Yes we Chan!Follow

While I'm sure that's true, none of them were on this forum. The people on this forum were largely just parroting what they heard and when pressed for facts, just talked about flat wages and lack of increases in social spending.

About the only thing remotely close to what you're describing was some posts Smash made about how the Bush economy relied on rising market values (and not specifically the housing market IIRC) and was forcing the Fed to keep lending rates artificially lower than they should in order to continue the trend. As I recall, he predicted that this would encourage bad investment's which would appear to succeed in the short run, but ultimately fail. And while I suppose we could say he was partially correct, he still completely missed that it would be the housing market itself that collapsed (and not other sectors because they followed the same bad model), and he had the causality of the crash backwards. It wasn't low prime rates which lead to bad investments and caused the crash. It was government subsidizing bad investments which crashed all by itself and only peripherally caused lower lending rates, which didn't themselves cause any problems at all as it turned out.




Strange, given that there was lots of growth in other areas during that time period that wasn't dependent in any way on the housing market. The housing market was its own animal and it's interesting to me how after the fact, the whole issue is being revised so that it was Bush's fault, despite him twice trying to rein it in and being blocked by the Democrats and their supporters.


I guess if you start with the assumption that the Bush economy was weak, then it's easy to paint any and all gains during that time as being part of the housing bubble and then tie it all into a nice little bow. But that's not even remotely accurate.

False. But I'm sure it makes you feel better assuming this is true. Honestly, you are the first person I've ever heard try to make this claim. But then again, I don't watch or listen to the far left news source much nowadays, so it's possible I missed it.



Any economy, no matter how strong, would have buckled under that crash Joph. I do find it interesting that the left seems to need to revise history to make it look like it wasn't their own insistence on a disastrous social policy that caused our problems, but it was really just that Bush's economy was so weak it couldn't handle what I guess you think would otherwise have been a cake walk. See. If only he'd invested more money into infrastructure and better schools and green energy the economy would have weathered that silly little housing thing just fine!


Or, I know! If only there weren't a bunch of rich greedy people willing to make a quick buck off a weak long term investment we'd have avoided the problem entirely. Except, of course, they were counting on exactly that in order for the housing program to work in the first place. Hmmmm... Well. Let's just not talk about that then. It was all Bush's weak economy! Yeah. That's it.




It's not true. How's that?

I wonder if maybe that is because the economy was already in a quick decline by the time Obama took office?

Maybe I'm just playing right into his hand, but I don't. I know people who agree with him. Hell, he could be one of my relatives irl.

You keep saying "the dems did it, waaa". I keep reminding you that W was pres. You mean that he couldn't possibly veto legislation he thought was bad? Really? Was he that much of a pansy? It doesn't matter if they controlled congress, if the pres has veto power. Keep smokin that crack though, if it helps you through the day.

I presume you mean that they f*cked it up by not filibustering the republicans who did it.

lawl

You do know 9/11 was almost 10 years ago right, and the "shock" of 9/11 clearly wasn't an issue during the "good times" when the Bush Govt had the unemployment rate drop from near 6% to just under 5%, oh that was around 06/07 under a dem congress by the way.

The economy is @#%^ed up because the Govt decided to dump nearly 2 trillion into it over the last 3 years to "save" it. That is both parties problems because both parties agreed that it was what needed to be done.

You can't play a blame game if you don't express all the facts. Under Dem congress the US economy was actually recovering in 06 from 3-4 years of declining, after the Clinton white house. It wasn't until late 07 early 08, nearly 2 full years of dem congresionaal control that the Economy began to falter, and that was on the backs of the mortgage crisis something that was seeded a full 2 years before the dems even got control of the congress.

Everything leading up to the 08 recession was preventable by the GOP congress and white house, neither did it, and here we are today. Blaming the Dems again for cleaning up a preventable mess again, just like in the 70's and 90's.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think the Dems have done much in the way of cleaning up this mess this time. But It doesn't really matter, the average life span of an empire on earth is around 240 years. Looking at the clock, id say it is inevitable that America will eventually rot from within just like the UK before it, and Rome before it. do the math 1776+240 = not very long now.

Edited, Jan 31st 2011 3:18pm by rdmcandie

Oh i missed that....

pretty much what Joph said.

Ah, yes, the fiscally responsible party.