Shouldn't renters vote Republican in November?

Vote democrat...

Which party started the bailouts? Who started TARP again?

what do parties offer each side? homeowners and renters?

in my view, democrats offer the most $ to homeowners to the detriment of renters. do they have anything to offer to renters that i have missed?

I love political threads. dont worry if you vote democratic your rent will drop to 0 eventually, along with your future prospects :D

Even more importantly, you can easily observe that home prices are a lot lower in "red" states. When Democrats are in power, they pass laws and regulation that increase the price of homes and screw people who don't own.

"you can easily observe that home prices are a lot lower in "red" states."

That's because red states have a much more lower cost of living and lower incomes. It has nothing to do with politics.

Nobody should ever vote Republican. In 1988 my son (then in kindergarten) asked me
"Mom, what is a Republican?" And I said, "A Republican is someone who doesn't care what happens to other people." My husband chided me for being prejudiced. But really! Have I not been proven right?

Owners should be the ones voting Republican.

LoftyDreams, that sounds like a cliche that many middle class people seem to have.

But in fact, the only politicians I ever hear trying to fix the entitlement issue on behalf of the young and future generations are ALWAYS Republicans. So I do wonder, do Democrats care about the young at all? They seem to care about the unions and AARP only.

Shelby tried to stop the housing bubble, he's very financially knowledgeable, while the clowns of Frank and Dodd couldn't even see that there was a bubble and avoided regulating as much as possible. Are there Democrats with financial knowledge? Can we afford people that don't know what a ponzi is in Congress?

True, Paul, owners that didn't HELOC like crazy and were responsible shouldn't be bailing out the irresponsible either.

"Even more importantly, you can easily observe that home prices are a lot lower in "red" states. When Democrats are in power, they pass laws and regulation that increase the price of homes and screw people who don't own."

that's true. some of them even managed to have healthy income/price ratios during the peak of the bubble.

Democrats = Closet Communists.
Obama = El Sharpton (minus racial bais) aka Community Organizer
Health Care for All = Have our Children pay for for Grandmas care.
Cheap Immigrant Labor = Higher taxes of all due to increasing health care cost.

Let us have some fun.

Without typos this time:

Democrats = Closet Communists.
Obama = El Sharpton (minus racial bais) aka Community Organizer
Health Care for All = Have our Children pay for Grandma's care.
Cheap Immigrant Labor = Higher taxes for all due to increasing health care cost.

Let us have some fun. Additions to this list are welcome.

"That's because red states have a much more lower cost of living and lower incomes. It has nothing to do with politics."

Red states have a lower cost of living because houses are less expensive, the cost of housing being the major determinant of cost of living.

People have lower incomes there because people who don't make enough money to live in places like NYC will move to a red state where they can afford to buy a house.

No problem with health care for all if all just means US Americans. Another issue that comes back to boarder control.

People with lower incomes can also rent in NYC.

Always vote democrat...

LoftyDreams
about 1 hour ago
ignore this person
report abuse Nobody should ever vote Republican. In 1988 my son (then in kindergarten) asked me
"Mom, what is a Republican?" And I said, "A Republican is someone who doesn't care what happens to other people." My husband chided me for being prejudiced. But really! Have I not been proven right?

sounds like you did a fine job raising open minded intellectually curious children and your social circle sounds diverse in character and thought. well done.

I always control my boarders. I tell them they have free run of the apartment, then as soon as they rent the room it's "don't eat at the living room couch", "the ice cubes are mine", "you must be home by 5 a.m.", "fold the hand towels in thirds lengthwise before hanging them back on the towel rod", that sort of thing. You have to control the boarders.

As always you lemmings way way way complicate matters. I vote for my narrow little issues, screw everyone else. This year, whoever eliminates the puerto rican day parade gets my vote. For whatever reason that is the one parade that I get stuck in traffic for, it's like they got it out for 'me.

Senior citizens, the poorest segment of the population became the wealthiest under Reagan and college students became the poorest.

Why should college students be rich? They don't make any money.

OTOH, maybe they become poor because more people (and hence less wealthy ones) started going to college, thus bringing down the averages.

As to the wealth of college students; eliminate the forces that are enticing people to spend greater and greater portions of average per student incomes to get a degree, while devaluing the degree (grade inflation) and making it impossible to eliminate the debt. This won't address the fact that college students are poor, but it will keep them from getting that way several years after college when they can't get a job nor eliminate the debt.

