Bush used 9-11 as an excuse all 8 years
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
He is still talking about the November election. Why?
- Thread starter usmbguest5318
- Start date
No it didn't happen on bushs watch. Faun owns youWorse than 9-11 were the policies bush passed after 9-11. All the tax breaks then Iraq war. Not good.. HaloburtonWho told the bankers to bundle all the bad loans together? Who passed tax breaks to companies going overseas? Seems to me it was done on purpose. Tarp was a bank robbery. We were bamboozled. I fear with Twitler we're going to get scammed again.Isn't that what Republicans are all about? Loosening regulations?
Who knew the bush era would send 750,000 jobs a month oversea?. It's why Obama won and ultimately what did Hillary in. Clinton signed NAFTA, remember?
But the mass exodus happened on bushs watch
You just posted before that, that they wouldn't loosen regulations. Which is it?
Loosen, not loosen? Make up your mind.
People who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
Let's see if Republicans fuck us again.
My prediction when they do? You'll still defend them. I already know your excuse. Recessions are cyclical. You'll say it would have happened even on a Democrats watch. Well they didn't on clinton or Obama's watch
The recession of 2001 started a month and a half into the Bush Presidency, the dotcom had burst in 2000. You need to learn history.
You just diverted the issue, you claimed that the recession didn't happen on Clinton's watch, it did and so it must have been his people and policies, following your logic.
He sees the facts through partisan glasses and claims he's above thatStop lying. There were not "3 straight quarters of economic shrinkage." First of all, "economic shrinkage" isn't enough to be a recession. It has to be a decline in real GDP, i.e., negative growth.It did? It happened on Clinton's watch? LinkWorse than 9-11 were the policies bush passed after 9-11. All the tax breaks then Iraq war. Not good.. HaloburtonThe recession of 2001 started a month and a half into the Bush Presidency, the dotcom had burst in 2000. You need to learn history.
You just diverted the issue, you claimed that the recession didn't happen on Clinton's watch, it did and so it must have been his people and policies, following your logic.
The economic recession was due to three straight quarters of economic shrinkage, only the 2nd quarter of 2000 saw growth. Clinton should have been able to turn it around.
Bush turned in around in six months, even with 9/11 thrown in there near the end.
What you're claiming is ridiculous. If it were merely a shrinkage of GDP, then there would have been recessions declared in 1984, 1989, 2002, 2010, 2012, and 2015; as all were years with 3 consecutive quarters of "shrinkage." And of course, none of those years had recessions.
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Even worse, there were not "3 straight quarters of economic shrinkage." in 2000-2001.
2000q1 .... 1.2
2000q2 .... 7.8
2000q3 .... 0.5
2000q4 .... 2.3
2001q1 ... -1.1
2001q2 .... 2.1
2001q3 ... -1.3
2001q4 .... 1.1
https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls
My neighbor was the biggest trump fan. On inaugeration night he blew his brains out. You guys are all missing a screw. Trumps what you get when you have a fucked up electorateBecause he won it when you all said he had like a 2% chance and it's only been a month since getting sworn in and so that victory must seem pretty sweet. As it does for all of us that voted for him.Why is Trump, today, still talking about how he won the election? We can tell he won. Nobody would be giving him much beyond the time of day but for the fact that he did win it. Maybe people would watch him on the Apprentice or something.
The man is like my Great Aunt Bea who now, some 60+ years later, will still not miss an opportunity to tell anyone who'll listen about her being chosen as the 1930-whenever-the-f*ck-it-was high school prom queen. F*ckin'-A!
Get on with the business of governing! Please!
Turns out people in PA, mi and WI are dumber than we thought.The strangeness of the electoral college? Is this some kind of mysterious concept you idiot's were never taught when differentiating between a democracy and a republic?And as long as he wants to lie and claim the biggest electoral victory since Reagan or that he really won the popular vote; Liberals will gladly point out he's lying and that rightards who b'lieve him are abhect imbeciles.Because he won it when you all said he had like a 2% chance and it's only been a month since getting sworn in and so that victory must seem pretty sweet. As it does for all of us that voted for him.Why is Trump, today, still talking about how he won the election? We can tell he won. Nobody would be giving him much beyond the time of day but for the fact that he did win it. Maybe people would watch him on the Apprentice or something.
