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