Feb 09, 2012 1:52 PM GMT
Jobless benefit claims drop to 358,000- 2nd lowest level in nearly 4 years.
REPUBLICAN PANIC: JOBLESS CLAIMS DROP TO 2ND LOWEST LEVEL IN 4 YEARS
-
Feb 09, 2012 1:52 PM GMT -
Feb 09, 2012 2:39 PM GMTWhen you hit rock bottom there's only one way and that's up -- that doesn't mean we are where we should be. -
Feb 09, 2012 2:45 PM GMTmocktwinkie saidWhen you hit rock bottom there's only one way and that's up -- that doesn't mean we are where we should be.
Its a reminder not to go back to the failed policies that got us into the Bush recession in the first place! Like Obama said: We wont go back! -
Feb 09, 2012 4:01 PM GMTcatfish5 said
mocktwinkie saidWhen you hit rock bottom there's only one way and that's up -- that doesn't mean we are where we should be.
Its a reminder not to go back to the failed policies that got us into the Bush recession in the first place! Like Obama said: We wont go back!
Correct, those policies being liberal (statist) economic manipulative interventionist policies pushed by primarily democrats in congress and Bush. -
Feb 09, 2012 4:11 PM GMTmocktwinkie said
catfish5 said
mocktwinkie saidWhen you hit rock bottom there's only one way and that's up -- that doesn't mean we are where we should be.
Its a reminder not to go back to the failed policies that got us into the Bush recession in the first place! Like Obama said: We wont go back!
Correct, those policies being liberal (statist) economic manipulative interventionist policies pushed by primarily democrats in congress and Bush.
Bush recession was a republican creation. Lets not create a Santorum recession or Romneycare recession now that an Obama recovery is actively occurring.. -
Feb 09, 2012 4:29 PM GMTHere's some bipartisan agreement: can we ban catfish and southbeach from making POSTS IN ALL CAPS???
Get a grip fellas. -
Feb 09, 2012 4:33 PM GMTcatfish5 said
mocktwinkie said
catfish5 said
mocktwinkie saidWhen you hit rock bottom there's only one way and that's up -- that doesn't mean we are where we should be.
Its a reminder not to go back to the failed policies that got us into the Bush recession in the first place! Like Obama said: We wont go back!
Correct, those policies being liberal (statist) economic manipulative interventionist policies pushed by primarily democrats in congress and Bush.
Bush recession was a republican creation. Lets not create a Santorum recession or Romneycare recession now that an Obama recovery is actively occurring..
No it was not, it was mostly the result of congress (initiated primarily by democrats and then carried on by Bush) manipulating the regular flow of the housing market by ordering fannie and freddie to do so, creating a bubble and then subsequently a bust. There were some other factors as well, but that was the horse leading the charge. -
Feb 09, 2012 4:41 PM GMTmocktwinkie said
catfish5 said
mocktwinkie said
catfish5 said
mocktwinkie saidWhen you hit rock bottom there's only one way and that's up -- that doesn't mean we are where we should be.
Its a reminder not to go back to the failed policies that got us into the Bush recession in the first place! Like Obama said: We wont go back!
Correct, those policies being liberal (statist) economic manipulative interventionist policies pushed by primarily democrats in congress and Bush.
Bush recession was a republican creation. Lets not create a Santorum recession or Romneycare recession now that an Obama recovery is actively occurring..
No it was not, it was mostly the result of congress (initiated primarily by democrats and then carried on by Bush) manipulating the regular flow of the housing market by ordering fannie and freddie to do so, creating a bubble and then subsequently a bust. There were some other factors as well, but that was the horse leading the charge.
LAME. Anyway u look at it, the buck stops with the commander in chief. -
Feb 09, 2012 4:47 PM GMTSorry, Repugnants. Economic catastrophe happened during Bush's watch, and recovery is happening during Obama's watch. Despite the Party of No trying to tank the US economy for their political gain. -
Feb 09, 2012 5:27 PM GMTmocktwinkie said
catfish5 said
mocktwinkie said
catfish5 said
mocktwinkie saidWhen you hit rock bottom there's only one way and that's up -- that doesn't mean we are where we should be.
