Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read the part you quoted, I assumed you'd quote the most important part from the story.
Nope, no list of changes.. I wonder why
So in your world, pushing shady lending practices or, excuse me, "dismantling the barriers to homeownership", and keeping interest rates extraordinarily (I believe the word is actually "artificially" actually) low in no way allows us to place any blame on the Bush Administration....
How IS the sandy view in the world of the ostrich anyway?
Bush and the R's are mainly responsible for the recession. Happy ?
I'm more concered with the failure of the prez elected in 2008 to get the economy back in shape. At this rate we'll be having Recovery Summer III next year.
In two years, this nation lost 8.8 million private sector jobs due to the recession. That is more than twice as many jobs as were added in 7 years BEFORE the recession. No sane person should expect a drastic turnaround in just couple of years.
Yeah, nobody could have predicted the debacle years ahead of time. Certainly not you, or so it seems. Job market was exceptionally strong throughout Bush Presidency, and so was the economy, right?
I think I've calculated the geometric average real GDP growth during Bush's presidency, including the financial crisis, to be about 1.8% per year or so.
I am not sure I see the point you're trying to argue
Except that they didn't come with government guarantees. That's why they were risky. AIG backed them and didn't have the resources to back them all.
Putting it another way, had they been backed by the US Gov't, the government wouldn't have needed to pass TARP which bought many of these fiailed mortgages.
Thats why the government bought the "troubled assets" as well, they were on the hook for the losses anyways.
AIG just didnt have the resources to back them for the period of time needed before the government would reimburse them for their losses. A government guaranteed reinbursement doesnt get reinbursed until after the property is re-sold, and we all know properties were sitting on the market for years. This is also why the government bailed out AIG, and why AIG was a safe investment for them as well, because these "losses" were guaranteed by the government, and by slowing down how many homes hit the market all at once, it minimized governmental losses.
The speech??? Did someone say that the speech itself did it???
No, the speech didn't do it, it was the policies which were announced in his speech that did it. This should not be difficult to understand.
I asked what policies were put into effect, you responded by telling me Bush made a speech.. Lets try this again..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler
So in your world, pushing shady lending practices or, excuse me, "dismantling the barriers to homeownership", and keeping interest rates extraordinarily (I believe the word is actually "artificially" actually) low in no way allows us to place any blame on the Bush Administration....
How IS the sandy view in the world of the ostrich anyway?
Does this mean that the GOP will reconsider their massive budget cuts they are seeking? If they had their way an extra 750,000 men and women would be out of a job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you're the king of that, sweet pea. the how-to manual on that probably has your name on the cover.
Certainly not you, or so it seems. Job market was exceptionally strong throughout Bush Presidency, and so was the economy, right?