The man is like my Great Aunt Bea who now, some 60+ years later, will still not miss an opportunity to tell anyone who'll listen about her being chosen as the 1930-whenever-the-f*ck-it-was high school prom queen. F*ckin'-A!
Get on with the business of governing! Please!
Well, there is that. I don't know why he thinks he should bring up the awkward matter of his winning as he did. Perhaps he want to call attention to the strangeness of the electoral college? Maybe he wants to abolish it?
I think the main responsibility of the Electoral College is to keep Lunatics out of the Oval Office also. We can safely say they didn't do their job in 2016.
No one denies there was a decline in economic growth in 2000. But by no measure ... not the classic definition of a recession ... not the parameters measured by the NBER ... not even by your made up definition ... by no measure does that qualify as a recession. You'll also note GDP in Q4 of 2000 was 2.1 percent.More bullshit.Sorry companies weren't hiring after the 2000 election. I guess not a lot of consumer confidence.The recession of 2001 started a month and a half into the Bush Presidency, the dotcom had burst in 2000. You need to learn history.
No the dot com bubble was ending, it was a bubble that had to pop because it could not sustain its self. The recession had to have three quarters of shrinkage which started in July of 2000, want to be honest or play partisan nutter?
The classic definition of a recession is at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The NBER doesn't rely on the classic definition; but instead, considers a recession to be a "significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."
What you described fits neither description.
So the significant decline of economic growth started in October 2000, while Clinton was President. Thank you.
As even you admit -- the recession began in March, 2001 -- Clinton was not president.
Never said he was President, I have said that over and over. The recession began less than 40 days after Bush became President, how in the hell can a logical person think that Bush caused the recession. If you can't read what I write, please don't respond with BS.
No it didn't happen on bushs watch. Faun owns youWorse than 9-11 were the policies bush passed after 9-11. All the tax breaks then Iraq war. Not good.. HaloburtonWho told the bankers to bundle all the bad loans together? Who passed tax breaks to companies going overseas? Seems to me it was done on purpose. Tarp was a bank robbery. We were bamboozled. I fear with Twitler we're going to get scammed again.You just posted before that, that they wouldn't loosen regulations. Which is it?
Loosen, not loosen? Make up your mind.
People who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
Let's see if Republicans fuck us again.
My prediction when they do? You'll still defend them. I already know your excuse. Recessions are cyclical. You'll say it would have happened even on a Democrats watch. Well they didn't on clinton or Obama's watch
The recession of 2001 started a month and a half into the Bush Presidency, the dotcom had burst in 2000. You need to learn history.
You just diverted the issue, you claimed that the recession didn't happen on Clinton's watch, it did and so it must have been his people and policies, following your logic.
What didn't happen on Bush's watch?
He sees the facts through partisan glasses and claims he's above thatStop lying. There were not "3 straight quarters of economic shrinkage." First of all, "economic shrinkage" isn't enough to be a recession. It has to be a decline in real GDP, i.e., negative growth.It did? It happened on Clinton's watch? LinkWorse than 9-11 were the policies bush passed after 9-11. All the tax breaks then Iraq war. Not good.. Haloburton
You just diverted the issue, you claimed that the recession didn't happen on Clinton's watch, it did and so it must have been his people and policies, following your logic.
The economic recession was due to three straight quarters of economic shrinkage, only the 2nd quarter of 2000 saw growth. Clinton should have been able to turn it around.
Bush turned in around in six months, even with 9/11 thrown in there near the end.
What you're claiming is ridiculous. If it were merely a shrinkage of GDP, then there would have been recessions declared in 1984, 1989, 2002, 2010, 2012, and 2015; as all were years with 3 consecutive quarters of "shrinkage." And of course, none of those years had recessions.
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Even worse, there were not "3 straight quarters of economic shrinkage." in 2000-2001.
2000q1 .... 1.2
2000q2 .... 7.8
2000q3 .... 0.5
2000q4 .... 2.3
2001q1 ... -1.1
2001q2 .... 2.1
2001q3 ... -1.3
2001q4 .... 1.1
https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls
More BS! I never claimed that one party or the other caused the recession of 2008, I claimed many factors over decades. The fact neither party wants responsibility doesn't mean I am partisan. The fact you blame on party over the other is partisan.