"As to the wealth of college students"

Because of student loans, a significant percentage of college students have negative net worth, and the average negative net worth keeps increasing every year.

Then they should get jobs that pay tips, right?

They should vote for the best candidate.

"Senior citizens, the poorest segment of the population became the wealthiest under Reagan and college students became the poorest. "

those senior citizens control 80% of USA assets, why don't they pay for those other elderly in need of somebody to pay their bills? One self-serving elderly helping another, what's not to like?

> Which party started the bailouts? Who started TARP again?

Senate and House both Democratic majority before, during, and after.

Alpo, I know you don't know this stuff, but you can look it up on wikipedia, you know?

"They should vote for the best candidate." ... you're just rephrasing the "always vote for the Democrat" comment.

somewhere else wrote: "> Which party started the bailouts? Who started TARP again?

Senate and House both Democratic majority before, during, and after."

While I'd agree that it's dumb to try to pin the various bailouts on either party since they were both plenty supportive at the time, the comment above is pretty disingenuous. The bailouts started with a series of executive actions, so the party in control of Congress is irrelevant.

"> Which party started the bailouts? Who started TARP again?

Senate and House both Democratic majority before, during, and after."

wow, talk about being selective. I guess you were asleep in political science class during the part about how a bill becomes law. What happens after it passes Congress? I think someone needs to sign it, right? Hmm, who was presdient in 2008 and signed TARP into law?

You know, by cherry picking to that extent, you are really discrediting yourself.

Shouldn't renters vote Republican in November?

Dude! You can't be serious! In 8 years the republicans managed to financially ruin America and almost wiped out 2 countries in the middle east from the map... Ain't that enough damage for you already?

When did the GOP not favor home owners over renters from a policy perspective?

If I were to only vote my pocketbook I'd vote Republican.

I'm voting Democratic.

Too much intolerance in the Republican platform.

This is a stupid thread. There is no difference between democrats and republicans. They are all assholes.

Right JuiceMan, the choice is like a choice between stevejhx and somewhereelse

If you are talking politics, it doesn't matter which party is in. We all lose.

Excuse me, the biggest entitlement in American life is..... the mortgage deduction. Yes, Virginia.

the two largest destroyers of America, the democratic party and the republican party. vote for neither, anyone candidate insisting that they are one or the other is a coward.

Peace and Freedom Party!

"When did the GOP not favor home owners over renters from a policy perspective?"

The GOP CONSISTENTLY is more favorable to new development compared to Democrats. Preventing development of new housing units cases prices to go up because of scarcity. This one policy issue is bigger than just about anything else. It explains why housing is affordable in Republican states like Texas but unaffordable in Democratic states like California or New York (actually, upstate New York is Republican, but the city is super-Democratic, explaining the super-unaffordability of housing in NYC).

To the whole left /right thing, I will add something that a friend wrote: (was in regards to labels used by journalists but kind of fits here).

"The plain fact of the matter is that if you are providing analysis & advocating for policies that will help the greatest number of people in the greatest possible way you are *by definition* a mainstream organization. This is what the dreaded “liberal” think-tanks and policy shops do. They toil tirelessly to try and discover ways in which everyone’s lives can be improved for them. Then they go out and proselytize for their glorious vision.

Why would it be necessary to label such a group? Would it be clearer to write “the self-sacrificing noble geniuses who are looking out for your best interests at the Center for American Progress” rather than just “experts at the Center for American Progress”? The two phrases are, of course, roughly synonymous.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are an entirely different species. They, too, work tirelessly, but it is only in the service of the malevolent powers backing them. They are constantly seeking out new lies and new obfuscations; they boldly go where no one should ever go. Their ideological voyages are nothing but a continuing mission to harm the largest number of the most vulnerable people for the benefit of a few wealthy oppressors. It is no exaggeration to say that they are quite literally aiming at the utter destruction of all that is good in the world to the benefit of all that is evil.

So, when one is writing about an objective set of facts in a journalistic context, one might reasonably be expected to present the thoughts of these “liberal” folk as the common-sense wisdom it is, while noting for the reader which of the sources hail from Sauron’s lands and thus are only peddling venal, self-serving mendacity in the service of vile plutocratic overlords lurking in the shadows. Otherwise the innocent reader might be taken in by the villainous conservatives or, perhaps worse, might discount the suggestions from the “liberal” position as in some way influenced by ideological concerns instead of the distilled platonic truth it is. "

every incumbent needs to be out, on both sides

"Conservatives, on the other hand, are an entirely different species. They, too, work tirelessly, but it is only in the service of the malevolent powers backing them. They are constantly seeking out new lies and new obfuscations; they boldly go where no one should ever go. Their ideological voyages are nothing but a continuing mission to harm the largest number of the most vulnerable people for the benefit of a few wealthy oppressors."

