Bush used 9-11 as an excuse all 8 years
He is still talking about the November election. Why?
- Thread starter usmbguest5318
- Start date
No it didn't happen on bushs watch. Faun owns you
He sees the facts through partisan glasses and claims he's above that
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.
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.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
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.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
What didn't happen on Bush's watch?
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
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:
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
Turns out people in PA, mi and WI are dumber than we thought.
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.
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.
Do you think his preoccupation with 'ratings' makes him more legitimate?
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.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
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.
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
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
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.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
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 purpose
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
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
New Topics
-
-
putin Confiscates $7.6Bln in Assets in Largest confiscation Yet. 1917 N2- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 3
-
Do You Think That Trump Is Fit To Lead Our Country For The Rest Of His Term?- Started by ChristisKing
- Replies: 74
-
-
'Oh, shoot!' Republicans Bring Live Elephant Go their Convention — And Tt Makes A Mess.
- Started by 0311
- Replies: 3