Last edited:
Turns out people in PA, mi and WI are dumber than we thought.The strangeness of the electoral college? Is this some kind of mysterious concept you idiot's were never taught when differentiating between a democracy and a republic?And as long as he wants to lie and claim the biggest electoral victory since Reagan or that he really won the popular vote; Liberals will gladly point out he's lying and that rightards who b'lieve him are abhect imbeciles.Because he won it when you all said he had like a 2% chance and it's only been a month since getting sworn in and so that victory must seem pretty sweet. As it does for all of us that voted for him.
Well, there is that. I don't know why he thinks he should bring up the awkward matter of his winning as he did. Perhaps he want to call attention to the strangeness of the electoral college? Maybe he wants to abolish it?
I think the main responsibility of the Electoral College is to keep Lunatics out of the Oval Office also. We can safely say they didn't do their job in 2016.
Yes you are, thanks for continuing to prove it.
What a little right winger you are.No one denies there was a decline in economic growth in 2000. But by no measure ... not the classic definition of a recession ... not the parameters measured by the NBER ... not even by your made up definition ... by no measure does that qualify as a recession. You'll also note GDP in Q4 of 2000 was 2.1 percent.More bullshit.Sorry companies weren't hiring after the 2000 election. I guess not a lot of consumer confidence.
No the dot com bubble was ending, it was a bubble that had to pop because it could not sustain its self. The recession had to have three quarters of shrinkage which started in July of 2000, want to be honest or play partisan nutter?
The classic definition of a recession is at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The NBER doesn't rely on the classic definition; but instead, considers a recession to be a "significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."
What you described fits neither description.
So the significant decline of economic growth started in October 2000, while Clinton was President. Thank you.
As even you admit -- the recession began in March, 2001 -- Clinton was not president.
Never said he was President, I have said that over and over. The recession began less than 40 days after Bush became President, how in the hell can a logical person think that Bush caused the recession. If you can't read what I write, please don't respond with BS.
The early 2000s recession was a decline in economic activity which mainly occurred in developed countries. The recession affected the European Union during 2000 and 2001 and the United States in 2002 and 2003. The UK, Canada and Australia avoided the recession, while Russia, a nation that did not experience prosperity during the 1990s, in fact began to recover from said situation. Japan's 1990s recession continued. This recession was predicted by economists, because the boom of the 1990s (accompanied by both low inflation and low unemployment) slowed in some parts of East Asia during the 1997 Asian financial crisis.
The recession in industrialized countries wasn't as significant as either of the two previous worldwide recessions.
Some economists in the United States object to characterizing it as a recession since there were no two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
Legitimacy. Apparently not everybody can tell that Trump won.Why is Trump, today, still talking about how he won the election? We can tell he won. Nobody would be giving him much beyond the time of day but for the fact that he did win it. Maybe people would watch him on the Apprentice or something.
The man is like my Great Aunt Bea who now, some 60+ years later, will still not miss an opportunity to tell anyone who'll listen about the 1930-whenever-the-f*ck-it-was high school prom queen. F*ckin'-A!
Get on with the business of governing! Please!
Do you think his preoccupation with 'ratings' makes him more legitimate?
He sees the facts through partisan glasses and claims he's above thatStop lying. There were not "3 straight quarters of economic shrinkage." First of all, "economic shrinkage" isn't enough to be a recession. It has to be a decline in real GDP, i.e., negative growth.It did? It happened on Clinton's watch? LinkYou just diverted the issue, you claimed that the recession didn't happen on Clinton's watch, it did and so it must have been his people and policies, following your logic.
The economic recession was due to three straight quarters of economic shrinkage, only the 2nd quarter of 2000 saw growth. Clinton should have been able to turn it around.
Bush turned in around in six months, even with 9/11 thrown in there near the end.
What you're claiming is ridiculous. If it were merely a shrinkage of GDP, then there would have been recessions declared in 1984, 1989, 2002, 2010, 2012, and 2015; as all were years with 3 consecutive quarters of "shrinkage." And of course, none of those years had recessions.