I can't tell if you believe this or if you are being sarcastic.

bob_d, AvUWS's post is excellent satire written by an awesome person anyone would be lucky to call friend.

Most republicans I know like to pass on privilege and call it hard work.

And word up to the intolerance. How is policing the world compatible with small government? How is Church compatible with a lack of compassion. Dems seem to mean well....they just fuck it up. Republicans arent even trying to do the right thing...as they fuck it up.

ah yes, a guy who spends his days trying to make the rich richer by exploiting privileged information, accounting loopholes and putting on meaningless trades which add zero value to society opining on the morals and ethics of others.... priceless.

How about you next lecture everybody on responsible energy use while taking your private jet?

So much ignorant bluster... You can't learn how things work by wiping your ass with Barrons.

Maybe you should give the class an example of how a trader exploits accounting loopholes you twit.

"AvUWS's post is excellent satire"

Are you sure? A lot of liberals take themselves so seriously, and have such hypocritical views about stuff, their statements which seem satirical are often satirical by accident rather than intent.

An example of liberal hypocrisy is the liberal who claims that he cares about the regular person and not the rich, yet his land use policies, which prevent the development of new housing units, results in massive increase in housing prices which benefits rich homeowners at the expense of less economically well off renters.

"Are you sure? A lot of liberals take themselves so seriously, and have such hypocritical views about stuff, their statements which seem satirical are often satirical by accident rather than intent."

agree with you, but the hellfires of sauron were a dead giveaway.

"An example of liberal hypocrisy is the liberal who claims that he cares about the regular person and not the rich, yet his land use policies, which prevent the development of new housing units, results in massive increase in housing prices which benefits rich homeowners at the expense of less economically well off renters."

Yes, because housing policy with few restrictions has worked so well for the "less economically well off" in places like Phoenix, Las Vegas and the Inland Empire. Try thinking for a change.

"Yes, because housing policy with few restrictions has worked so well for the "less economically well off" in places like Phoenix, Las Vegas and the Inland Empire. Try thinking for a change."

Housing prices have always been, even during the bubble, a lot more affordable in Phoenix and Las Vegas than in places run by Democrats like New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

The housing bubble was nationwide bubble and cannot be blamed on the politicians in any one state.

I mostly blame Democrats for the housing bubble.

Read this smoking-gun article from the NY Times published over a decade ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html?sec=&spon=

"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."

There is also a quote from a conservative warning what will happen:

"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."

Then again, in 2003, Republicans tried to reign in Fannie Mae, but Democrats killed it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Or perhaps there is more demand in the nation's largest city and most populous state and less land available?

"I mostly blame Democrats for the housing bubble." Why am I not suprised? Let me know when you have some actual data, rather than eleven year old articles that attempt to explain what began under a different administration three years later. Maybe you should focus more on interest rate policy instead of trying to blame some political party.

Those desert cities are very young, were nearly uninhabitable before a/c (and certainly before water diversion projects ... GOVERNMENT water diversion projects). They featured vast expanses of raw, useless desert. Additionally, because nearly all of their development occurred after the car became the norm (thanks, GOVERNMENT roads and freeways!), cheap sprawly development was feasible. Furthermore, none of them is centered on a particular feature, like a port, that defines the most valuable part -- it's all undifferentiated nothingness, until you throw some undifferentiated freeways, airports, malls and tract housing here and there.

Watch out for massive (sub)urban blight in those cities, following explosive overgrowth at their fringes ... think East L.A., etc., after the explosive growth in the Valley and behind the Orange Curtain.

And don't think those places don't have extensive zoning and building codes in place ... they definitely do.

The terrain and climate make it easy to slap three inches of concrete down (no real foundation, certainly no basement), have minimally-skilled labor slop some cinder block walls together, "texture" the interior walls and popcorn the ceilings so that even a skill like drywall-taping isn't needed, and boom you have a tract house ... no freeze/thaw cycle = minimal deterioration and maintenance over time ... little rain means little flooding.

