Anyone on the left waking up yet?

[Detroitej72]

Thank the corrupt companies like Country Wide, Bear Sterns, AIG, el al, and deregulation for our current Republican Recession.

[ccbatson]

Once again...take a step back and look at who is behind these second handers [[quick hint; it is not GWB or Cheney...think a higher pitched Elmer Fudd with a lisp).

[rb336]

Once again...take a step back and look at who is behind these second handers [[quick hint; it is not GWB or Cheney...think a higher pitched Elmer Fudd with a lisp).

care to provide any evidence to support that? oh, right, you can't because it is TOTAL male bovine fecal matter

[elganned]

Apparently not too many libs here are awake yet. I am curious as to when [[not if) it will happen.

We did wake up. That's why we voted King George II out of office.

[Detroitej72]

Once again...take a step back and look at who is behind these second handers [[quick hint; it is not GWB or Cheney...think a higher pitched Elmer Fudd with a lisp).

I see your still into denial about an absolute truth, based on facts.

[ccbatson]

The CRA, Fannie and Freddie, Derivatives, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Clinton, "affordable housing"...these are the villains...the companies mentioned are scapegoats, second handers, and cannon fodder.

[Detroitej72]

Many here, including myself have proven your myths false. Keep burying your head in the sand to the facts.

[ccbatson]

The only myth is that anyone has proven that the CRA, "affordable housing" derivatives, etc did not exist and were not defended publicly [[and on record in their own images and voices) by the liberals I named [[and more). Go ahead, prove that....I dare you.

[Detroitej72]

Every time in the past when I've done so, you just ignore it since those facts don't support your agenda.

[ccbatson]

Now that is a real myth.

[rb336]

Now that is a real myth.

no, it is fully corroborated by your posting history

[rb336]

The only myth is that anyone has proven that the CRA, "affordable housing" derivatives, etc did not exist and were not defended publicly [[and on record in their own images and voices) by the liberals I named [[and more). Go ahead, prove that....I dare you.

that is neither here nor there, it has been proven numerous times on this board, that they played a miniscule role in the Bush economic collapse, and that role was as a result, not as the cause

[Gistok]

Anyone with half a brain and a civics class under their belt knows it takes way more than 6 months for anything to happen in Washington... so no we haven't noticed anything except the remnants of the Bush legacy.

And CC, your incessant obsessive compulsiveness over you worrying about having to share some of your money with others... well lets just say you're starting to make Danny and Trainman appear downright normal!!

[Danny]

I have just woke up and smell George Bush's recession. The U.S.Government have to supply our taxpayer money to those banks and automobile companies. It's could be ONLY way to prevent a depression. Where banks closed and people killing themselves by jumping off the office windows.

Now the liberals are fixing and stimulating the ecomony and its working really good. Thank you Obama.

[ccbatson]

It absolutely has not, and could not have been proven that the entities and events that I described do not exist. The only opportunity for an argument against these FACTS, is to argue that the effects and consequences of them was different than it was...if you would like to try, in vain, to do so...knock yourselves out.

[rb336]

It absolutely has not, and could not have been proven that the entities and events that I described do not exist. The only opportunity for an argument against these FACTS, is to argue that the effects and consequences of them was different than it was...if you would like to try, in vain, to do so...knock yourselves out.

It is up to YOU to prove that what you say is more likely than what the vast majority of conservative economists say. you haven't, because in this [[and virtually every other argument you make) you have 0 facts with which to back your "argument"

[oladub]

I have just woke up and smell George Bush's recession. The U.S.Government have to supply our taxpayer money to those banks and automobile companies. It's could be ONLY way to prevent a depression. Where banks closed and people killing themselves by jumping off the office windows.

Danny, You fail to mention that the government under Bush, Clinton, Reagan, whomever, was complicit in creating the stock market bubble and the housing/banking bubbles. More likely, smaller less corrupt, more efficient banks would have bought the worthwhile pieces of the banks that should have gone bankrupt. Saturn was dumped by GM only to be purchased by another company. Thanks to Bush and Obama, though, the bankers are counting their bonus money instead of jumping out windows.

