the feet" of Obama or Democrats which is preposterous.
Click to expand...

Hes blowed up enough on his own without the mortgage fumble.
 
#148
#148
volinbham said:
I assume you are talking to me. I'm simply going on your claim that tax cuts led to the recession. Your words not mine.

When pressed to explain this you resort to claiming it's so basic that it's obvious yet somehow needs 600 pages to explain. Then it's working through changes in income inequality but you can't connect the dots there either.

Now you are backing away from your claim.

Did the Bush tax cuts increase the deficit - yes. Has anyone here said otherwise?

Did they cause the recession? I don't see a clear connection and you've failed to show any.
Click to expand...

For the love of God buddy. I'm not sure if you're trolling but the point of this thread was Droski saying it was ridiculous to think the GOP's plans were in any way responsible for the state of the economy. I then listed four negative effects on the economy caused by the GOP's policies. I'm not backing away from any argument, I'm just not letting you make up what my argument was.
 
#149
#149
Ed12111 said:
You're getting into two seperate things. The regulation of mortgage lenders and securities are very different. As to your second point, the reason I started posting was in response to someone "laying all the blame at the feet" of Obama or Democrats which is preposterous.
Click to expand...

Does Congress not write laws that regulate lenders?

Show me where blame for the recession was placed at the feet of Obama and Dems in this thread. You entered the conversation when a poster indicated Obama was wrong for blaming this all on Bush/Republicans. He did not blame the recession on Obama or Democrats soley.

You are seeing things that are not there.
 
#150
#150
BeecherVol said:
Not really breaking news.

The point was, neither should have got a pass. Those that took a 200k house with a 125k salary played a bad hand.
Click to expand...

200k house with a 125k salary is actually really prudent. Anyway whether there should have been a bailout is a different question altogether. Although I believe the government is going to get back all the bailout money anyway.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top