Hmm...Gee, neither can you. It's more telling that you can't since it's your question. Well, an ideology anyway. It's called free market capitalism and republicanism. I question Trump's conservatism and his knowledge of history, but he, like any of the other 17 republicans, is much more qualified to be president than Crooked Hillary or b. hussien obama. I didn't say you did, obama did. I guess he thought he was running for God. No really, he said it. Because hope and change isn't a strategy for governance. Freedom and liberty is. That would be a real change and it would give people real hope if the government would stop taking away our freedoms and liberties. Exactly. That is exactly the type of change that half the people didn't want. The Constitution doesn't give people the right to healthcare. The Constitution doesn't give the government the power to force people to buy healthcare they don't want. The half of the people who don't want the government involved in their healthcare. The ones who are smart. The ones who understand that when government decides who will live and who will die by making their healthcare decisions for the people, that's tyranny. Millions of people lost their insurance. Obama promised if you like your healthcare you can keep your healthcare. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. All lies. And the millions you claim have access to affordable healthcare? That's a lie too. People can't afford the premiums. They can't afford the deductibles. So what did he achieve? Nothing. Because by this time next year it will already be repealed. People are dying because obama took away their healthcare. A better future would be more freedom for people, not less. In case you didn't know, it was liberal big government policies interfering in the free market economy that caused the economic crisis. Because obama was shaking down banks as a "community organizer" forcing them to give home loans to poor people who could not afford to make the payments. Because of the Community Re-investment Act and Bill Clinton and the democrats who refused to regulate the banks, Fannie-Mae and Freddie Mac, who were cooking the books. And the nation would have recovered just fine without making poor people and the taxpayer bail out big corporations, Wall Street and the big banks. No thanks to obama and his leftist goons. If anything, his stupid big government policies and all the new regulations have stifled the economy and slowed it more. We haven't ever seen a worse or longer lasting recovery than this one. Less than 2% growth for his eight years in office. That's terrible. He never passed a jobs bill that he promised either. He never passed a single budget. I don't think that has ever happened before. I think that governments cause economic crisis' as they did this one, and the best way to recover is to allow the free market to work. Don't you believe in the free market? Don't you believe in capitalism? Don't you know that the engine of the American economy is free market capitalism? Supply Side Economics is the solution, but you don't know what that means I'm guessing because most stupid liberals have no idea about economics. They don't even know what form of economics the democrats advocate. If you can name it, I'd be surprised. I am compiling much of the evidence you speak of in this thread, but I am only one person and there is so much evidence of Crooked Hillary being crooked that I could use more help. It may take a life time to chronicle. Hillary Clinton's Scandalpalooza Vol I Yes, this is true. In spite of all the crimes Crooked Hillary and her husband, BJ Clinton the oral sex president of the Oval Office, have committed, they have not been held to account for any. That is because the system is rigged. Democrats don't charge democrats for crimes. They just don't. They are above the law. And that is the ultimate form of tyranny. If that is what you want, to be controlled by the government through your healthcare, a government that can make life and death decisions for you, run by crooked politicians who don't answer to the laws that the rest of us do, you are voting for the right person in Crooked Hillary.