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Even worse, there were not "3 straight quarters of economic shrinkage." in 2000-2001.
2000q1 .... 1.2
2000q2 .... 7.8
2000q3 .... 0.5
2000q4 .... 2.3
2001q1 ... -1.1
2001q2 .... 2.1
2001q3 ... -1.3
2001q4 .... 1.1
https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls
More BS! I never claimed that one party or the other caused the recession of 2008, I claimed many factors over decades. The fact neither party wants responsibility doesn't mean I am partisan. The fact you blame on party over the other is partisan.
I ask you right wingers to tell us what role Bush, Delay & Hastert played and all you can come up with is that they want along with Democrats too much. Like I said you are children. Ask you to apologize because you got caught you say sorry but ask you what you are sorry for and you can't verbalize what you did wrong. Because then that would be admitting we are right.
You guys admitted we were right when you didn't nominate Jeb Bush. Trump winning vindicates the American people don't want another Republican in the White House either.
Tell me what deregulations or bills of Tom Delay and Dennis Hastert that Bush signed that you don't like. You know a lot about Freddy Fanny Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter and Barney Frank but do you know anything about the Bush Delay Hastert era? Why not? Was your head buried in the sand those 6 long agonizing years? Do you want to make light that the 2008 recession probably has more to do with what they did than what Carter or Clinton did.
What a little right winger you are.No one denies there was a decline in economic growth in 2000. But by no measure ... not the classic definition of a recession ... not the parameters measured by the NBER ... not even by your made up definition ... by no measure does that qualify as a recession. You'll also note GDP in Q4 of 2000 was 2.1 percent.More bullshit.No the dot com bubble was ending, it was a bubble that had to pop because it could not sustain its self. The recession had to have three quarters of shrinkage which started in July of 2000, want to be honest or play partisan nutter?
The classic definition of a recession is at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The NBER doesn't rely on the classic definition; but instead, considers a recession to be a "significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."
What you described fits neither description.
So the significant decline of economic growth started in October 2000, while Clinton was President. Thank you.
As even you admit -- the recession began in March, 2001 -- Clinton was not president.
Never said he was President, I have said that over and over. The recession began less than 40 days after Bush became President, how in the hell can a logical person think that Bush caused the recession. If you can't read what I write, please don't respond with BS.
The early 2000s recession was a decline in economic activity which mainly occurred in developed countries. The recession affected the European Union during 2000 and 2001 and the United States in 2002 and 2003. The UK, Canada and Australia avoided the recession, while Russia, a nation that did not experience prosperity during the 1990s, in fact began to recover from said situation. Japan's 1990s recession continued. This recession was predicted by economists, because the boom of the 1990s (accompanied by both low inflation and low unemployment) slowed in some parts of East Asia during the 1997 Asian financial crisis.
The recession in industrialized countries wasn't as significant as either of the two previous worldwide recessions.
Some economists in the United States object to characterizing it as a recession since there were no two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
So you claim it was a Bush recession and now you are claiming it is not a recession at all? Make up your mind, earlier you claimed the issue with Republican is that they don't loosen regulation and then the next reply to me was the were always loosening regulations. Let me know when you decide what position you are going to take on an issue, you are very wish washy.
Again, my point is the 2008 recession was not a Democratic or a Republican recession it was an government recession and I outlined them posts ago and you refuse to even acknowledge it.
It's ok by me but if you like it is one party or the other, you are nuts.
What a little right winger you are.No one denies there was a decline in economic growth in 2000. But by no measure ... not the classic definition of a recession ... not the parameters measured by the NBER ... not even by your made up definition ... by no measure does that qualify as a recession. You'll also note GDP in Q4 of 2000 was 2.1 percent.More bullshit.
The classic definition of a recession is at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The NBER doesn't rely on the classic definition; but instead, considers a recession to be a "significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."
What you described fits neither description.
So the significant decline of economic growth started in October 2000, while Clinton was President. Thank you.
As even you admit -- the recession began in March, 2001 -- Clinton was not president.
Never said he was President, I have said that over and over. The recession began less than 40 days after Bush became President, how in the hell can a logical person think that Bush caused the recession. If you can't read what I write, please don't respond with BS.
