Democrats caused recession in 2007

[Faun]

Now is a good time to weed out all the GOP shills and move them to your ignore list.

This sh!t is only going to get worse as November approaches.

I'm here strictly for entertainment purposes. If I start ignoring the rightards here, whom provide nearly all of my entertainment, I would have no reason to post here.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Big Government proponents from both parties contributed to the Recession, but the Dems are responsible for the lack of a proper recovery.

If we had just had an AVERAGE recovery, the economy would be $2.2T larger - $17,000 per household. Instead, we've been subjected to the blinding stupidity and incompetence of Obamanomics.

Obama's Economic Recovery Is Now $2.2 Trillion Below Average | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

Oh, goody! We now have a Moron Quorum.....

The "reasons" for the lack of a proper recovery include

a) household deleveraging
b) the complete absence of stimulative fiscal policy - which is NOT the "fault" of Democrats....Net Government contribution to GDP has been 0.85% below the levels of 1981-1989 and 0.5% below 2001-2009.....

You are an economic illiterate.

Which President added more to the federal debt than all Presidents before him COMBINED?

Show me the part of my post which you believe demonstrates a lack of economic literacy.....

Which President added more to the federal debt than all Presidents before him COMBINED?

That would be Scrub......consider that it involves more than simple "coincidence".....If you were possessed of reading comprehension skills, you would find that all but the most unhinged sources will use the phrase "increase under Obama", not "added by".....

First of all you are NOT believable because YOU provide NO Sources, NO links... JuST stupid ass personal subjective observations. Nothing
to prove your statement.

On the other hand given your dumb ass comment...

GEEZ I wonder why???
Could it be we had THESE EVENTS which YOU have NOT even acknowledged happened?
All of these events affected tax revenue. Government outlays. And more important the entire country was unnerved about 9/11, then Anthrax attacks.
While regionally millions of people were affected by the WORST HURRICANE SEASONS...not just one BUT SEASONS in history.
Coupled that with the dumb ass dot.com which cost revenue to the government and required helping millions of people out of work... none
of which you acknowledge!

Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $8 trillion market loss
Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $8 trillion in losses?
Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$8 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue. PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $8 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies.
More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 -
and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives, $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Now before you idiots say "well Bush should have known"! DUMMIES... ever hear of the Gorelick Memo signed under CLINTON??
Gorelick Memo that created the wall between FBI & CIA thus no knowledge of the 9/11 bombers shared with the FBI!!! Looks especially imprudent 10 years later.
Because the memo created a barrier for U.S. intelligence agencies to share information with the FBI, one of its unintended consequences may have been to prevent the FBI from receiving the necessary intelligence to stop the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the worst in American history.
Gorelick Memo Allegedly Impeded Probe of Clinton Fundraising Scandal
1995 memo [Clinton presidency-concerned about Chinese election sales] Gorelick wrote, stated explicitly that they would “go beyond what is legally required, [to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.” GORELICK Memo!
Jamie Gorelick’s wall barred anti-terror investigators from accessing the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, already in custody on an immigration violation shortly before 9/11.
At the time, an enraged FBI investigator wrote a prophetic memo to headquarters about the wall.
Whatever has happened to this — someday someone will die — and wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective in throwing every resource we had at certain problems…..
especially since the biggest threat to us UBL [Usama bin Laden], is getting the most protection.
So, a year before the 9/11 attacks, a special unit in the U.S. military was aware of the presence of an al-Queda cell in Brooklyn, New York, and sought to share its information with the FBI but was stopped cold.Why?Because (as described in the April 16, 2004 Washington Times piece) “on March 4, 1995, [Jamie Gorelick, the then number 2 official in the Clinton Justice Department, sent a 4-page directive] to FBI Director Louis Freeh and Mary Jo White, the New York-based U.S. attorney investigating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
In the memo, Ms. Gorelick ordered Mr. Freeh and Ms. White to follow information-sharing procedures
that ‘go beyond what is legally required,’ in order to avoid ‘any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance’
that the Justice Department was using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, instead of ordinary criminal investigative procedures, in an effort to undermine the civil liberties of terrorism suspects.”
Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented? The Gorelick Memo and What We Knew

Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history. 2,215 lives lost
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of:
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts... In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property..

But totally ignorant people like you forgot about those events! They happened. People died. Businesses were destroyed!
Tax revenue was reduced!
GEEZ and YOU fault GWB for these events???

How totally dumb ass!

Blather, mince, re-bleat....

2.8 million jobs lost due to 9/11?

You are completely full of shit....

 

[Faun]

Whenever democrats want to say that it was the economic policies of the repubican party that led to the recession of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 then someone should just point out this video


There are plenty of other videos of democrats preventing people from addressing the issues that led to the housing bubble and collapse.

What recession of 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016?

The one which Trump, and only Trump, can rescue us from.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Big Government proponents from both parties contributed to the Recession, but the Dems are responsible for the lack of a proper recovery.