Oh, and what makes you think that exactly? You are making (*)(*)(*)(*) up again. And you seriously think that makes any kind of sense? Do you now? You question Trump's conservatism yet you mindlessly repeat his words and mannerisms? You can call your ideology whatever you want, it doesn't make it so. You don't think Democrats espouse capitalism and republicanism too? This is yet another example of the tribalism which is all too dominant in American politics, especially on the right. You aren't being honest. Well then you should be able to prove it. You have been repeatedly asked to prove it and you haven't been able to do so. Again, you aren't being honest. So you think people are wrong to be hopeful and things shouldn't change? What does freedom and liberty mean to you? Just what freedoms has government taken away from you? And pleased do be specific. Is the inability to get decent affordable healthcare a liberty? Is living in the Stone Age a liberty for you? Is the right to pollute the air and water a liberty? What about the people who have to breath and drink the polluted air and water, are they not being deprived of the liberty to drink unpolluted water and breath unpolluted air just because you don't want to deny the liberty of others to pollute? Well clearly the Republican controlled Supreme Court doesn't agree with you and it is the court's right per the Constitution to interpret the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has ruled, contrary to your assertion, the government does have the right and power to require people to purchase healthcare insurance. Do you have a single example of the government choosing who lives and who dies as a result of Obamacare? Do you have a single example of where the government has personal healthcare decisions for people? Where is your evidence that, "The half of the people who don't want the government involved in their healthcare."? Do you not realize the government has been heavily involved in the training of healthcare professionals for many decades? Are you against medical boards who set training and licensing requirements for medical professionals? Are you against the training of healthcare professionals? If you are, then you are more than a little late. Government has been doing that for a very long time. Do you really think "half the people" don't want government involved in their healthcare? Do you not realize that healthcare reform was a key plank in Obama's 2008 platform, and more than half the people in this country voted for him. Unfortunately for you and your fellow comrades, the government doesn't chose who lives and who dies. And you have no evidence to the contrary, You are yet again mindlessly repeating lies. So you think the inability to get good healthcare insurance is more freedom? You think being forced to breath polluted air and water is liberty? LOL...oh and where is your evidence for that one? Let me guess, as with everything else, you don't have any. Again, you are just mindlessly repeating right wing propaganda. The truth is the Great Recession was caused by the deregulation of the the banking industry and both parties are responsible for that deregulation. After the Great Depression a number of laws were passed to prevent another Great Depression from ever occurring again. A Republican controlled congress and a Democratic president repealed those laws. That's what cause the Great Recession. OK...more partisan bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Do you have any evidence to support that assertion? Of course you don't because it simply isn't true. There is no law that "forces" banks to make bad loans. And bad loans weren't the cause of the crisis, the crisis was caused by the derivatives based on those bad loans. The financial system was set up to manage bad loans. It wasn't set up to manage the derivatives which deregulation created. Prior to the deregulation of the banks and repeal of Glass-Steagall, banks were forbidden by law to engage in derivative trading. Canada's banks weren't allowed to engage in derivative trading, and their banks were unscathed by the Great Recession. In the 90's American Savings and Loans had made a number of bad loans. It didn't cause a great recession, because the financial system was set up to handle bad loans. It wasn't set up to handle and manage derivative trading. That's why Democrats in congress and a Democratic president signed into law Dodd-Frank which was universally opposed by banks and Republicans. I suggest you educate yourself instead of mindlessly repeating what Republican entertainers tell you. Just what specifically did the Community Reinvestment Act do to contribute to the Great Recession? Please do be specific? Where does it require lenders to make bad loans? Where is the evidence SALIEMAE and FREDIEMAC cooked the books? You are yet again just mindlessly repeating what others have told you. And the basis for that assertion is what exactly? You do realize no credible economist would agree with you? There is absolutely no evidence to support your assertion that the nation would have recovered "just fine". And taxpayers profited by bailing out the banks and big corporations. You think that is bad? http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/news/companies/government-bailouts-end/ By bailing out the banks the US government saved billions in unemployment and welfare benefits. It kept millions of Americans employed and paying taxes rather than becoming unemployed and dependent upon government welfare benefits. Outside of Republicans circles, that's generally considered a good thing. Well as usual