Its a reminder not to go back to the failed policies that got us into the Bush recession in the first place! Like Obama said: We wont go back!
Correct, those policies being liberal (statist) economic manipulative interventionist policies pushed by primarily democrats in congress and Bush.
Bush recession was a republican creation. Lets not create a Santorum recession or Romneycare recession now that an Obama recovery is actively occurring..
No it was not, it was mostly the result of congress (initiated primarily by democrats and then carried on by Bush) manipulating the regular flow of the housing market by ordering fannie and freddie to do so, creating a bubble and then subsequently a bust. There were some other factors as well, but that was the horse leading the charge.
Incorrect. The bubble was led by private mortgage lenders like CountryWide and the systemic risk was created by Wall Street. -
Feb 09, 2012 5:50 PM GMTsouthbeach1500 said
Art_Deco saidSorry, Repugnants. Economic catastrophe happened during Bush's watch, and recovery is happening during Obama's watch. Despite the Party of No trying to tank the US economy for their political gain.
"Colonel" Deco.... everything was going along fine until the Democrats took control of the Congress after the 2007 election.
Incorrect. -
Feb 09, 2012 5:54 PM GMTChristian73 said
mocktwinkie said
catfish5 said
mocktwinkie said
catfish5 said
mocktwinkie saidWhen you hit rock bottom there's only one way and that's up -- that doesn't mean we are where we should be.
Its a reminder not to go back to the failed policies that got us into the Bush recession in the first place! Like Obama said: We wont go back!
Correct, those policies being liberal (statist) economic manipulative interventionist policies pushed by primarily democrats in congress and Bush.
Bush recession was a republican creation. Lets not create a Santorum recession or Romneycare recession now that an Obama recovery is actively occurring..
No it was not, it was mostly the result of congress (initiated primarily by democrats and then carried on by Bush) manipulating the regular flow of the housing market by ordering fannie and freddie to do so, creating a bubble and then subsequently a bust. There were some other factors as well, but that was the horse leading the charge.
Incorrect. The bubble was led by private mortgage lenders like CountryWide and the systemic risk was created by Wall Street.
Those lending rules were not made by countrywide but by the investors to whom they sold their loans. Furthermore, they were striving to keep in competition with all of the other private banks that were following the "too big to fail" example of fannie & gang.
And the biggest reason of all?
"Countrywide agreed to a settlement with New York state attorney general Elliot Spitzer to compensate black and Hispanic borrowers improperly steered by Countrywide salespeople to higher-cost loans. The company also agreed to improve training and oversight of its loan officers and to pay New York state $200,000 to cover costs of the investigation.[15]
Countrywide subprime documents show a policy of lending to families with as little as $1000 of disposable income, often compromising their ability to pay living expenses.
Economist Stan Liebowitz writes that the Fannie Mae Foundation singled out Countrywide Financial as a "paragon" of a nondiscriminatory lender who works with community activists, following "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." The chief executive of Countrywide is said to have bragged that in order to approve minority applications, "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit." Countrywide's commitment to low-income loans had grown to $600 billion by early 2003"--wikipedia
Back in the day, if lenders had not been engaging in these do-gooding but always destructive policies you would have been ranting about "racist discrimination". Well now you see what happens when lenders don't discriminate.
More on the government role and Fannie Mae:
"In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. In addition, HUD required Freddie and Fannie to provide 12% of their portfolio to “special affordable” loans. Those are loans to borrowers with less than 60% of their area’s median income. These targets increased over the years, with a 2008 target of 28%.[40]
In 2004, HUD ignored warnings from HUD researchers about foreclosures, and increased the affordable housing goal from 50% to 56%.