The early 2000s recession was a decline in economic activity which mainly occurred in developed countries. The recession affected the European Union during 2000 and 2001 and the United States in 2002 and 2003. The UK, Canada and Australia avoided the recession, while Russia, a nation that did not experience prosperity during the 1990s, in fact began to recover from said situation. Japan's 1990s recession continued. This recession was predicted by economists, because the boom of the 1990s (accompanied by both low inflation and low unemployment) slowed in some parts of East Asia during the 1997 Asian financial crisis.
The recession in industrialized countries wasn't as significant as either of the two previous worldwide recessions.
Some economists in the United States object to characterizing it as a recession since there were no two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
So you claim it was a Bush recession and now you are claiming it is not a recession at all? Make up your mind, earlier you claimed the issue with Republican is that they don't loosen regulation and then the next reply to me was the were always loosening regulations. Let me know when you decide what position you are going to take on an issue, you are very wish washy.
Again, my point is the 2008 recession was not a Democratic or a Republican recession it was an government recession and I outlined them posts ago and you refuse to even acknowledge it.
It's ok by me but if you like it is one party or the other, you are nuts.
The only recession I'm claiming is Bush's is the 2008 one. I never claimed there was a recession in 2000. You claimed there was one on Clinton's watch. Lets face it the stock market did not hit 2000 the day Bush was sworn in. Now it did on Trump's watch.
So I wonder who will you blame when Trump's economy tanks? I know what you will say. You'll say economies have booms and busts and it's natural. Not at all what you would have said had a recession happened to Obama, which one did not. 80 straight months of job growth.
We should have never elected GW we should have elected Gore. And we should have never elected Trump we should have elected Hillary. Oh well. I should get screwed the least. But make no mistake I'm not rich enough to avoid getting screwed. None of us are.
How GOP Social Security Cuts Will Hurt You
What a little right winger you are.No one denies there was a decline in economic growth in 2000. But by no measure ... not the classic definition of a recession ... not the parameters measured by the NBER ... not even by your made up definition ... by no measure does that qualify as a recession. You'll also note GDP in Q4 of 2000 was 2.1 percent.More bullshit.
The classic definition of a recession is at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The NBER doesn't rely on the classic definition; but instead, considers a recession to be a "significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."
What you described fits neither description.
So the significant decline of economic growth started in October 2000, while Clinton was President. Thank you.
As even you admit -- the recession began in March, 2001 -- Clinton was not president.
Never said he was President, I have said that over and over. The recession began less than 40 days after Bush became President, how in the hell can a logical person think that Bush caused the recession. If you can't read what I write, please don't respond with BS.
The early 2000s recession was a decline in economic activity which mainly occurred in developed countries. The recession affected the European Union during 2000 and 2001 and the United States in 2002 and 2003. The UK, Canada and Australia avoided the recession, while Russia, a nation that did not experience prosperity during the 1990s, in fact began to recover from said situation. Japan's 1990s recession continued. This recession was predicted by economists, because the boom of the 1990s (accompanied by both low inflation and low unemployment) slowed in some parts of East Asia during the 1997 Asian financial crisis.
The recession in industrialized countries wasn't as significant as either of the two previous worldwide recessions.
Some economists in the United States object to characterizing it as a recession since there were no two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
So you claim it was a Bush recession and now you are claiming it is not a recession at all? Make up your mind, earlier you claimed the issue with Republican is that they don't loosen regulation and then the next reply to me was the were always loosening regulations. Let me know when you decide what position you are going to take on an issue, you are very wish washy.
Again, my point is the 2008 recession was not a Democratic or a Republican recession it was an government recession and I outlined them posts ago and you refuse to even acknowledge it.
It's ok by me but if you like it is one party or the other, you are nuts.
How is the middle class going to do better if the GOP does this?
With all eyes on Trump, Republicans are planning to break unions for good | Michael Paarlberg
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #196
My neighbor was the biggest trump fan. On inaugeration night he blew his brains out. You guys are all missing a screw. Trumps what you get when you have a fucked up electorate
Turns out people in PA, mi and WI are dumber than we thought.
Debating at Cambridge in 1965, William F. Buckley, Jr., said:
"If I were myself a constituent of the community of Mississippi at this moment, what I would do is vote to lift the standards of the vote to disqualify 65% of the white people who are presently voting."