with you, your facts are wrong. In 2009, Obama's first year in office, the US GDP was 14.4187 trillion dollars. Last year, the US GDP was 17.947 trillion dollars. That's not 2% growth. That's 24% growth over the course of 7 years. That's about 3.5% per year over the course of the last 7 years. http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cf...i=1&904=2009&903=5&906=a&905=2015&910=x&911=0 Contrary to your assertion, this hasn't been the slowest economic recovery. The Great Depression was much longer. According to the widely recognized authority on economic activity, the NBER, the Great Recession began in December of 2007 and ended in June of 2009. That's just a few 5 months after Obama was sworn into office. http://www.nber.org/cycles.html Actually, Obama passed many jobs bills. What do you think the stimulus bill was exactly? It was a jobs bill. It was the largest jobs bill in the nation's history. And one more thing, it's that Constitution thingy Republicans like to demagogue, budgets and spending belong to congress not the president. So you want to blame the Republican controlled congress for not doing its job? OK...that par for the course. In my state we have a Republican governor who for almost 7 years now has blamed Obama for the state budget deficits and debts he has run up. Obama and Democrats are commonly scapegoated by Republicans. That's not evidence of any wrong doing by Obama or Democrats, that's just further evidence of Republican dishonesty. Unfortunately for you and your fellow Republican comrades, facts do matter. Well, government did cause the economic crisis of 2007-2009, but not for the reasons you attribute. Free markets are good, but they aren't the end all and be all. Free markets aren't without problems. Capitalism is good, but it isn't without problems either. One of the many unfortunate facts for you is that before modern economics (e.g. Keynesian economics) recessions were much more frequent and longer in duration. With modern economics, recessions are fewer and shorter and periods of economic growth are longer and stronger. With modern economics, periods of inflation have been much less severe. That's the result of hundreds of years of data. This isn't controversial. It's hard fact. But then you don't believe in evidence and reason. You believe in blind ideology. Do you know what "supply side economics" is? I'll wager you don't understand supply side economics. You are yet again just mindlessly repeating ideological memes. Supply side economics has been repeatedly debunked. It hasn't worked. It has never worked. Not even the great supply sider in chief Ronald Reagan was able to make it work. For your edification, when Reagan came to office, the nation faced stagflation. It had high inflation and low growth. That's not what we have today by the way. In order to have inflation you need two things, an abundant money supply and too much demand for goods and services. Supply siders believe if you increase the supply of goods and services you eliminate inflation. Reagan and his cohorts were never able to do that. The problem was resolved with plain old vanilla monetary policy. And that brings us to another problem with Republican Party economic ideology, they keep trying to cure the same problem. They don't recognize that things change over time, that the economy problems Reagan faced are fundamentally opposite of the economic problems we face today. Reagan faced to much demand brought about by a monetary response to the oil embargo of the 70's. That's not what we face today. What we face today is the exact opposite of what Reagan faced. Unfortunately the Republican Party has become like the old physician who only knows one cure for one malady. No mater what the problem, 2 aspirins is always the prescription. And Republicans wonder why people think they are crazy. Most right wing and left wing ideological zealots know nothing of economics, and your a perfect example of the right wing ideological zealot. Beyond the zealotry, you know absolutely nothing about the underlying issues including economics. No you aren't. What you are doing is just mindlessly repeating ideological memes. You have absolutely no evidence Hillary is corrupt. You just doing what you always do, mindlessly repeating with passion the lies others have told you. More mindless repetition...why am I not surprised? If Hillary were as corrupt has you say she is you would think that after nearly 30 years and tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars spent investigating her, Republicans could find some evidence of that corruption. But they haven't and that should be a problem for you but it isn't because you are just another mindless demagogue repeating what others have told you. Comey the FBI Director, who recommend to charges be filed after this last investigation is a Republican who has been widely renowned by both Republicans and Democrats for his integrity. But now because he has the audacity to put truth and integrity above partisanship he is part of the "rigged system"? You are what he founding fathers feared.
You can tell my mannerisms over the internet? No, democrats are statists who want big government socialism, handouts, welfare, and class warfare based on class envy and multicultural divisiveness. Democrats want poor little brown people to import for slave laborers to replace blacks poor whites and other minorities that the enroll on the welfare plantation. They want an all powerful government that is intolerant of diversity of opinion. If you disagree with their political or world views, you can be prosecuted and sent to prison.