In addition to political pressure to expand purchases of higher-risk mortgage types, the GSE were also under significant competitive pressure from large investment banks and mortgage lenders. For example, Fannie's market share of subprime mortgage-backed securities issued dropped from a peak of 44% in 2003 to 22% in 2005, before rising to 33% in 2007.[41]
In the early 2000s (decade), Fannie Mae aggressively bought Alt-A securities, where these loans may require little or no documentation of a borrower’s finances. In the early 1990s Fannie Mae had abandoned Alt-A products because of their high risk of default. As of November 2007 Fannie Mae held a total of $55.9 billion of subprime securities and $324.7 billion of Alt-A securities in their portfolio.[42] As of the 2008Q2 Freddie Mac had $190 billion in Alt-A mortgages. Together they have over $500 billion in Alt-A mortgages.[43]"---wikipedia -
Feb 09, 2012 5:55 PM GMTcatfish5 said
mocktwinkie said
catfish5 said
mocktwinkie said
catfish5 said
mocktwinkie saidWhen you hit rock bottom there's only one way and that's up -- that doesn't mean we are where we should be.
Its a reminder not to go back to the failed policies that got us into the Bush recession in the first place! Like Obama said: We wont go back!
Correct, those policies being liberal (statist) economic manipulative interventionist policies pushed by primarily democrats in congress and Bush.
Bush recession was a republican creation. Lets not create a Santorum recession or Romneycare recession now that an Obama recovery is actively occurring..
No it was not, it was mostly the result of congress (initiated primarily by democrats and then carried on by Bush) manipulating the regular flow of the housing market by ordering fannie and freddie to do so, creating a bubble and then subsequently a bust. There were some other factors as well, but that was the horse leading the charge.
LAME. Anyway u look at it, the buck stops with the commander in chief.
You are correct, that's why Bush IS to blame for being in bed with liberal (statist) economic policies! That's why he was such a bad conservative president! -
Feb 09, 2012 6:01 PM GMTmocktwinkie said
Christian73 said
mocktwinkie said
catfish5 said
mocktwinkie said
catfish5 said
mocktwinkie saidWhen you hit rock bottom there's only one way and that's up -- that doesn't mean we are where we should be.
Its a reminder not to go back to the failed policies that got us into the Bush recession in the first place! Like Obama said: We wont go back!
Correct, those policies being liberal (statist) economic manipulative interventionist policies pushed by primarily democrats in congress and Bush.
Bush recession was a republican creation. Lets not create a Santorum recession or Romneycare recession now that an Obama recovery is actively occurring..
No it was not, it was mostly the result of congress (initiated primarily by democrats and then carried on by Bush) manipulating the regular flow of the housing market by ordering fannie and freddie to do so, creating a bubble and then subsequently a bust. There were some other factors as well, but that was the horse leading the charge.
Incorrect. The bubble was led by private mortgage lenders like CountryWide and the systemic risk was created by Wall Street.
Those lending rules were not made by countrywide but by the investors to whom they sold their loans. Furthermore, they were striving to keep in competition with all of the other private banks that were following the "too big to fail" example of fannie & gang.
And the biggest reason of all?
"Countrywide agreed to a settlement with New York state attorney general Elliot Spitzer to compensate black and Hispanic borrowers improperly steered by Countrywide salespeople to higher-cost loans. The company also agreed to improve training and oversight of its loan officers and to pay New York state $200,000 to cover costs of the investigation.[15]
Countrywide subprime documents show a policy of lending to families with as little as $1000 of disposable income, often compromising their ability to pay living expenses.
Economist Stan Liebowitz writes that the Fannie Mae Foundation singled out Countrywide Financial as a "paragon" of a nondiscriminatory lender who works with community activists, following "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." The chief executive of Countrywide is said to have bragged that in order to approve minority applications, "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit." Countrywide's commitment to low-income loans had grown to $600 billion by early 2003"[/i]--wikipedia
More on the government role and Fannie Mae:
"In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. In addition, HUD required Freddie and Fannie to provide 12% of their portfolio to “special affordable” loans. Those are loans to borrowers with less than 60% of their area’s median income. These targets increased over the years, with a 2008 target of 28%.[40]
In 2004, HUD ignored warnings from HUD researchers about foreclosures, and increased the affordable housing goal from 50% to 56%.