Of course housing is cheaper in those places. Give it time. Or, for fun, look at all the Northeastern/Midwestern smallish towns that no longer have a farm/factory economy and have failed to lure enough prisons to provide local jobs -- very cheap housing.

Rhino86
'Maybe you should give the class an example of how a trader exploits accounting loopholes you twit.'

really? Total Return Swaps come to mind? Enron barges? Any number of credit default and interest rate swaps which are just veiled loans or ways to put on leveraged bets that would otherwise not be allowed or raise eyebrows. Various swaps which are methods to get around bank capital requirements?

and I don't think you need Barron's to discover this - even your liberal totems The New Yorker, Vanity Fair and certainly the NYTimes have run numerous stories over the years.

Look, I don't care how you earn your money. You've made a decision to leech off of others in return for handsome remuneration - I assume it is working out nicely for you. Just don't go around trying to assuage your guilt by telling others to pay more taxes - if it makes you feel better to filch on one side while paying high taxes on the other, more power to you, but don't go lecturing those who work hard at productive careers that they need to assuage your guilt too.

The core and pride of the Republican party are the small businessowners who work their ass off to build enterprises that add value and employ others. The corporate officers and hedge fund guys who make their money through cronyism and exploitation tend to be Democrats.

Amazing what Barney Frank was able to do as a member of the Congressional minority. Imagine for a moment that the Bush Administration wanted to actually do something about those agencies. I don't mean consolidate power by shifting oversight from Congress to the executive branch. I mean actually do something. Now imagine that the republican congress supported that idea. What do you think Barney Frank could have done to stop it? Nada.

"The core and pride of the Republican party are the small businessowners who work their ass off to build enterprises that add value and employ others. The corporate officers and hedge fund guys who make their money through cronyism and exploitation tend to be Democrats."

No doubt this is all backed by data as well...

Malthus:

http://www.surepayroll.com/spsite/press/releases/2008/release091508.asp
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/largest-hedge-fund-donors-show-bipartisan-support-democrats/story?id=10425809&page=2

"You've made a decision to leech off of others in return for handsome remuneration - I assume it is working out nicely for you. Just don't go around trying to assuage your guilt by telling others to pay more taxes."

I have no guilt about my professional. It seems to me you enjoy imagining you know me a little too much. Go have a xanax and play with your girls. This is America and if I think the handsomely remunerated could pay a little more to provide opportunity for the less fortunate, then that's my prerogative. Pricks like you try to pretend your views are inherently American...and that somehow we need to come to your side or leave. If I vote for someone who is going to raise your taxes...that exactly my right so go fuck yourself in the words of your pal.

Printer: I tip my hat to you on the small business onwer data, although I would also say that the point that a majority of them are republican does not make them the core of the party. e.g. I'd say the percentage of evangelicals supporting republicans is a lot higher than 64%.

On Wall St. side, I think Obama picked up some cash from folks due to McCain's strange behavior during the financial meltdown and Sarah Palin. This article shows it going back the other way:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022305537.html

The GOP is dead with the young...its a bunch of ignorant old coots. Try reinventing it into something relevant. You're party's answer is the tea party bullshit you should be ashamed. What's a fact is the wealthiest states are Democrat so who is raising who's taxes.

I buy that Malthus. McCain was a train wreck. You could almost accept the "old McCain" if we hadn't ruined ourselves globally with W. McCain is a choke artist. How many times did he have to lose to a lesser candidate to make that point.

"really? Total Return Swaps come to mind? Enron barges? Any number of credit default and interest rate swaps which are just veiled loans or ways to put on leveraged bets that would otherwise not be allowed or raise eyebrows. Various swaps which are methods to get around bank capital requirements?"

How am I associated with any of these things?

Are you in the Clan because some of your candidates have been? Are you associated with the crowds of people holding monkeys at rallies with shirts with Obama written on them?

"Let me know when you have some actual data, rather than eleven year old articles"

11-year-old articles are HISTORY. These are the events that actually happened, undistorted by current-day spin. There is no better way to figure out why there was a housing bubble. Democrats today can write lots of spin, but unfortunately for them, the actual historical record is still out there.

"Imagine for a moment that the Bush Administration wanted to actually do something about those agencies"

Bush was incompetent, a fact that has nothing to do with the broader point, that Republicans favor policies which result in lower housing prices compared to Democrats.

re: alanhart

Terrain is not the issue here. Vermont is rural, but has high housing prices because it's run by Democrats. In comparison, Idaho has low housing prices because it's run by Republicans, even though Idaho has cold winters and hills, much like Vermont.