The 2016 Presidential election results, buoyed upon the shoulders of Trump's procrustean endorsement of banality, convinces me that Buckley recognized what we have to our peril ignored.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #197
Legitimacy. Apparently not everybody can tell that Trump won.Why is Trump, today, still talking about how he won the election? We can tell he won. Nobody would be giving him much beyond the time of day but for the fact that he did win it. Maybe people would watch him on the Apprentice or something.
The man is like my Great Aunt Bea who now, some 60+ years later, will still not miss an opportunity to tell anyone who'll listen about the 1930-whenever-the-f*ck-it-was high school prom queen. F*ckin'-A!
Get on with the business of governing! Please!
Do you think his preoccupation with 'ratings' makes him more legitimate?
How telling it is that we find ourselves at a juncture where that question even seems worth posing, all the more the plausibility responders might answer "yes." Yet here we are, and more's the pity.
He sees the facts through partisan glasses and claims he's above thatStop lying. There were not "3 straight quarters of economic shrinkage." First of all, "economic shrinkage" isn't enough to be a recession. It has to be a decline in real GDP, i.e., negative growth.It did? It happened on Clinton's watch? Link
The economic recession was due to three straight quarters of economic shrinkage, only the 2nd quarter of 2000 saw growth. Clinton should have been able to turn it around.
Bush turned in around in six months, even with 9/11 thrown in there near the end.
What you're claiming is ridiculous. If it were merely a shrinkage of GDP, then there would have been recessions declared in 1984, 1989, 2002, 2010, 2012, and 2015; as all were years with 3 consecutive quarters of "shrinkage." And of course, none of those years had recessions.
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Even worse, there were not "3 straight quarters of economic shrinkage." in 2000-2001.
2000q1 .... 1.2
2000q2 .... 7.8
2000q3 .... 0.5
2000q4 .... 2.3
2001q1 ... -1.1
2001q2 .... 2.1
2001q3 ... -1.3
2001q4 .... 1.1
https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls
More BS! I never claimed that one party or the other caused the recession of 2008, I claimed many factors over decades. The fact neither party wants responsibility doesn't mean I am partisan. The fact you blame on party over the other is partisan.
I ask you right wingers to tell us what role Bush, Delay & Hastert played and all you can come up with is that they want along with Democrats too much. Like I said you are children. Ask you to apologize because you got caught you say sorry but ask you what you are sorry for and you can't verbalize what you did wrong. Because then that would be admitting we are right.
You guys admitted we were right when you didn't nominate Jeb Bush. Trump winning vindicates the American people don't want another Republican in the White House either.
Tell me what deregulations or bills of Tom Delay and Dennis Hastert that Bush signed that you don't like. You know a lot about Freddy Fanny Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter and Barney Frank but do you know anything about the Bush Delay Hastert era? Why not? Was your head buried in the sand those 6 long agonizing years? Do you want to make light that the 2008 recession probably has more to do with what they did than what Carter or Clinton did.
I posted about this earlier, I didn't just blame Carter, Clinton, Bush, Frank, Delay or Hastert. I said it was the federal government doing and not doing things. If you want to blame and point fingers, I can do that all day and it gets nowhere. To me it was a government failing involving both of the sacred partys. Housing costs skyrocketed and most people knew it would end and when it did there was going to be some losers.
You need to understand it wasn't poor people who caused the crash it was rich people. Hell I believe it was done on purposeHe sees the facts through partisan glasses and claims he's above thatStop lying. There were not "3 straight quarters of economic shrinkage." First of all, "economic shrinkage" isn't enough to be a recession. It has to be a decline in real GDP, i.e., negative growth.The economic recession was due to three straight quarters of economic shrinkage, only the 2nd quarter of 2000 saw growth. Clinton should have been able to turn it around.
Bush turned in around in six months, even with 9/11 thrown in there near the end.
What you're claiming is ridiculous. If it were merely a shrinkage of GDP, then there would have been recessions declared in 1984, 1989, 2002, 2010, 2012, and 2015; as all were years with 3 consecutive quarters of "shrinkage." And of course, none of those years had recessions.
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Even worse, there were not "3 straight quarters of economic shrinkage." in 2000-2001.