In addition to political pressure to expand purchases of higher-risk mortgage types, the GSE were also under significant competitive pressure from large investment banks and mortgage lenders. For example, Fannie's market share of subprime mortgage-backed securities issued dropped from a peak of 44% in 2003 to 22% in 2005, before rising to 33% in 2007.[41]
In the early 2000s (decade), Fannie Mae aggressively bought Alt-A securities, where these loans may require little or no documentation of a borrower’s finances. In the early 1990s Fannie Mae had abandoned Alt-A products because of their high risk of default. As of November 2007 Fannie Mae held a total of $55.9 billion of subprime securities and $324.7 billion of Alt-A securities in their portfolio.[42] As of the 2008Q2 Freddie Mac had $190 billion in Alt-A mortgages. Together they have over $500 billion in Alt-A mortgages.[43]"---wikipedia
A slanted Wiki article is not really convincing. You should read actual books about what caused the crisis. It wasn't Fannie and Freddie. In fact, F&F didn't even get into the subprime mortgage business until the private firms were holding huge positions in that market. And the F&F mortgages didn't fail in the epic numbers that those made by private firms did. That this article if full of misinformation is why you cannot trust Wikipedia on such complex matters. -
Feb 09, 2012 6:05 PM GMTChristian73 said
mocktwinkie said
Christian73 said
mocktwinkie said
catfish5 said
mocktwinkie said
catfish5 said
mocktwinkie saidWhen you hit rock bottom there's only one way and that's up -- that doesn't mean we are where we should be.
Its a reminder not to go back to the failed policies that got us into the Bush recession in the first place! Like Obama said: We wont go back!
Correct, those policies being liberal (statist) economic manipulative interventionist policies pushed by primarily democrats in congress and Bush.
Bush recession was a republican creation. Lets not create a Santorum recession or Romneycare recession now that an Obama recovery is actively occurring..
No it was not, it was mostly the result of congress (initiated primarily by democrats and then carried on by Bush) manipulating the regular flow of the housing market by ordering fannie and freddie to do so, creating a bubble and then subsequently a bust. There were some other factors as well, but that was the horse leading the charge.
Incorrect. The bubble was led by private mortgage lenders like CountryWide and the systemic risk was created by Wall Street.
Those lending rules were not made by countrywide but by the investors to whom they sold their loans. Furthermore, they were striving to keep in competition with all of the other private banks that were following the "too big to fail" example of fannie & gang.
And the biggest reason of all?
"Countrywide agreed to a settlement with New York state attorney general Elliot Spitzer to compensate black and Hispanic borrowers improperly steered by Countrywide salespeople to higher-cost loans. The company also agreed to improve training and oversight of its loan officers and to pay New York state $200,000 to cover costs of the investigation.[15]
Countrywide subprime documents show a policy of lending to families with as little as $1000 of disposable income, often compromising their ability to pay living expenses.
Economist Stan Liebowitz writes that the Fannie Mae Foundation singled out Countrywide Financial as a "paragon" of a nondiscriminatory lender who works with community activists, following "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." The chief executive of Countrywide is said to have bragged that in order to approve minority applications, "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit." Countrywide's commitment to low-income loans had grown to $600 billion by early 2003"[/i]--wikipedia
More on the government role and Fannie Mae:
"In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. In addition, HUD required Freddie and Fannie to provide 12% of their portfolio to “special affordable” loans. Those are loans to borrowers with less than 60% of their area’s median income. These targets increased over the years, with a 2008 target of 28%.[40]
In 2004, HUD ignored warnings from HUD researchers about foreclosures, and increased the affordable housing goal from 50% to 56%.
In addition to political pressure to expand purchases of higher-risk mortgage types, the GSE were also under significant competitive pressure from large investment banks and mortgage lenders. For example, Fannie's market share of subprime mortgage-backed securities issued dropped from a peak of 44% in 2003 to 22% in 2005, before rising to 33% in 2007.[41]
In the early 2000s (decade), Fannie Mae aggressively bought Alt-A securities, where these loans may require little or no documentation of a borrower’s finances. In the early 1990s Fannie Mae had abandoned Alt-A products because of their high risk of default. As of November 2007 Fannie Mae held a total of $55.9 billion of subprime securities and $324.7 billion of Alt-A securities in their portfolio.[42] As of the 2008Q2 Freddie Mac had $190 billion in Alt-A mortgages. Together they have over $500 billion in Alt-A mortgages.[43]"---wikipedia
A slanted Wiki article is not really convincing. You should read actual books about what caused the crisis. It wasn't Fannie and Freddie. In fact, F&F didn't even get into the subprime mortgage business until the private firms were holding huge positions in that market. And the F&F mortgages didn't fail in the epic numbers that those made by private firms did. That this article if full of misinformation is why you cannot trust Wikipedia on such complex matters.
