Cynthia Tucker writes Dumbest Article Ever

[volinbham]

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.

I think you missed Droski's point and compounded it by making claims RE: the cause of the recession. I'm simply challenging your claims as you are mine. I don't see that as trolling.

 

[BeecherVol]

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.

With the budget/salary for a 125k house.

As to the bold.

Im not sure it would be in better hands, and I disagreed with them giving the $ to begin with.

 

[volinbham]

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.

I'm being neither - you made a claim. I and others asked you to back it. Hardly obtuse.

Further I never claimed you said tax cuts "alone" caused the recession. In fact, my point throughout this has been that the factors are many and varied and have lots of finger prints on them. At the bottom of the list of causes is tax cuts yet you elevated that yourself to a position of prominence. I've simply asked repeatedly for some evidence or logic.

 

[Ed12111]

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.

Your first point is a complete non-sequitur. I'm not really sure the purpose of your second point either.

 

[Ed12111]

With the budget/salary for a 125k house.

As to the bold.

Im not sure it would be in better hands, and I disagreed with them giving the $ to begin with.

That's fine. Why disagree with it though especially if their getting the money back. Do you think it would have been better for the economy if the financial industry collapsed?

 

[volinbham]

Your first point is a complete non-sequitur. I'm not really sure the purpose of your second point either.

You suggested lending regulations might have been a cause of the recession - I agree. I indicated that Dems and Republicans were responsible for not modifying these regulations. Neither party did what was necessary here and that contributed to the housing bubble. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Regulatory change (loosening in some cases/tightening in others) across both securities and other areas of banking could have helped.

 

[Ed12111]

I'm being neither - you made a claim. I and others asked you to back it. Hardly obtuse.

Further I never claimed you said tax cuts "alone" caused the recession. In fact, my point throughout this has been that the factors are many and varied and have lots of finger prints on them. At the bottom of the list of causes is tax cuts yet you elevated that yourself to a position of prominence. I've simply asked repeatedly for some evidence or logic.

"yet you elevated that yourself to a position of prominence"
now who's seeing things that aren't there.

 

[Ed12111]

You suggested lending regulations might have been a cause of the recession - I agree. I indicated that Dems and Republicans were responsible for not modifying these regulations. Neither party did what was necessary here and that contributed to the housing bubble. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Regulatory change (loosening in some cases/tightening in others) across both securities and other areas of banking could have helped.

Maybe you're getting hung up on parties? Deregulation is a conservative tenet not a liberal one any lack of regulation will come from a conservative agenda, and push for regulation will come from a liberal. So, I'm not sure what you're point is you think democrats acted as conservatives and pushed for deregulation of the lending industry?

 

[volinbham]

"yet you elevated that yourself to a position of prominence"
now who's seeing things that aren't there.

It was #2 on your list of 4 things and the only one that explicitly was linked to the recession. Appears that you believe Bush tax cuts were a major cause of the recession.

Do you think the tax cuts were a major cause of the recession?

 

[BeecherVol]

That's fine. Why disagree with it though especially if their getting the money back. Do you think it would have been better for the economy if the financial industry collapsed?

Whats fine?

That the government will spend it on jobs?

Throwing it in a ditch and setting fire to it on a cold night would have better results.

 

[volinbham]

Maybe you're getting hung up on parties? Deregulation is a conservative tenet not a liberal one any lack of regulation will come from a conservative agenda, and push for regulation will come from a liberal. So, I'm not sure what you're point is you think democrats acted as conservatives and pushed for deregulation of the lending industry?

Another blanket statement.

Deregulation in and of itself is a misnomer. Regulations change - sometimes looser (traditional dereg) and sometimes tighter (regulation?), sometimes just different to favor one group differently than in the prior regulation.

It is definitely true that Democrats pushed for more lax lending rules. Is that deregulation or more regulation?

The parties aren't as monolithic as you suggest.

 

[BeecherVol]

That's fine. Why disagree with it though especially if their getting the money back. Do you think it would have been better for the economy if the financial industry collapsed?

Would that fall under the same fear tactic that if you let us spend 1 tril. unemployment will stay under 8%?

 

[Ed12111]

Whats fine?

That the government will spend it on jobs?

Throwing it in a ditch and setting fire to it on a cold night would have better results.

I was saying that's fine that you feel they should have never done the bailouts. I also asked you why you were opposed to the bailouts you didn't seem to answer. I'm not sure the meaning of any of what you just wrote.