2000q1 .... 1.2
2000q2 .... 7.8
2000q3 .... 0.5
2000q4 .... 2.3
2001q1 ... -1.1
2001q2 .... 2.1
2001q3 ... -1.3
2001q4 .... 1.1
https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls
More BS! I never claimed that one party or the other caused the recession of 2008, I claimed many factors over decades. The fact neither party wants responsibility doesn't mean I am partisan. The fact you blame on party over the other is partisan.
I ask you right wingers to tell us what role Bush, Delay & Hastert played and all you can come up with is that they want along with Democrats too much. Like I said you are children. Ask you to apologize because you got caught you say sorry but ask you what you are sorry for and you can't verbalize what you did wrong. Because then that would be admitting we are right.
You guys admitted we were right when you didn't nominate Jeb Bush. Trump winning vindicates the American people don't want another Republican in the White House either.
Tell me what deregulations or bills of Tom Delay and Dennis Hastert that Bush signed that you don't like. You know a lot about Freddy Fanny Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter and Barney Frank but do you know anything about the Bush Delay Hastert era? Why not? Was your head buried in the sand those 6 long agonizing years? Do you want to make light that the 2008 recession probably has more to do with what they did than what Carter or Clinton did.
I posted about this earlier, I didn't just blame Carter, Clinton, Bush, Frank, Delay or Hastert. I said it was the federal government doing and not doing things. If you want to blame and point fingers, I can do that all day and it gets nowhere. To me it was a government failing involving both of the sacred partys. Housing costs skyrocketed and most people knew it would end and when it did there was going to be some losers.
You need to understand it wasn't poor people who caused the crash it was rich people. Hell I believe it was done on purposeHe sees the facts through partisan glasses and claims he's above thatStop lying. There were not "3 straight quarters of economic shrinkage." First of all, "economic shrinkage" isn't enough to be a recession. It has to be a decline in real GDP, i.e., negative growth.
What you're claiming is ridiculous. If it were merely a shrinkage of GDP, then there would have been recessions declared in 1984, 1989, 2002, 2010, 2012, and 2015; as all were years with 3 consecutive quarters of "shrinkage." And of course, none of those years had recessions.
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Even worse, there were not "3 straight quarters of economic shrinkage." in 2000-2001.
2000q1 .... 1.2
2000q2 .... 7.8
2000q3 .... 0.5
2000q4 .... 2.3
2001q1 ... -1.1
2001q2 .... 2.1
2001q3 ... -1.3
2001q4 .... 1.1
https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls
More BS! I never claimed that one party or the other caused the recession of 2008, I claimed many factors over decades. The fact neither party wants responsibility doesn't mean I am partisan. The fact you blame on party over the other is partisan.
I ask you right wingers to tell us what role Bush, Delay & Hastert played and all you can come up with is that they want along with Democrats too much. Like I said you are children. Ask you to apologize because you got caught you say sorry but ask you what you are sorry for and you can't verbalize what you did wrong. Because then that would be admitting we are right.
You guys admitted we were right when you didn't nominate Jeb Bush. Trump winning vindicates the American people don't want another Republican in the White House either.
Tell me what deregulations or bills of Tom Delay and Dennis Hastert that Bush signed that you don't like. You know a lot about Freddy Fanny Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter and Barney Frank but do you know anything about the Bush Delay Hastert era? Why not? Was your head buried in the sand those 6 long agonizing years? Do you want to make light that the 2008 recession probably has more to do with what they did than what Carter or Clinton did.
I posted about this earlier, I didn't just blame Carter, Clinton, Bush, Frank, Delay or Hastert. I said it was the federal government doing and not doing things. If you want to blame and point fingers, I can do that all day and it gets nowhere. To me it was a government failing involving both of the sacred partys. Housing costs skyrocketed and most people knew it would end and when it did there was going to be some losers.
Did I say poor people caused the crash? And it was bound to happen, American government, American businesses and American consumers were way into debt and could continue buy and spending, a retraction had to happen.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 207
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 28
- Views
- 336
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 165
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 48
- Views
- 303
- Replies
- 46
- Views
- 179
- Replies
- 368
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 87
- Views
- 426
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-