Are you saying that the years specified as to when Fannie & gag were engaging in these practices are being completely made up by wikipedia? That's a large charge. This is not a slated article, it gives many sides but it also states facts. Wikipedia has many editors on all sides of the aisle editing and removing if an article doesn't provide all sides or is one-sided.
-
Feb 09, 2012 6:07 PM GMTmocktwinkie said
Christian73 said
mocktwinkie said
Christian73 said
mocktwinkie said
catfish5 said
mocktwinkie said
catfish5 said
mocktwinkie saidWhen you hit rock bottom there's only one way and that's up -- that doesn't mean we are where we should be.
Its a reminder not to go back to the failed policies that got us into the Bush recession in the first place! Like Obama said: We wont go back!
Correct, those policies being liberal (statist) economic manipulative interventionist policies pushed by primarily democrats in congress and Bush.
Bush recession was a republican creation. Lets not create a Santorum recession or Romneycare recession now that an Obama recovery is actively occurring..
No it was not, it was mostly the result of congress (initiated primarily by democrats and then carried on by Bush) manipulating the regular flow of the housing market by ordering fannie and freddie to do so, creating a bubble and then subsequently a bust. There were some other factors as well, but that was the horse leading the charge.
Incorrect. The bubble was led by private mortgage lenders like CountryWide and the systemic risk was created by Wall Street.
Those lending rules were not made by countrywide but by the investors to whom they sold their loans. Furthermore, they were striving to keep in competition with all of the other private banks that were following the "too big to fail" example of fannie & gang.
And the biggest reason of all?
"Countrywide agreed to a settlement with New York state attorney general Elliot Spitzer to compensate black and Hispanic borrowers improperly steered by Countrywide salespeople to higher-cost loans. The company also agreed to improve training and oversight of its loan officers and to pay New York state $200,000 to cover costs of the investigation.[15]
Countrywide subprime documents show a policy of lending to families with as little as $1000 of disposable income, often compromising their ability to pay living expenses.
Economist Stan Liebowitz writes that the Fannie Mae Foundation singled out Countrywide Financial as a "paragon" of a nondiscriminatory lender who works with community activists, following "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." The chief executive of Countrywide is said to have bragged that in order to approve minority applications, "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit." Countrywide's commitment to low-income loans had grown to $600 billion by early 2003"[/i]--wikipedia
More on the government role and Fannie Mae:
"In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. In addition, HUD required Freddie and Fannie to provide 12% of their portfolio to “special affordable” loans. Those are loans to borrowers with less than 60% of their area’s median income. These targets increased over the years, with a 2008 target of 28%.[40]
In 2004, HUD ignored warnings from HUD researchers about foreclosures, and increased the affordable housing goal from 50% to 56%.
In addition to political pressure to expand purchases of higher-risk mortgage types, the GSE were also under significant competitive pressure from large investment banks and mortgage lenders. For example, Fannie's market share of subprime mortgage-backed securities issued dropped from a peak of 44% in 2003 to 22% in 2005, before rising to 33% in 2007.[41]
In the early 2000s (decade), Fannie Mae aggressively bought Alt-A securities, where these loans may require little or no documentation of a borrower’s finances. In the early 1990s Fannie Mae had abandoned Alt-A products because of their high risk of default. As of November 2007 Fannie Mae held a total of $55.9 billion of subprime securities and $324.7 billion of Alt-A securities in their portfolio.[42] As of the 2008Q2 Freddie Mac had $190 billion in Alt-A mortgages. Together they have over $500 billion in Alt-A mortgages.[43]"---wikipedia
A slanted Wiki article is not really convincing. You should read actual books about what caused the crisis. It wasn't Fannie and Freddie. In fact, F&F didn't even get into the subprime mortgage business until the private firms were holding huge positions in that market. And the F&F mortgages didn't fail in the epic numbers that those made by private firms did. That this article if full of misinformation is why you cannot trust Wikipedia on such complex matters.