Now the liberals are fixing and stimulating the ecomony and its working really good. Thank you Obama.

Oh, yes, really good. Thank you Obama!

The upswing and even larger dive were on Bush's watch but no turn around yet.



personal-consumption-expenditures

But take heart. Obama will be giving out $8,000 checks to new homebuyers and $4,500 to new car purchasers pretty soon. That should goose the economy a little but like crack cocaine the high is followed by a return to a worse reality.

[rb336]

The upswing and even larger dive were on Bush's watch but no turn around yet.

you expect an economic disaster caused by 30 years of voodoo economics to turn around in 6 months? you probably think the QEII should be able to turn around in a kiddy pool, too

[oladub]

you expect an economic disaster caused by 30 years of voodoo economics to turn around in 6 months? you probably think the QEII should be able to turn around in a kiddy pool, too

Absolutley not. I'm willing to give Obama a year and a half. My response, however, was not about whether Obama could do so. It was in response to Danny's claim that "the ecomony [[is) working really good". It isn't.

[ghettopalmetto]

Absolutley not. I'm willing to give Obama a year and a half. My response, however, was not about whether Obama could do so. It was in response to Danny's claim that "the ecomony [[is) working really good". It isn't.

How did you figure "a year and a half" is sufficient? Is that based on anything, or is it completely arbitrary?

I wonder if any of the Obama detractors impose any such deadlines on their own personal self-improvement. I mean, have you ever quit a job because your financial situation didn't improve in "a year and a half"? What are the consequences when you don't meet your own arbitrary deadlines?

As long as Obama keeps our economy on a track for long-term health, I'm happy with his performance.

[mjs]

you expect an economic disaster caused by 30 years of voodoo economics to turn around in 6 months? you probably think the QEII should be able to turn around in a kiddy pool, too

I'm not sure I'd attribute any of this to Carter, but I'm glad we can agree that while Clinton's eight years may have been great at the time, it didn't help the long term economy. Thats the problem with government encouraging bubbles like they are doing again.

Great charts Oladub and I too would have liked to see the Feds have let the market break the mega-banks up. I think I'll be standing in front of my polling place all day next federal election to remind everyone of how their incumbent voted on that welfare program wrapped in bacon and deep fried in a refusal to respond to voter opinions.

[mjs]

I'm not so sure that alot of the major bills wouldn't have happened regardless. The bank bailout was a Bush-Democrat coalition that happened before January, so neither Obama or McCain could have done anything about it. The GM/Chrysler bailout and subsequent bankruptcies were inevitable.

Regardless of who it was, the 2009 President would have had to react to the economy continuing its dive so a stimulus would have passed regardless. If a Republican had won, the fact that it hasn't worked yet would only have given more force behind Democratic calls for a second larger stimulus package. If the Bush administration had reversed the bad direction we allowed banking to go under Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton, the economy wouldn't be hit so hard and stimulus packages would be alot harder to pass. If the Republicans wanted to kill a stimulus package, they should have been working on reducing the need for it back in 2006.

[rb336]

If the Bush administration had reversed the bad direction we allowed banking to go under Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton, the economy wouldn't be hit so hard and stimulus packages would be alot harder to pass. If the Republicans wanted to kill a stimulus package, they should have been working on reducing the need for it back in 2006.

or since 2001-2006 when they had it all.

[ccbatson]

I agree that the liberal like entilement spending of recent Republican administration has caused some troubles. Rank amateurs compared to the Socialist in Chief Obama however. Likewise the consequences are/wee relatively minor compared to the radical socialist agenda.

[Detroitej72]

I agree that the liberal like entilement spending of recent Republican administration has caused some troubles.

Then you need to purge your party of the tax and spend neo-cons.