[video=youtube;oQNkVmdicvA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQNkVmdicvA[/video] See video above. Not changes to that take away freedoms. Individual liberty. Government is threatening to take away religious freedoms, freedom of speech and 2nd Amendment rights. Voting rights and the right to self determination. Our rights to sovereignty and our states rights. Our property rights. You don't have a right to healthcare in the Constitution. Who is advocating polluted air and water? Who says others have a right to pollute? Stupid strawman arguments. This is why it is impossible to debate logically with a liberal. They can't use logic and reason.
The Supreme Court is a separate branch of government. It is not controlled by political parties. It is however, currently controlled by leftist statists who ignore the rule of law and all too often project their own preferences when interpreting the laws, instead of strict constructionist views of the law. Yes. There are many examples: I thought that was medical schools? No, I'm not against state medical boards. I'm against government overreach and oppression. Once again, stupid strawman arguments. Who is against training doctors? Because of the polls. Actually a majority don't want obamacare. Sure, and the country voted in a republican congress to undo what the stupid democrat party did unilaterally.
Millions lost their healthcare due to obamacare. Death by Obamacare: ‘Reform’ reams cancer patients No, it think free market economics should be employed in a free market economy. And once again another strawman argument, I didn't say I'm for polluted air and water.
I'll disagree. The CRA caused the housing bubble. And while both republicans and democrats are bought off by the same Wall Street industries and big banks who wanted Glass–Steagall's 1999 repeal which Bill Clinton signed that was only one of several factors that cause the crisis. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were cooking the books, there were many loans that were bundled into other security instruments and also many companies were gambling on derivatives markets. Republicans including President George W. Bush wanted reforms and regulations, and democrats stopped the legislation. That is what ultimately cause the collapse. [video=youtube;cMnSp4qEXNM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM[/video]
So you think your inability to question your beliefs is a "stupid assertion"? It's a fact, and it isn't stupid. You just mindlessly believe without question whatever Republican entertainers tell you, and you don't see anything wrong in that. And why does it take you 4 or more posts to reply to just one of my posts?
Sure. I have supporting evidence. I don't expect liberals to know much about it because typically they know so little.
I've given you the basics and some videos that explain enough already. The rest you can educate yourself on, especially since you are just becoming insulting instead of presenting arguments or logic.
Well, I guess that explains a lot. You are getting your information from a Murdoch tabloid. I bet you would believe anything. Murdoch's tabloid isn't a credible source. You have no credible evidence to back up your assertion. I'll ask you again, where is the credible evidence to support your beliefs? You have none, because what you believe simply isn't true. LOL...well luckily no one ever said you were. You wrote, "A better future would be more freedom for people, not less." And I responded by asking you two questions. That's not a straw man. I suggest you enroll in a logic class at your local junior college.
I think it is bad when the taxpayer bails out the 1%ers. No matter what, the poor are the ones that suffer the most. All the money lost on insurance, bail outs, profit losses, crashing stock prices, all of these things trickle down to the poor in the form of higher prices, for food, energy, housing and other necessities. Spend a couple of trillion to save billions? Now we see what democrats really stand for. Bailing out big businesses, Wall Street fat cats, and the richest 1%ers. That is not how math works. You have your calculations wrong. Obama has never had 3+% growth. That makes 3.5% impossible. Those stats are also a joke. Both the Great Depression and the Great Recession have been made worse because of Keynesian economics.
No you haven't. I asked you where in the Community Reinvestment Act does it require banks to make bad loans as you have alleged? As previously pointed out to you, no where in the Community Reinvestment Act does it require banks to make bad loans. I don't want to see right wing i.e. Republican propaganda. I don't want bull(*)(*)(*)(*). I'm asking for some hard and credible evidence. You don't have it, because it doesn't exist. that's why this song and dance from you. The Community Reinvestment Act has been the law of the land for more than 30 years. And now all of a sudden, you want to blame the bad loans made by banks some 30 year later on the Community Reinvestment Act? You want people to believe for 30 some years bankers made loans responsibly and then all of a sudden that law made bankers go crazy and make bad loans? It's laughable. It's amazing people are dumb enough and ignorant enough to believe that (*)(*)(*)(*). As previously pointed out to you the bad loans isn't what cause the Great Recession. What caused the Great Recession was the elimination of post Great Depression financial regulations which were enacted to prevent another Great Depression and they worked well. They fulfilled their purpose. They kept the nation out of a great depression while they were the laws of the land. You my friend are a prime example of what is wrong with this country.
The stimulus bill was a waste of money that just went into the coffers of democrats bank accounts. Most of the money disappeared and was never accounted for. More Keynesian economics, though some states used the money to cover their underfunded pension funds. It obviously didn't create any jobs. Unlike cult-of-personality wack jobs democrats, I don't blame only the opposition for bad things. Yeah, the RINO establishment republicans, McConnell and Boehner were also responsible for not doing their jobs.
The government debt that we get from out of control spending because of Keynesian economics is unsustainable. We need to pay down the debt or the fate of the nation is sealed. Taxing and spending us into prosperity has never and will never work. That is what Keynesian economics is about. It never gets paid back.
So blah blah blah. You don't understand Supply Side Economics from your critique of it. You simply don't know what you are talking about, and it is very obvious. I'm sure you don't understand Keynes either. Due to time constraints and the amount of time I've already wasted responding to your blathering wondering post, I'm gonna keep the rest of this short. Hillary is crooked. She's Crooked Hillary. She has lied and lied. Including perjury in front of Congress. She broke the laws. Lots and lots of them. We know this because of Comey's press conference. Comey is a coward and wimped out. He didn't press charges because the system is corrupt, it's rigged. The Clinton's do not answer to the same laws as the rest of us. They are above the laws. And cult-of-personality liberals and democrats are okay with the Clintons and their crimes. No problem. Assault women, rape women, sexually harass women, threaten women, go on trips with pedophiles and under aged sex slaves, no problem. Take money for foreign governments while Secretary of State, no problem. These are just several of the many, many crimes committed by the Clintons.
I think your assertion that I need to question myself is a stupid assertion. Why don't you question your beliefs? - - - Updated - - - This is where these arguments usually go. You have no rebuttal so you attack the messenger. Those two questions are strawman arguments. They are also stupid questions and assertions.
Yep. It was the CRA and the other things that I described. Banks were forced to give out the loans, banks were threatened with investigations by the government and even the justice department if they didn't capitulate. It was called Redlining. Look it up.
