Spot on. Exactly my point. The damage was done by 2007 when the Democrats took Congress. That had virtually nothing to do with it.
That had EVERYTHING to do with it! Millions of high-risk mortgage loans were given to people who should NEVER had bought houses. Tens of millions of homes were refinanced, using artificially inflated values. Millions of mortgage loans were back up with nothing but paper and junk bonds. Home prices skyrocketed, property taxes skyrocketed, and irresponsible people got farther and farther in debt. And it ALL points back to ONE central player: The CRA.
I know who they are. Why would you throw out that stupid non sequitur, assuming that I'm a fan of either of them? The problem with labeling "recessions" is that virtually NOBODY agrees on the definition. Period.
Who told you that, Rush? Sean? You've been mislead by conservative propaganda again just like you were with your recession post above.
Then why did you ask? Because you blathered the same kind of erroneous facts I hear them spout over and over. But if I'm wrong, where did you get your information? Did you just make it up? While I don't always agree with their pronouncements (like the 2001 recession) NBER is the official Arbiter of recessions and has been for decades.
No, it is YOU that has been led around by the short-hair by the idiotic likes of MSNBC, DemocracyNow, etc. I don't listen to Hannity & Limbaugh. I think they're pukes. If only YOU were even a FRACTION as discerning...
I asked the question in order for YOU to take the bait (which you did) and confess that you were just throwing out non sequitur crap.
It is not a non sequitur at all. Why don't you respond to the question? Did you just fabricate the false information, or were you mislead?
Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) My question about where you got your information is not a non sequitur, because it was not a conclusion following an argument, but simply a question. Which you still have not answered. Why don't you respond to the question? Did you just fabricate the false information, or were you mislead? Now, why would you assert that simply because we have a disagreement as to the meaning of a phrase, my argument would be a "lie"? *That* is a non sequitur. I could be mistaken, or wrong, or misunderstand the word. There is not basis for you to assert that what I wrote is a lie. Though I do often see this kind of false accusation being made by weak debaters who cannot stand on the merit of their own logical argument. Why would you presume that?
Wrong. 'The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP)' Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp#ixzz1nSJKbdei When GWB entered office: When GWB left office: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
If you think that GWB did not contribute more then any other President to the low income housing surge which helped lead to the housing boom and crash....then - no offense - you do not know what you are talking about. Sure, CRA was there to help him - but GWB took it and ran with it...like a rocket (with the help of the Fed, of course): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2094023/posts Bush On Low Income Loans To Encourage Buying Homes [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwPG-7FTkyM"]Bush On Low Income Loans To Encourage Buying Homes - YouTube[/ame] http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/addi/index.cfm What fuels booms is new money entering the market. GWB directly added hundreds of billions of dollars in down payment assistance (which led to many, many billions of dollars of home purchases) to the housing market. He literally fueled the housing boom from the bottom...he began the process of adding TONS of new funds to the market and helped to begin the boom.
Trying to put it all on Bush is simplistic. Here's a little example of Clinton's part. http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html It would appear they got creative indeed.
Its not baseless, Its a fact.... Once the left handed took over congress in 2007 the economy crashed.
Nope. It was Bush and the Republicans. Baseless opinionating is fun and easy, isn't it. You conservatives do is so well.
I'd say FDR, Carter and Clinton were more responsible, but the fact is, both parties are somewhat responsible. Ultimately, I pin most of it on the people who bought things like homes and cars they couldn't afford and ran up way too much personal debt. Much of the impending recovery will depend on how quickly individuals get their own economic houses in order...
How's that stupid tasting? The fact is this: Anyone who cannot see the connection is beyond ignorant, totally detached from the real world, and beyond help.