Are you saying that the years specified as to when Fannie & gag were engaging in these practices are being completely made up by wikipedia? That's a large charge. This is not a slated article, it gives many sides but it also states facts. Wikipedia has many editors on all sides of the aisle editing and removing if an article doesn't provide all sides or is one-sided.
Wikipedia is edited by volunteers and anyone can write anything they want. There's very little editorial control.
I can't speak to the exact dates provided because you didn't link to the Wiki article so I can't find the articles it's referencing. -
Feb 09, 2012 6:15 PM GMThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis
It begins with:
"Both deregulation, and excess regulation, of financial institutions have been blamed for the late-2000s (decade) subprime mortgage crisis in the United States.[1]"
Not exactly just one-sided. -
Feb 09, 2012 6:22 PM GMTAgain with this Fannie Mae Bull sh*t?
You republicans are purposefully recreating the Indian Parable of the Five Blind men and the elephant
And YOU are the blind man ....... Fannie and Freddie DIDN'T chop up mortgages and sell them on the trading floor
THAT was the basis for the collapse
So time to wake up and see what's happening ariund you
You can't have a financial collapse that was precipitated by deregulation and THEN call for MORE deregulation
.... Unless you're insane -
Feb 09, 2012 6:48 PM GMTGQjock saidAgain with this Fannie Mae Bull sh*t?
You republicans are purposefully recreating the Indian Parable of the Five Blind men and the elephant
And YOU are the blind man ....... Fannie and Freddie DIDN'T chop up mortgages and sell them on the trading floor
THAT was the basis for the collapse
So time to wake up and see what's happening ariund you
You can't have a financial collapse that was precipitated by deregulation and THEN call for MORE deregulation
.... Unless you're insane
Are you more interested in learning the facts or spouting the same simpleton "not enough regulation" arguments?
The problem was too much government interference/involvement/regulation to begin with and then a failure to properly regulate the imposed policies set forth in that interference process.
That is why both "over-regulation" and "deregulation" have been attributed with blame.
-
Feb 09, 2012 9:17 PM GMTHere are the facts re: the Repub record on handling the economy:
Nine out of the last ten recessions hit while there was a REPUB president in the White House.
EVERY Repub president for more than 100 YEARS has had at least one recession hit while he was in office - while four out of the last five Democratic presidents have had ZERO recessions hit while they were in office.
That means that EVERY Repub president elected in the 20th century and so far in the 21st century had at least one recession hit on his watch.
That's a shocking and damning indictment of Repub economic policies.
The fact is that for more than 100 years Repub presidents have equalled: recessions job losses and economic pain.
The fact is that historically the economy and the stock market have done vastly better when there's been a DEMOCRATIC president in the White House.
The fact is that Repub presidents have added TRILLIONS more to the Nationsl Debt than Democratic presidents have. -
Feb 10, 2012 1:38 AM GMTRickRick91 saidHere are the facts re: the Repub record on handling the economy:
Nine out of the last ten recessions hit while there was a REPUB president in the White House.
EVERY Repub president for more than 100 YEARS has had at least one recession hit while he was in office - while four out of the last five Democratic presidents have had ZERO recessions hit while they were in office.
That means that EVERY Repub president elected in the 20th century and so far in the 21st century had at least one recession hit on his watch.
That's a shocking and damning indictment of Repub economic policies.
The fact is that for more than 100 years Repub presidents have equalled: recessions job losses and economic pain.
The fact is that historically the economy and the stock market have done vastly better when there's been a DEMOCRATIC president in the White House.
The fact is that Repub presidents have added TRILLIONS more to the Nationsl Debt than Democratic presidents have.