Yes, Manhattan is an island so there is less room to build, but in big cities run by Republicans, like Dallas, the housing prices are much lower than cities run by Democrats. To build something in Manhattan, it takes years of red tape before you get the project approved, and they always insist on lowering the number of stories in the building, and forcing the builder to put in a free school or "affordable" units which increases the costs of the construction. If Republicans ran Manhattan, new buildings would be taller and the approval process much faster, resulting in more units at a lower cost of construction per unit.

Imagine if McCain had been able to send Romney in to deal with the financial issues. Instead he succumbed to pressure from the party's intolerance for one of its own and winds up creating a career for Palin. Its like a greek tragedy.

"Republicans favor policies which result in lower housing prices compared to Democrats"

Huh?

I see it every day. Fathers handing wall street careers to their sons and then talking about meritocracies and high taxes as their prep school buddies throw them trades.

Yo 86.

Neither here not there, but find it interesting Alaska Getz the mostest federal aid, yet has the mostest teabaggers. Sorry about the plane ride to nowhere. It would have never happened if you were too poor and so not connected to get a nice fishing expedition. Apparently one fishing lodge per trip was not enough.

Bob, Read the article from 2003 and try to comprehend what Bush was actually proposing. If there was one thing Bush and Cheney were good at, it was consolidating power in the oval office. And I never said anything about his competence, so that is your red herring.

And I am a fan of history. But I am also a fan of not drawing conclusions from random and incomplete pieces of information so it will fit my world view.

Fuck the American Dream.... I make enough to send my kid to prep school so why should I pay taxes to see to the other kids can have a decent education...Then I'll get my kid an internship at Goldman. Actually sounds a lot like Europe....where unrest gave way to socialism. Hmmm...yeah....hmmmm.

How am I associated with any of these things?

who do you think is on the other side of your trades? let me guess, when the salesman at GS called you up to offer protection on a credit at some stupid price b/c AIG was on the other side, exploiting the ratings agencies and capital requirement loopholes, you probably think that you're a 'genius' right? Oh, or you're a 'really valued client'? first, i have to explain to you that the trades exist, and now how they work? what exactly DO they pay you for?

You have to explain what this has to do with me. Or you have to go fuck yourself. Your choice.

I'm up on recent financial history too..but I am not sure who you think you are impressing or entertaining by linking me to this matters. And please stop playing with yourself while you do it.

You made the right choice.

Excellent, meathead is back.

Some people never change.

I wouldn't have me any other way....freak.

Your father thinks differently about that, right?

"Right JuiceMan, the choice is like a choice between stevejhx and somewhereelse"

lmao

bunch of boring, bitter, wannabe-elite white guys whining.

control the borders (or boarders, hilarious)! obama = sharpton! everything that went wrong under bush was the democrats' fault (since they controlled congress for 2 of 8 years of his presidency)! democrats are communists! obama wants to destroy america! barney frank (the ABD from harvard considered by many of his republican colleagues to be the smartest guy in congress) is a clown and richard shelby (the party-switcher who wants to ban even legal immigration and make it illegal to translate government documents into languages other than english) is a genius!

republicans are screaming because, as Norm Ornstein, the republican-leaning political analyst says, Obama has lead the most productive legislative session since Lyndon Johnson--and possibly since Franklin Roosevelt. Healthcare reform, financial regulation, economic stimulus, major changes to the tax code, two supreme court justices confirmed. like these accomplishments or hate them, but obama is on a huge roll. and, as one would expect, he's (for the time being) somewhat unpopular. the economy remains terrible (must be his fault!!!) and he's rocked the boat. it makes people uncomfortable--and it makes republicans scared.

because, unless the republican party makes some major changes, it is headed for decades in the wilderness. this number should make republicans tremble:

"Minorities make up nearly half the children born in the U.S., part of a historic trend in which minorities are expected to become the U.S. majority over the next 40 years. In fact, demographers say this year could be the "tipping point" when the number of babies born to minorities outnumbers that of babies born to whites."

this means that even without immigration, legal and illegal, ethnic minorities will within a few decades be the majority. can an essentially all-write party, moving further right and with declining minority support, expect to thrive?

