Economists Credit Trump as Tailwind for U.S. Growth, Hiring and Stocks

[Tom B]

But let's not forget it's the Congress not the President. Getting Rid of Glass Steagal was a thoropugly Republican effort, Gramm Leach Bliley. It was a few Democrats that opposed. They stood on the Senate floor and predicted exactly what would happen. And they were right! I do recognize that Clinton had to sign that must pass Omnibus Spending Bill that the Republicans had attached the Financial Modernization Act to (Just prior top the Christmas recess), otherwise the government would have been shut down. It was a "clever" maneuver by that asshole Phil Gramm, in the waning days of lame duck Clinton's presidency. Clinton has never been taken to task for signing. Never asked whether he was aware of what he was signing. We should ask him to justify.

P.S.
Have you seen that Firing line episode when Buckley went head to head with Chomsky. Chomsky never got invited back, though smug Buckley said he would. It was obvious why. It's on Youtube. Makes for fine entertainment some night when there is no NFL or Montreal Canadians game on. Go Habs!

Glass houses.

thoropugly

thoroughly

 

[Arnie]

First of all deficits and debt are two different things from a federal fiscal standpoint. Our debt, or national debt, is the accumulation of spending deficits. Not all deficits are acquired through the budget, for example Bush W kept the wars “off the books” so the budget deficit did not add up with the debt incurred under his presidency.

Now Obama inherited a structural deficit of 1.2 trillion. That means a negative balance of outlays to inlays, or spending to revenue.

Under Obama the structural deficit was halved by a massive $600 billion dollars. That is enormous. We have never seen that type of deficit reduction on such a massive scale and will most likely never see it again.

Your only real complaint , that has any merit, is that Obama wasn’t able to fix all of the damage done to the budget and economy under W and the Republican Congress, despite having reduced the deficit by historic proportions.

OMG, LOL!!

 

[Tsing Tao]

Will the voters see the benefit though? What's so great about a bigger tax return if the buying power is lessened?

That question would be better posed to Janet Yellen.

 

[Tsing Tao]

you are giving the fed way to much credit. The fed, of course, played a critical role in allowing the crisis to occur in the first place.

As far as I know, this is the first time you have admitted this openly. Maybe it's a typo?

When it did occur, as we know, there were major bank failures and many smaller banks also failed. Because of our federal reserve system and the F.D.I.C, however, not a single mom or pop lost a dime from their savings and checking accounts; not single check bounced, even if drawn on a failed bank.

The FDIC protected mom and pops. The Fed had nothing to do with it. Not unless you're suggesting that everyday mom and pop had their money tied into some checking accounts at Bear Stearns.

And although many, especially younger home owners, lost their homes, millions more were able to stay in their homes when the fed keep variable rate loans from resetting higher, and facilitated refinancing at much lower rates. Mom and pop's retirement saving were protected and recovered in time for them to still enjoy their retirement.

That's like crediting the arsonist with putting out the fire. It was the Fed that encouraged variable rate mortgages in the first place! The alchemy used in redesigning mortgages so people who couldn't, no shouldn't, have been able to purchase a house - or as much house - were able to do so!

Contrast that with what would have happened had the fed not reacted as they did. We'd have had a full on world depression with many seeing their retirement savings decimated to the point that they would never have recovered in time to help older and retired Americans.

Easy to say what "would have been". Very hard to prove. In all likelihood we would at least have an economy and market based on fundamentals and healthy right now, instead of being on the edge of the precipice still with absolutely nothing from the crisis fixed.

Now we are engaged in dismantling the safety measures put into effect after the crisis.

Oh yeah, dismantling the safety measures. Here is a chart of the dismantling, 10 years after the crisis, we're still running "emergency" measures because the idiots have no idea how to undo what they've done.

That's some progress!! Not.

We are still saddled with TBTF, however, and because we are going right back to the financial environment that caused the crisis, we will eventually see yet another crisis. It's fine to criticize the fed, but if you do you're obligated to suggest a better alternative to the actions they took once the crisis hit full force. We all know, in hindsight, what a better alternative would have been. Greenspan could have intervened to stop the abuses in mortgage lending.

Yeah, in hindsight. Some of us have been pointing out the flaws for decades only to be labeled frauds, or tin foil hat conspirators, etc by the real frauds - those like yourself who call themselves "economists".

The main concern now should be Congress not the fed. Bernanke has said that the fed's tools are not very effective in achieving the mandate Congress has imposed on it! Let us recognize that. Congress is the horse, the fed is just the cart. The fed is an all to ready scapegoat. If you want to see underlying faults you need look no further than the U.S. Congress and the fiscal side. Frankly, though the faults are shared among Republicans and Democrats, the sharing is not equal.

The Republicans are far more to blame than the Democrats. But I will give the Republicans this, they have learned how to capture the Federal government and bend it to their own selfish self-interests, and they have succeeded magnificently! They are excellent at shifting blame and false advertising. By comparison, the Democrats have been bungling idiots.

The rest of this is partisan bullshit, like always. Democrats and Republicans are equally feckless, equally to blame. And who gives a shit what Bernanke says? The man was wrong more times than I can count, and was the architect of the greatest wealth redistribution theft in the history of the modern world.

 

[Tsing Tao]

No problem young man. Lets do it your way and compare total deficits for the entire presidency. To make this more fun lets compare the more recent democrat and Republican presidents.

Uh, what has this got to do with my post? Is the senility resurfacing, old man?

 

[Tsing Tao]

You Whities need to stick to the racism and conspiracy theories, there's a reason why your kind are driving trucks, mining coal or running around playing army and not found in research departments handling complicated data.

There's only one person in this thread obsessed with race.

 

[jem]

implicit in my argument is full acknowledgement of the recession.

My argument is that the modelers have no idea what the revenues would have been like had there been no tax cuts because the recession or downturn could have been deeper or taken longer had there been no tax cuts.

Every model I have seen which states that tax revenues would have been higher had there been no tax cuts just "assumes away" the recession. I accept that economists make assumptions.

But, then don't post a chart with a bunch of assumptions and and act like its a fact.

You guys act like the ‘Great Recession’ never happened and that is what makes both of your arguments disingenuous.

 

[piezoe]

democrat controlled the senate by a vote of 90-8.

My memory is different. In the 106th Congress, as I recall, the Republicans Controlled the Senate,; not the democrats as you have stated. I was quite sure you were wrong as you usually are. But I had to look it up because my instant recall of Senate votes 18 years ago is spotty at best. The vote on the final Bill in the Senate as it emerged from the conference committee was Republicans 52-1 The one no vote was Shelby, a prior democrat! ; Democrats 38-7. All of the "no" votes except 1 (Shelby's) came from Democrats. Fitzgerald(R) voted "present" and McCain (R) did not vote. (Sanders voted "no" in the House)

Do you know how many Democrat co-sponsors the Bill had?

 

[piezoe]

As far as I know, this is the first time you have admitted this openly. Maybe it's a typo?

You've missed it. I have posted extensively on the role Greenspan played, and hence the fed. Because the Fed screwed up hopelessly at least twice since 1913 and at least one other time (the Volcker Fed), just not quite so hopelessly that time, does not mean that they are always standing around with their zippers open.

 

[piezoe]

That's like crediting the arsonist with putting out the fire. It was the Fed that encouraged variable rate mortgages in the first place! The alchemy used in redesigning mortgages so people who couldn't, no shouldn't, have been able to purchase a house - or as much house - were able to do so!

Really not a very good analogy. Arson is illegal. It isn't illegal for the Fed to screw up and then justify with mumbo jumbo! Greenspan was a master at it.