Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Bush's Fault
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TerryMiller" data-source="post: 1957673" data-attributes="member: 7900"><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Oh, MY!!! Now I have to add to this because a lot of the issues we have been dealing with goes w-a-a-a-y back. Rick is onto something here in stating that an economy seldom reacts quickly to anything other than a tax rate cut.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">But, first of all, MOST politicians are bad, and that is with regards to EVERY party, including those that are supposed libertarians like Ron Paul. (Ask some of his constituents how devious he is.)</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Much of the issues we have with the economy goes back to Jimmy Carter's term and whatever party was in control of Congress at the time. That is when the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA for future comments) was passed with the intent of having banks loan money to people who really couldn't afford them. When Clinton got into office, he basically "doubled-down" on the CRA and I think it was around that time that organizations like ACORN got into the act and started pressuring the banks.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">It was only a matter of time before that house of cards was to fall. For the most part of Bush 43's term, the tax cuts helped to keep the economy running along pretty good. (Not great...but pretty good.) As mentioned before, Congress needs to have a lot of the blame placed on them. The collapse of the house of cards came toward the end of Bush's second term. Does anyone other than me remember the House hearings based on Bush's desire to fix CRA? That idea for a fix ended because of the Democrats insistence that Fannie and Freddie were "doing just fine."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">A lot of folks have wanted to blame the banks for so much, and I'll agree that the big ones aren't great institutions, but I think a lot of the problems were brought about by CRA.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">As for tax cuts, in my lifetime I remember three instances when tax cuts led to economic growth. Those were Kennedy's cuts, Reagan's cuts, and Bush 43's cuts. I've been told, but not done the research yet, that the Roaring 20's with its good economy came about because of tax cuts and that during the late '40's there was economic growth as well because of cuts.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">As for Clinton's supposed great years, I remember that he never wanted to sign welfare reform and vetoed it a number of times. It wasn't until he wanted to be re-elected that he finally signed it. How good it was at the end of Clinton's terms with regards to balanced budgets and surpluses should be considered because the last 6 years of Clinton's terms was conducted with the Republicans in control of Congress. It wasn't Clinton that created all of that. All he did is ride along and benefit from the work of others.</span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TerryMiller, post: 1957673, member: 7900"] [FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3]Oh, MY!!! Now I have to add to this because a lot of the issues we have been dealing with goes w-a-a-a-y back. Rick is onto something here in stating that an economy seldom reacts quickly to anything other than a tax rate cut. But, first of all, MOST politicians are bad, and that is with regards to EVERY party, including those that are supposed libertarians like Ron Paul. (Ask some of his constituents how devious he is.) Much of the issues we have with the economy goes back to Jimmy Carter's term and whatever party was in control of Congress at the time. That is when the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA for future comments) was passed with the intent of having banks loan money to people who really couldn't afford them. When Clinton got into office, he basically "doubled-down" on the CRA and I think it was around that time that organizations like ACORN got into the act and started pressuring the banks. It was only a matter of time before that house of cards was to fall. For the most part of Bush 43's term, the tax cuts helped to keep the economy running along pretty good. (Not great...but pretty good.) As mentioned before, Congress needs to have a lot of the blame placed on them. The collapse of the house of cards came toward the end of Bush's second term. Does anyone other than me remember the House hearings based on Bush's desire to fix CRA? That idea for a fix ended because of the Democrats insistence that Fannie and Freddie were "doing just fine." A lot of folks have wanted to blame the banks for so much, and I'll agree that the big ones aren't great institutions, but I think a lot of the problems were brought about by CRA. As for tax cuts, in my lifetime I remember three instances when tax cuts led to economic growth. Those were Kennedy's cuts, Reagan's cuts, and Bush 43's cuts. I've been told, but not done the research yet, that the Roaring 20's with its good economy came about because of tax cuts and that during the late '40's there was economic growth as well because of cuts. As for Clinton's supposed great years, I remember that he never wanted to sign welfare reform and vetoed it a number of times. It wasn't until he wanted to be re-elected that he finally signed it. How good it was at the end of Clinton's terms with regards to balanced budgets and surpluses should be considered because the last 6 years of Clinton's terms was conducted with the Republicans in control of Congress. It wasn't Clinton that created all of that. All he did is ride along and benefit from the work of others.[/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Bush's Fault
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom