That Russian official, the ambassador, just as prior incoming administrations have been known to do. But because it was Russia and Trump, it played to the false narrative the Dems had created. They claimed it was unusual, when they themselves were sitting down to eat with him.
That article is based on a Washington Post article from unnamed sources, once again. Funny how they seem to be the source in most of these stories, of which many have been proven to be false.Not really. Flynn was already in hot water before he resigned. This is what Trump asked Comey to "let go"...Good catch.Breaking Update:
Houston, we have a problem!
Trump adviser Michael Flynn discussed hacking sanctions with Russia – report
The Post said Flynn on Wednesday denied that he had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador, but on Thursday backed away from the denial through a spokesman.
Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up,” the Post quoted the spokesman as saying.
Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak, according to the paper.
It was well known that Flynn had been communicating with at least one Russian official. How do you think it came to the attention of the White House which led to firing Flynn for lying to Pence by denying he had any contact with any Russians.
Your first mistake was agreeing with Steve_McGarrett. That unabashed racist is almost never right about anything.
Might have whispered it to Ivanka
Oh that? No! That was just a tactical strategic political maneuver by Trump to get the media off his back during the final stretch of the campaign.
THE LIARS KEEP GOING ON THIS DEAD HORSE I SEE
GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance
Money talks. It says the only way to measure the quality of mortgage underwriting is to track loan performance delinquency and default rates, loss severity in comparison with the rest of the mortgage market. Otherwise, any analysis of the government-sponsored enterprises' role in housing finance is meaningless.
And yet, critics demanding GSE reform ignore the topic altogether. Search through any book or article promoting the thesis that the GSEs helped cause the mortgage crisis for a passage comparing GSE loan performance with the rest of the market. Almost certainly, you will come up empty-handed.
There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs. Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market. The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else.
https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance\
BUT DUBYA WANTED TO REFORM F/F? WEIRD HE HAD A GOP HOUSE FOR 6 YEARS WHICH BILL GOT THROUGH THE HOUSE AGAIN? YOU KNOW THE ONE DUBYA OPPOSED?
Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again
Testimony from W's Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation of the GSE's 2004
Mr. (BARNEY) Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?
Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.
June 17, 2004
(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
Time to put you in your place???
Sure thing.
a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.
b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.
c. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).
d. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.
e. Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.
f. Shortly after Cisneros announced his plan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to begin buying loans under new, looser guidelines. Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, so long as they were current on rent and utilities payments. Freddie Mac also said that it would begin counting income from seasonal jobs and public assistance toward its income minimum, despite the FHA disaster of the sixties.
g. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.
h. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.”
i. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.
j. A 1998 sales pitch by a Bear Stearns managing director advised banks to begin packaging their loans to low-income borrowers into securities that the firm could sell. Forget traditional underwriting standards when considering these loans, the director advised. For a low-income borrower, he continued in all-too-familiar terms, owning a home was “a near-sacred obligation. A family will do almost anything to meet that monthly mortgage payment.” Bunk, says Stan Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas: “The claim that lower-income homeowners are somehow different in their devotion to their home is a purely emotional claim with no evidence to support it.”
k. Any concern was quickly dismissed. When in early 2000 the FDIC proposed increasing capital requirements for lenders making “subprime” loans—loans to people with questionable credit, that is—Democratic representative Carolyn Maloney of New York told a congressional hearing that she feared that the step would dry up CRA loans. Her fellow New York Democrat John J. LaFalce urged regulators “not to be premature” in imposing new regulations.
l. In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.
m. In 2004 Congress pressed new affordable-housing goals on the two mortgage giants, which through 2007 purchased some $1 trillion in loans to lower- and moderate-income buyers. The buying spree helped spark a massive increase in securitization of mortgages to people with dubious credit.
n. In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.) Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio—that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.
o. In 1992, the Boston Fed produced an extraordinary 29-page document that codified the new lending wisdom. Conventional mortgage criteria, the report argued, might be “unintentionally biased” because they didn’t take into account “the economic culture of urban, lower-income and nontraditional customers.” Lenders should thus consider junking the industry’s traditional income-to-payments ratio and stop viewing an applicant’s “lack of credit history” as a “negative factor.” Further, if applicants had bad credit, banks should “consider extenuating circumstances”—even though a study by mortgage insurance companies would soon show, not surprisingly, that borrowers with no credit rating or a bad one were far more likely to default. If applicants didn’t have enough savings for a down payment, the Boston Fed urged, banks should allow loans from nonprofits or government assistance agencies to count toward one. A later study of Freddie Mac mortgages would find that a borrower who made a down payment with third-party funds was four times more likely to default, a reminder that traditional underwriting standards weren’t arbitrary but based on historical lending patterns.
p. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus launched Hogar in 2003, an initiative that pushed for easing lending standards for immigrants, including touting so-called seller-financed mortgages in which a builder provided down-payment aid to buyers via contributions to nonprofit groups. As a result, mortgage lending to Hispanics soared. And today, in districts where Hispanics make up at least 25 percent of the population, foreclosure rates are now nearly 50 percent higher than the national average, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.
q. Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, have scrambled to reignite the housing market through ill-conceived tax credits and renewed federal subsidies for mortgages, including the Obama administration’s mortgage bailout plan, which recalls the New Deal’s HOLC. Behind these efforts is a fundamental misconception among politicians that housing drives the American economy and therefore demands subsidy at virtually any cost. Our praiseworthy initial efforts—to eliminate housing discrimination and provide all Americans an equal opportunity to buy a home—were eventually turned on their heads by advocates and politicians, who instead tried to ensure equality of outcomes.
Timeline shows Dems were warned:
SIMPLE REBUTTAL BUBS
EXPLAIN THIS:
Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."
Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?
A Yes.
Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?
A Banks.
Q WHY??!?!!!?!
A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.
FACTS on Dubya's great recession
Here Chic bash this
LMAOROG, AH it all goes to the credit of Ronnie, even though BJ Bill had 4 surpluses while Ronnie quadrupled the deficit
BTW, 3 of those surpluses were after BJ Bill vetoed the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut, then Dubya was placed into office
Ronnie increased debt 189% Bubs
Bill 'the rapist' Clinton never had a surplus.
Ah another CONservative who doesn't live in reality. Hint a SURPLUS is in the YEARLY BUDGET. BJ Bill had 4 of those in 8 years, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut. They came because BJ Bill without a single GOP vote in 1993 increased taxes (mainly on the richest) that brought US back to 19.5%-20% of GDP like Carter had US at before Ronnie tripled US debt
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton - FactCheck.org
Under the rapist, Bill Clinton, the national debt went up 41%.
There was never any surplus.....only brain dead drones believe the Democrat propaganda.
1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993
4,351,044
1994
4,643,307
1995
4,920,586
1996
5,181,465
1997
5,369,206
1998
5,478,189
1999
5,605,523
2000
5,628,700
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/ (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!
QED....no surplus.
money to the Clinton Foundation does not go to the Clintons personally...? . If I set up a charitable trust, or any other "charitable organization", the money collected does not go to me but to the foundation/organization...unless I'm a crook...like trump
.
"The Clinton Foundation, founded in 1997 by former US President Bill Clinton [7] is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that describes its mission as to "strengthen the capacity of people in the United States and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence."[8] The charity watchdog group Charity Navigator, which has an ongoing relationship with the Foundation, gave it its highest possible rating, four out of four stars, after its customary review of the Foundation's financial records and tax statements.[9]"
.
"The Clinton Foundation has been praised as a force for good, and condemned as a "slush fund".[24]The fact-checking organization Politifact says it is mostly true that the Clintons take from the foundation no salary, no other money, and no personal benefit.[25] Supporters of the Clintons say that the controversy obscures valuable work done by the foundation.[26] Opponents say that the foundation made it possible for donors to gain access to Secretary Clinton, and influence her official actions.[24]"
.
"An August 30, 2016 editorial by the New York Times stated that there is no proof that donors to the foundation received special favors from Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State.[44] But, the Times says, there is reason to question where the Clinton Foundation ended and where the State Department began.[44]"
.
Obama saved the car companies. Saved the economy. Presided over more than 75 straight months of economic growth. Took an economy that was hemorrhaging 750,000 jobs a month, unemployment peaked at over 10% down to over 5 million jobs unfilled with unemployment at 4.7%. Remember during the election Republicans said his saying he would take down Bin Laden no matter what showed his inexperience. So what did he do? Took down Bin Laden. Republicans had to blackmail him into extending the Bush Tax cuts. Republicans blocked him from investigating the BP oil spill in the Gulf and he still got BP to pay 20 billion for clean up. Equal pay for equal work. Healthcare for millions more Americans. His list of achievements goes on and on. Even with Republicans calling him boy, tar baby, gay, attacking his children and calling his wife a transexual. Even with all that, he was successful. No scandal and no drama. The GOP tried, but like with everything else, thank God they failed.
Those are the facts and they can be proven.
Right wingers never tell the whole story:
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/d...ich-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy
Unemployment skyrocketed under Reagan and then he was able to make corrections and it fell. Up again under Bush 1 and fell during the entire Clinton Administration, exploded under Bush 2 and fell dramatically over the entire 8 years under Obama.
Then you look at GDP:
There was growth in GDP under Reagan, but there were a lot of times where it was hugely negative.
Clinton was fantastic, but Bush 2 was devastating. Obama had two short periods of small negative growth but look at what he was given. Not only did the Republicans ruin the economy, move the wealth of the nation to the top 1%, but watched millions of jobs move overseas and over 42,000 factories close. They handed a ruined economy to Obama and took away the means of bringing in revenue. It was during that time it occurred to me the GOP wants this country destroyed.
then why did trump win?
nice that you think half the country is stupid while you and your band of idiots play in fairytale land.Obama saved the car companies. Saved the economy. Presided over more than 75 straight months of economic growth. Took an economy that was hemorrhaging 750,000 jobs a month, unemployment peaked at over 10% down to over 5 million jobs unfilled with unemployment at 4.7%. Remember during the election Republicans said his saying he would take down Bin Laden no matter what showed his inexperience. So what did he do? Took down Bin Laden. Republicans had to blackmail him into extending the Bush Tax cuts. Republicans blocked him from investigating the BP oil spill in the Gulf and he still got BP to pay 20 billion for clean up. Equal pay for equal work. Healthcare for millions more Americans. His list of achievements goes on and on. Even with Republicans calling him boy, tar baby, gay, attacking his children and calling his wife a transexual. Even with all that, he was successful. No scandal and no drama. The GOP tried, but like with everything else, thank God they failed.
Those are the facts and they can be proven.
Right wingers never tell the whole story:
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/d...ich-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy
Unemployment skyrocketed under Reagan and then he was able to make corrections and it fell. Up again under Bush 1 and fell during the entire Clinton Administration, exploded under Bush 2 and fell dramatically over the entire 8 years under Obama.
Then you look at GDP:
There was growth in GDP under Reagan, but there were a lot of times where it was hugely negative.
Clinton was fantastic, but Bush 2 was devastating. Obama had two short periods of small negative growth but look at what he was given. Not only did the Republicans ruin the economy, move the wealth of the nation to the top 1%, but watched millions of jobs move overseas and over 42,000 factories close. They handed a ruined economy to Obama and took away the means of bringing in revenue. It was during that time it occurred to me the GOP wants this country destroyed.
then why did trump win?
Because of stupid Americans.
you have all that backwards, rightwingnut trump loonnice that you think have the country is stupid while you and your band of idiots play in fairytale land.Obama saved the car companies. Saved the economy. Presided over more than 75 straight months of economic growth. Took an economy that was hemorrhaging 750,000 jobs a month, unemployment peaked at over 10% down to over 5 million jobs unfilled with unemployment at 4.7%. Remember during the election Republicans said his saying he would take down Bin Laden no matter what showed his inexperience. So what did he do? Took down Bin Laden. Republicans had to blackmail him into extending the Bush Tax cuts. Republicans blocked him from investigating the BP oil spill in the Gulf and he still got BP to pay 20 billion for clean up. Equal pay for equal work. Healthcare for millions more Americans. His list of achievements goes on and on. Even with Republicans calling him boy, tar baby, gay, attacking his children and calling his wife a transexual. Even with all that, he was successful. No scandal and no drama. The GOP tried, but like with everything else, thank God they failed.
Those are the facts and they can be proven.
Right wingers never tell the whole story:
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/d...ich-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy
Unemployment skyrocketed under Reagan and then he was able to make corrections and it fell. Up again under Bush 1 and fell during the entire Clinton Administration, exploded under Bush 2 and fell dramatically over the entire 8 years under Obama.
Then you look at GDP:
There was growth in GDP under Reagan, but there were a lot of times where it was hugely negative.
Clinton was fantastic, but Bush 2 was devastating. Obama had two short periods of small negative growth but look at what he was given. Not only did the Republicans ruin the economy, move the wealth of the nation to the top 1%, but watched millions of jobs move overseas and over 42,000 factories close. They handed a ruined economy to Obama and took away the means of bringing in revenue. It was during that time it occurred to me the GOP wants this country destroyed.
then why did trump win?
Because of stupid Americans.
I hate calling people stupid BUT you did vote for this dunce in our WH this thin skinned ma mas boynice that you think have the country is stupid while you and your band of idiots play in fairytale land.Obama saved the car companies. Saved the economy. Presided over more than 75 straight months of economic growth. Took an economy that was hemorrhaging 750,000 jobs a month, unemployment peaked at over 10% down to over 5 million jobs unfilled with unemployment at 4.7%. Remember during the election Republicans said his saying he would take down Bin Laden no matter what showed his inexperience. So what did he do? Took down Bin Laden. Republicans had to blackmail him into extending the Bush Tax cuts. Republicans blocked him from investigating the BP oil spill in the Gulf and he still got BP to pay 20 billion for clean up. Equal pay for equal work. Healthcare for millions more Americans. His list of achievements goes on and on. Even with Republicans calling him boy, tar baby, gay, attacking his children and calling his wife a transexual. Even with all that, he was successful. No scandal and no drama. The GOP tried, but like with everything else, thank God they failed.
Those are the facts and they can be proven.
Right wingers never tell the whole story:
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/d...ich-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy
Unemployment skyrocketed under Reagan and then he was able to make corrections and it fell. Up again under Bush 1 and fell during the entire Clinton Administration, exploded under Bush 2 and fell dramatically over the entire 8 years under Obama.
Then you look at GDP:
There was growth in GDP under Reagan, but there were a lot of times where it was hugely negative.
Clinton was fantastic, but Bush 2 was devastating. Obama had two short periods of small negative growth but look at what he was given. Not only did the Republicans ruin the economy, move the wealth of the nation to the top 1%, but watched millions of jobs move overseas and over 42,000 factories close. They handed a ruined economy to Obama and took away the means of bringing in revenue. It was during that time it occurred to me the GOP wants this country destroyed.
then why did trump win?
Because of stupid Americans.
hey fairy, you should be looking for unicorns instead of russians.you have all that backwards, rightwingnut trump loonnice that you think have the country is stupid while you and your band of idiots play in fairytale land.Obama saved the car companies. Saved the economy. Presided over more than 75 straight months of economic growth. Took an economy that was hemorrhaging 750,000 jobs a month, unemployment peaked at over 10% down to over 5 million jobs unfilled with unemployment at 4.7%. Remember during the election Republicans said his saying he would take down Bin Laden no matter what showed his inexperience. So what did he do? Took down Bin Laden. Republicans had to blackmail him into extending the Bush Tax cuts. Republicans blocked him from investigating the BP oil spill in the Gulf and he still got BP to pay 20 billion for clean up. Equal pay for equal work. Healthcare for millions more Americans. His list of achievements goes on and on. Even with Republicans calling him boy, tar baby, gay, attacking his children and calling his wife a transexual. Even with all that, he was successful. No scandal and no drama. The GOP tried, but like with everything else, thank God they failed.
Those are the facts and they can be proven.
Right wingers never tell the whole story:
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/d...ich-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy
Unemployment skyrocketed under Reagan and then he was able to make corrections and it fell. Up again under Bush 1 and fell during the entire Clinton Administration, exploded under Bush 2 and fell dramatically over the entire 8 years under Obama.
Then you look at GDP:
There was growth in GDP under Reagan, but there were a lot of times where it was hugely negative.
Clinton was fantastic, but Bush 2 was devastating. Obama had two short periods of small negative growth but look at what he was given. Not only did the Republicans ruin the economy, move the wealth of the nation to the top 1%, but watched millions of jobs move overseas and over 42,000 factories close. They handed a ruined economy to Obama and took away the means of bringing in revenue. It was during that time it occurred to me the GOP wants this country destroyed.
then why did trump win?
Because of stupid Americans.
I voted for Trump and very fking proud of it. I know, not the reaction you wanted, but too bad for a you. can't get much done until the swamp is cleaned out. that may take more time cause we can't impeach a congress. I wish we could though.I hate calling people stupid BUT you did vote for this dunce in our WH this thin skinned ma mas boynice that you think have the country is stupid while you and your band of idiots play in fairytale land.Obama saved the car companies. Saved the economy. Presided over more than 75 straight months of economic growth. Took an economy that was hemorrhaging 750,000 jobs a month, unemployment peaked at over 10% down to over 5 million jobs unfilled with unemployment at 4.7%. Remember during the election Republicans said his saying he would take down Bin Laden no matter what showed his inexperience. So what did he do? Took down Bin Laden. Republicans had to blackmail him into extending the Bush Tax cuts. Republicans blocked him from investigating the BP oil spill in the Gulf and he still got BP to pay 20 billion for clean up. Equal pay for equal work. Healthcare for millions more Americans. His list of achievements goes on and on. Even with Republicans calling him boy, tar baby, gay, attacking his children and calling his wife a transexual. Even with all that, he was successful. No scandal and no drama. The GOP tried, but like with everything else, thank God they failed.
Those are the facts and they can be proven.
Right wingers never tell the whole story:
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/d...ich-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy
Unemployment skyrocketed under Reagan and then he was able to make corrections and it fell. Up again under Bush 1 and fell during the entire Clinton Administration, exploded under Bush 2 and fell dramatically over the entire 8 years under Obama.
Then you look at GDP:
There was growth in GDP under Reagan, but there were a lot of times where it was hugely negative.
Clinton was fantastic, but Bush 2 was devastating. Obama had two short periods of small negative growth but look at what he was given. Not only did the Republicans ruin the economy, move the wealth of the nation to the top 1%, but watched millions of jobs move overseas and over 42,000 factories close. They handed a ruined economy to Obama and took away the means of bringing in revenue. It was during that time it occurred to me the GOP wants this country destroyed.
then why did trump win?
Because of stupid Americans.