You are looking at everything in childish terms. Setting aside the fact that who controls congress means more than the party the president represents, it doesn't matter whether there is an "R" or a "D" in front of the name, what matters are the policies that are pushed for and implemented by politicians regardless of party. Many times republicans embrace leftwing economic policies, like Bush did with his approval of congress meddling and manipulating the housing market.
When a republican embraces and pushes for something that involves Keynesian economic principles that doesn't automatically make it the doing of the "rightwing" or suddenly make the policies aligned any closer with Friedman or Hayek economics, it just means the person with the R in front of their name is being a RINO. So when you condemn Bush for his participation in causing the housing crisis you are actually in agreement with true blue conservatives (classical liberals) and attesting to the failures of leftwing economics. The Bush tenure and all the GOP establishment shenanigans were what fueled the rise of the tea party before the tea party got hijacked by extremist social conservatives who have now turned it into something completely unrelated to what it originally was about.
So please, keep attacking Bush and other conservatives who didn't stay true to less interventionist economic policies, because I'm right there with you!!! -
Feb 10, 2012 2:06 AM GMTmocktwinkie said
RickRick91 saidHere are the facts re: the Repub record on handling the economy:
Nine out of the last ten recessions hit while there was a REPUB president in the White House.
EVERY Repub president for more than 100 YEARS has had at least one recession hit while he was in office - while four out of the last five Democratic presidents have had ZERO recessions hit while they were in office.
That means that EVERY Repub president elected in the 20th century and so far in the 21st century had at least one recession hit on his watch.
That's a shocking and damning indictment of Repub economic policies.
The fact is that for more than 100 years Repub presidents have equalled: recessions job losses and economic pain.
The fact is that historically the economy and the stock market have done vastly better when there's been a DEMOCRATIC president in the White House.
The fact is that Repub presidents have added TRILLIONS more to the Nationsl Debt than Democratic presidents have.
You are looking at it in childish terms. It doesn't matter whether there is an "R" or a "D" in front of the name, what matters are the policies that are pushed for and implemented by politicians regardless of party. Many times republicans embrace leftwing economic policies, like Bush did with his approval of congress meddling and manipulating the housing market.
When a republican embraces and pushes for something that involves Keynesian economic principles that doesn't automatically make it the doing of the "rightwing" or suddenly make the policies aligned any closer with Friedman or Hayek economics, it just means the person with the R in front of their name is being a RINO. So when you condemn Bush for his participation in causing the housing crisis you are actually in agreement with true blue conservatives (classical liberals) and attesting to the failures of leftwing economics.
"Leftwing economics" under President Clinton created the longest strongest economic expansion in US history and turned the massive Reagan/Bush yearly budget deficits into huge Clinton yearly budget surpluses.
While Bush Jr. may have implemented SOME economic policies that the Dems agreed with, he also implemented economic policies that the Dems disagreed with.
Like giving huge unnecessary tax cuts to the rich that blew up the National Debt and passing the massive 100% UNPAID FOR Bush prescription drug bill which will add half a trillion dollars to the National Debt in the first ten years alone.
If "left-wing economics" were really so bad for the economy - then the economy should REALLY have been bad whenever there's been a Democrat in the White House.
But in fact, the economy and the stock market have historically done much BETTER when there's been a Dem in the White House than it has when there's been a Repub in the White House.
The DEMOCRATIC party's version of "left-wing economics" has a long track record of creating economic prosperity.
The Bush/Repub version of "left-wing economics" (a very different combination of policies than the Democratic version) was a fucking disaster for our country.
Even old school pre-Reagan Repub economic policies created recessions where Democratic presidents of the same era did not.
There were THREE recessions while Eisenhower was in office and TWO recessions on Nixon's watch.
In between all those Repub recessions, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had ZERO recessions hit during their presidencies.
Thus it's important to elect Democratic candidates to be president - and not Repub candidates. -
Feb 10, 2012 2:31 AM GMTcatfish5 saidJobless benefit claims drop to 358,000- 2nd lowest level in nearly 4 years.
Great news!
I'm sure all patriotic Americans are pleased to see the economy recovering from the Bush recession!