The government didn't bailout the 1%ers. It bailed out everyone and it made a profit doing it and you think that is bad. And prices haven't risen. Inflation has been essentially zero. Again, either you don't know the facts or you are just lying your ass off. I think its the former. You are just mindlessly repeating what others have told you. And since you never question anything you are told from your beloved right wing entertainers, you will just continue to mindlessly repeat everything they tell you. Where is your evidence the government spent trillions to save billions? Again, it's the same story. You don't have evidence to back up your assertion because your assertion isn't true. And that should be a problem for you if your were an honest broker, buy you aren't an honest broker are you? The stimulus plan didn't cost the government a trillion dollars much less trillions of dollars. Did you not read my previous reference which shows the government made profits on its investments? The government didn't just give money to banks or the auto industry. The government loaned money or took equity positions in the institutions receiving government assistance. It wasn't a giveaway as folks like you are fond of telling others. That's not how government works. Businesses need money, banks need money, to conduct normal business operations. During the Great Recession, banks stopped lending. Because banks didn't know their liabilities. That gets back the the derivative thingy that you clearly don't understand. Businesses and banks couldn't go to the equity markets to get cash, because equity markets were frozen. No investor is going to invest in anything where they cannot quantify the risks, and that was the case in 2008 and 2009. Investors aren't gamblers. That's why it was necessary for the government to intervene, and to become the lender of last resort. In doing so, the government saved the economy from another great depression and saved trillions in safety net program expenses. That intervention kept people employed. It kept businesses and banks open. That's normally considered a good thing unless you are a Republican. Oh really, where do you see that? As previously pointed out to you, the government was well paid for its intervention. Well actually it is how the math works. I gave you the link and the reference. GDP numbers are published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. I showed you the published GDP numbers. The unfortunate fact for you is in 2009 the GDP was 14.4187 trillion dollars. In 2015 the GDP was 17.9470 trillion dollars. That's 24.47% more than it was during Obama's first year in office. Your assertion of 2% growth during Obama's presidency is very clearly wrong. Perhaps Republicans don't do math, among other things. Divide 24.47% over 7 years and you get an average. Do you understand what an average number is? Well, they are the stats that professionals use. Just because you don't like them, just because they disprove your ideological beliefs, just because you don't know or understand them, it doesn't make them any less real or any less truthful. You obviously know nothing about macroeconomics. You think you know only what others have told you to believe. Explain how, the Great Depression and the Great Recession where made worse because of Keynesian economics? I'm looking for a reasoned credible fact based argument. You can't make it. Because it doesn't exist. You don't have facts, you don't have reason. All you have is a belief based on something someone else told you. That's it. You haven't taken even a single macroeconomics course. Yet you fancy yourself as some sort of economics expert, because someone like Limbaugh told you so. Limbaugh hasn't taken a single macroeconomics class either. Wake up, you are a pawn, a pawn of the very people, the 1%ters you decry. You are being played.
Except the data indicates that it wasn't a waste of money. But then you are not one for facts or reason are you? Can you prove any of your allegations? Can you prove the money went into the "coffers of Democrats bank accounts"? No, like everything else with you, you can't. You are fond of making all kinds of baseless allegations which you can never support. Thank God most people aren't so mindless. Unfortunately for you and your Republican fellows, facts and reason do matter to most people.
You described something? No you just make mindless assertions one right after the other, while ignoring facts and reason. And you can never backup any of your assertions with facts, much less reason. Where in the CRA does it require banks to make bad loans as you have repeatedly alleged? You keep obfuscating.
You are in denial of reality. The government bailed out the richest of the rich. My evidence? Have you not heard? The national debt has more than doubled under obama. It's now over $19,000,000,000,000.00. Now you question my honesty? Really, attack the messenger. The banks got bailed out, the local and state governments and their union employees got their money in the form of the stimulus. Only working Americans who lost their homes didn't get bailed out. They lost everything. The government screwed them over. See? You are defending bailing out the rich bankers and the big businesses. Seems to me like democrats are for the rich, and republicans are for the poor. What I am saying is that the taxpayer funded the economic bailouts and got screwed in return. They are the ones who really lost trillions of dollars, and now ironically owe trillions more because of the run up of the national debt. Actually I did. And so did my son who graduated with an degree in economics. I would be glad to explain it but I hate to take the time out of my day only to have you totally disregard the arguments and evidence I present. I'm not. I don't care if it is fat cat democrats on the take like the Clintons or if it is the backstablishment RINO republicans who are selling us out. I am the one who knows that both parties are corrupted by the system. That is why we need Donald Trump to stop the rigged system. To stop Crooked Hillary. You are the one defending the status quo.
It was obviously a waste of money because it didn't stimulate the economy. The GDP didn't get better and employment numbers are still lousy. We have the lowest participation rate since Jimmy Carter. Real unemployment is close to 20%. So I can just say the same about liberals. In fact, when I question people who vote for democrats or support Hillary, most of them do not have a basic knowledge about government. They don't even know the 3 branches of government.