John Mccain received less than 6 million votes from non-whites, just over 10% of his vote total. McCain received 5% of the black vote, 31% of the Latino vote (thanks to all of you "protect the boarders!!!" folks. thanks), 35% of the Asian vote (a group that was once considered evenly split between the parties), and 31% of other. the electorate becomes approximately .5% less white every year. in the short term the movement is slow enough to allow the republicans to reap temporary advantage from inflaming white anger. over the long term, these numbers are just devastating for them.

now, start ranting!

here's another number that should make republicans happy:

mccain received 32% of the vote from voters age 18-29, and 53% of the vote of those 65 and older.

in other words, when 100 old people kick the bucket, they are split 53 mccain voters, 45 obama voters. they are replaced by a group (17 year olds) who we assume is almost identical to their 18-year-old compatriots, that would split 66 obama voters, 32 mccain voters.

and it's even worse than that (if it could possibly be worse) for republicans. the population is growing, so more people turn 17 every year than die every year. so that group of 100 republican-leaning seniors will be replaced by a group of, say, 140 overwhelmingly democratic youngsters.

put that in your pipe and choke on it.

start ranting already!

'everything that went wrong under bush was the democrats' fault' -- no both parties are to blame
'obama wants to destroy america!' -- no he wants to 'change' it, only he knows how radical a change he wants
'barney frank (the ABD from harvard ' -- i hate to break it to you but there's no such thing as ABD (that's what losers who couldn't finish a phd call themselves)... additionally, you say abd, i say male prostitute
Shelby might be a moron but on issue of bailouts/fannie he's correct
'Healthcare reform, financial regulation, economic stimulus, major changes to the tax code, two supreme court justices confirmed. ' -- yes and what a waste of political will those things are, both finreg and obamacare will accomplish 0 if we're lucky.
Now to the point you gloat so much about 'this means that even without immigration, legal and illegal, ethnic minorities will within a few decades be the majority.' The impact of minority becoming majority is unknowable (historical precedents are not applicable for many reasons) but when I go to Mexico, seven days is usually enough. Don't bother replying, I must be a racist.

At the end of the day, this pain we now feel is the unwind of a 25-year Republican trend toward de-regulation and easy money.

What in happyrenter's life is happy? Estranged from family and heritage, more concerned with being a Democratic advocate than loving his country, more concerned about brand new immigrants and their babies than people who have built and contributed to this country.

This whole outrage over immigrants is so fucking repulsive and un-American.

Rhino, I'm not a republican apologist but the 25 yr trend of easy money is a function of social democracy and not party specific

Really, during which era were Americans so pro immigrant?

Who appointed Greenspan and fired Volker?

I disagree. You had two Reagan administrations, three Bush administrations since 1980. Bush One literally screamed at Greenspan to lower rates.

who knew at the time what a monster they created, but clinton also had 8 years to fire him... the bottom line is everyone was happy while the dollars were flowing

There was no real estate bubble in the 1990s.... And I wouldn't say Clinton created the tech bubble. I would say the Greenspan created the housing bubble after 9/11.

In 1980, the choice was more Carter. Next time around the choice was Carter's Vice President Walter Mondale because somehow there was an assumption that Americans would reverse their point of view on being better off than they were 4 years sooner. After 8 years of Reagan, the best the Democrats could nominate was Mike Dukakis. What a joke.
After Clinton disgraced himself and his office, could anyone have less charisma than Al Gore? The man who was so passionate about leading this country, that after 4 years of Bush he didn't even have an interest in the country anymore to run? So ... wait for it ... John Kerry reporting for duty to vote for it after he voted against it.

The Dems' forcing of FNMA and FHLMC to lower lending standards during Clinton was a huge factor in the housing bubble.

ALL the bubbles are a function of easy money and it didn't start under reagan, so again it would be only too easy if you could point to an individual (like the greenman) and say he is to blame. If that were the case somebody could undo everything, but they can't can they? Where's the candidate from either party who would look into the camera and tell people to give up their iphones?

But easy money did start under Reagan.

The costly war machine did start under Reagan.

Agree, Reagan should have left things alone, kept the hostages in Iran, kept the economic malaise under Carter, left the Soviet Union to remain on its merry way.
And then after 4 years of Reagan, America should have woken up elected Walter Mondale.

Why should people give up their iPhones? You mean like for lent?

Why shouldnt people who make $300k a year have $2.5mm homes with 7% down.