 

[Ed12111]

Would that fall under the same fear tactic that if you let us spend 1 tril. unemployment will stay under 8%?

Fear tactic? It was a pretty straightforward question not sure why you seem to be ranting. Apparently you feel the economy would have been better if the financial industry had collapsed. That is an interesting position.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Fear tactic? It was a pretty straightforward question not sure why you seem to be ranting. Apparently you feel the economy would have been better if the financial industry had collapsed. That is an interesting position.

You have still not answered the orginal question

Do you think the tax cuts were a major cause of the recession?

Yes or No?

 

[BeecherVol]

I was saying that's fine that you feel they should have never done the bailouts. I also asked you why you were opposed to the bailouts you didn't seem to answer. I'm not sure the meaning of any of what you just wrote.

Sorry bout the backwoods dialect.

Basically you would be better off burning the money to stay warm as to, giving it back to the government to get lost in a black hole somewhere in special interest land.

 

[Ed12111]

Another blanket statement.

Deregulation in and of itself is a misnomer. Regulations change - sometimes looser (traditional dereg) and sometimes tighter (regulation?), sometimes just different to favor one group differently than in the prior regulation.

It is definitely true that Democrats pushed for more lax lending rules. Is that deregulation or more regulation?

The parties aren't as monolithic as you suggest.

I don't know where you come up with this stuff. Democrats pushed for more lax lending for poor people (from the government). Of which most the loans were paid back. The deregulation on the lenders and the financial industry was definitely not pushed by any democrats. Those were hardcore conservative ideas started 30 years and continuing to Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan today.

 

[BeecherVol]

Fear tactic? It was a pretty straightforward question not sure why you seem to be ranting. Apparently you feel the economy would have been better if the financial industry had collapsed. That is an interesting position.

Now we are getting close.

 

[Ed12111]

Sorry bout the backwoods dialect.

Basically you would be better off burning the money to stay warm as to, giving it back to the government to get lost in a black hole somewhere in special interest land.

You don't think the government can ever do anything worthwhile? Social security, beating the Nazi's, running the University of Tennessee, sending men to the moon, and funding a huge portion of our medical and scientific research....? None of it's worthwhile that's a bit cynical.

 

[volinbham]

I don't know where you come up with this stuff. Democrats pushed for more lax lending for poor people (from the government). Of which most the loans were paid back. The deregulation on the lenders and the financial industry was definitely not pushed by any democrats. Those were hardcore conservative ideas started 30 years and continuing to Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan today.

pushing for more lax lending rules and fighting oversight of Fannie and Freddie are certainly instances that are deregulatory - both were Dem moves.

 

[Ed12111]

pushing for more lax lending rules and fighting oversight of Fannie and Freddie are certainly instances that are deregulatory - both were Dem moves.

That's kinda what I just said.

 

[volinbham]

That's kinda what I just said.

If it is then you agree with me that these moves pushed by Dems were deregulation. It violates your Republicans always want less regulation and Dems always want more premise.

More importantly, it is an example of why lending regulation (or lack of) that was Dem initiated had a role to play in the economic downturn.

 

[Ed12111]

If it is then you agree with me that these moves pushed by Dems were deregulation. It violates your Republicans always want less regulation and Dems always want more premise.

More importantly, it is an example of why lending regulation (or lack of) that was Dem initiated had a role to play in the economic downturn.

Jeez dude, first I thought you were trolling, now I know you just think way too binary. I never said Fannie Mae and all that had a role in the economic downturn. In fact, I went out of my way to say they didn't and you were spouting some nonsensical Beckian conspiracy. You're trying so hard to twist what I say it's kinda strange.

 

[BeecherVol]

You don't think the government can ever do anything worthwhile? Social security, beating the Nazi's, running the University of Tennessee, sending men to the moon, and funding a huge portion of our medical and scientific research....? None of it's worthwhile that's a bit cynical.

Social Security?

I will stop at this one. You do realize in a few years this is no more than a tax on those paying in.

Im not big on spending 20$ to get a 5$ hamburger in return.

 

[volinbham]

Jeez dude, first I thought you were trolling, now I know you just think way too binary. I never said Fannie Mae and all that had a role in the economic downturn. In fact, I went out of my way to say they didn't and you were spouting some nonsensical Beckian conspiracy. You're trying so hard to twist what I say it's kinda strange.

Interesting. You believe that Fannie/Freddie had nothing to do with the recession (a housing/finance driven recession) yet tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 do?