Housing bubble- which the government promised would cover faulty loans and it was government that encouraged bank to lend bad loans. But, it mostly done by people who do not read their loans or even understand how basic mortgages work.

Illegal immigration- the cost of care for these people, cost of court time, the cost to enforce immigration law, and the wasted money on the virtual border fence. I’m not just talking about hispanics but other foreigners as well.

Credit- too many people lived above their means, not only with mortgages, but with credit cards and store credit. Saving money and buying responsibly was kicked to the curb.

Government- every president, governor, congressman, or any politician has the potential to really f***up things whether they mean to or not. It is our responsibility to check on the federal, state, and local governments.

It’s funny how the left thinks that trickle down economics doesn’t work and Obama’s stimulus is trickle down economics. I’m not talking about Bush’s; I’m talking about the bill obama said was his plan.

By heaping more benefits on the already wealthy, Bush’s tax cuts fostered the accumulation of a huge amount of financial capital in the bank and brokerage accounts of the rich. This accumulation became so great that it resulted in a blockage in such capital flows – the people with money have so much, and the people without are so deeply in debt, that investors can find no opportunities for profitable investment.

Since financial capital flows have come to a screeching halt, there is no way to economically direct physical production – meaning that the “real economy” is collapsing as well.

While the tax cuts are merely one contributing factor, we would be remiss not to acknowledge the role they have played in bringing about the current crisis.

Letting tax payers keep more of their money is good for the domestic market in a normal situation. It is good when the buyer has lots of money because then he can use that money to buy lots of stuff. This reinvests into the economy. But the leftists are frustrated because they think that Bush let the taxpayers keep the money but instead of spending it wisely the taxpayers squandered it. They over extended themselves in the housing market and other ways. Then in fear of a recession the public began to save they’re money. AHHH. Now people are not reinvesting into the economy but actually leaving it stagnant.

The result is that the leftists do not trust in giving the Americans back they’re money just yet. Then a man named Obama comes along.

it’s a little late for that, isn’t it?

like Obama makes the stock market drop? that’s real logic?

GM says it lost billions of dollars… but that’s not why people sold GM stock… it’s because of obama…right? HAHAHA

you explain 10 percent of the rediculous stuff the right says on here in a logical way, and I’ll explain the tax cuts to you…

punishing the people who create jobs and wealth is the worst idea

the lending practices that started in the 90′s and were heavily supported by obama caused our problem

Tax-cuts brought in more tax-revenue and encouraged more employment…
confirm:
http://www.bea.gov
http://www.bls.gov

The Dems are taking attention away from Fannie/Freddy/CRA and their involvement in that program and eventually brought down the entire financial system. Dodd, Raines, Frank, Waters, Pelosi, Obama, and many others kept the giants deregulated even while they were cooking the books and re-rating mortgages to sell in the credit-default swap market.

Without them, they sub-prime and paper markets would have been small. They were the enablers allowing banks to securitize (so they could reset their solvency and loan more) and allowed the paper-market to acquire falsely rated packaged mortgages in an effort to diversify their portfolios…mainly hedge funds.

Direct from the Donkey’s mouth. Keep in mind most loans were issued b/n 2004-2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg&feature=related

I’m not discounting repubs, consumers or banks — merely pointing out who the enabler was. Without fannie/freddy/CRA, none of this would have taken place…the housing market would have never been artificially inflated and there would have been no “bust”.
________________________________________________
David H:
“Deficit funded tax cuts helped put us in the toilet we are in. Absolutely. Tax cuts without spending cuts do the exact same thing to the bottom line as deficit spending.”

Actually deficit-funded tax cuts pay for themselves. In both Reagan’s years and G-dubs years the program paid for itself and more in 5 years (adjusted for inflation).

http://www.bea.gov
http://www.bls.gov

1) A 2005 study by Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig “analyzed three types of policy shocks: a deficit-financed spending increase, a balanced budget spending increase (financed with higher taxes) and a deficit-financed tax cut, in which revenues increase but government spending stays unchanged. We found that a deficit-spending shock stimulates the economy for the first 4 quarters but only weakly compared to that for a deficit-financed tax cut.” In other words, FDR vs. Clinton vs. Reagan, Reagan wins.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/1/27/10-reasons-to-nix-the-stimulus-plan.html