If we had just had an AVERAGE recovery, the economy would be $2.2T larger - $17,000 per household. Instead, we've been subjected to the blinding stupidity and incompetence of Obamanomics.

Obama's Economic Recovery Is Now $2.2 Trillion Below Average | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

Oh, goody! We now have a Moron Quorum.....

The "reasons" for the lack of a proper recovery include

a) household deleveraging
b) the complete absence of stimulative fiscal policy - which is NOT the "fault" of Democrats....Net Government contribution to GDP has been 0.85% below the levels of 1981-1989 and 0.5% below 2001-2009.....

Geez... do you think these events had any affect on the economy? People's lives? Jobs? Tax revenue???

Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $8 trillion market loss
Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $8 trillion in losses? Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$8 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue. PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $8 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies.
More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 -
and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives, $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Now before you idiots say "well Bush should have known"! DUMMIES... ever hear of the Gorelick Memo signed under CLINTON??
Gorelick Memo that created the wall between FBI & CIA thus no knowledge of the 9/11 bombers shared with the FBI!!! Looks especially imprudent 10 years later.
Because the memo created a barrier for U.S. intelligence agencies to share information with the FBI, one of its unintended consequences may have been to prevent the FBI from receiving the necessary intelligence to stop the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the worst in American history.
Gorelick Memo Allegedly Impeded Probe of Clinton Fundraising Scandal
1995 memo [Clinton presidency-concerned about Chinese election sales] Gorelick wrote, stated explicitly that they would “go beyond what is legally required, [to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.” GORELICK Memo!
Jamie Gorelick’s wall barred anti-terror investigators from accessing the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, already in custody on an immigration violation shortly before 9/11.
At the time, an enraged FBI investigator wrote a prophetic memo to headquarters about the wall.
Whatever has happened to this — someday someone will die — and wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective in throwing every resource we had at certain problems…..
especially since the biggest threat to us UBL [Usama bin Laden], is getting the most protection.
So, a year before the 9/11 attacks, a special unit in the U.S. military was aware of the presence of an al-Queda cell in Brooklyn, New York, and sought to share its information with the FBI but was stopped cold.Why?Because (as described in the April 16, 2004 Washington Times piece) “on March 4, 1995, [Jamie Gorelick, the then number 2 official in the Clinton Justice Department, sent a 4-page directive] to FBI Director Louis Freeh and Mary Jo White, the New York-based U.S. attorney investigating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
In the memo, Ms. Gorelick ordered Mr. Freeh and Ms. White to follow information-sharing procedures
that ‘go beyond what is legally required,’ in order to avoid ‘any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance’
that the Justice Department was using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, instead of ordinary criminal investigative procedures, in an effort to undermine the civil liberties of terrorism suspects.”
Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented? The Gorelick Memo and What We Knew

Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history. 2,215 lives lost
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of:
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts... In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property..

Your record is skipping, bot....

 

[eagle7_31]

Now is a good time to weed out all the GOP shills and move them to your ignore list.

This sh!t is only going to get worse as November approaches.

I'm here strictly for entertainment purposes. If I start ignoring the rightards here, whom provide nearly all of my entertainment, I would have no reason to post here.

Gee another low IQ left winger. Have a nice day.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Name a POTUS since WW2 under whom Federal Spending grew at a LOWER rate than under Obama...

The POTUS doesn't make the budget, the House does.

When Clinton was President, he wanted MORE spending than Gingrich gave him. Now, Clinton takes credit for budgets he opposed in real time. Democrats are like that - they lie, they steal, and they take credit for things they actually opposed in real time.

Reagan had Speaker Wright (Crook) and Senate Majority Leader Byrd (King of Pork and Klansman), two big spending Democrats controlling the budget. Reagan sent balanced budgets to Congress that were declared "dead on arrival."

STOP THE SPENDING.

The SPENDING is THE PROBLEM

The POTUS doesn't make the budget, the House does.


Take that up with THIS moron....

The bottom line is this =

W + O = two big spending treasonous liars = massive harm to the US

To undue the harm, undue the SPENDING...​

AND I"M GOING TO CONTINUE TO POST THIS UNTIL YOU IDIOTS RECOGNIZE THESE EVENTS HAPPENED!
THEY HAD CONSEQUENCES ON PEOPLE'S LIVES, JOBS, BUSINESSES TAXES!

Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $8 trillion market loss
Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $8 trillion in losses? Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$8 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue. PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $8 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies.
More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 -
and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives, $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Now before you idiots say "well Bush should have known"! DUMMIES... ever hear of the Gorelick Memo signed under CLINTON??
Gorelick Memo that created the wall between FBI & CIA thus no knowledge of the 9/11 bombers shared with the FBI!!! Looks especially imprudent 10 years later.
Because the memo created a barrier for U.S. intelligence agencies to share information with the FBI, one of its unintended consequences may have been to prevent the FBI from receiving the necessary intelligence to stop the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the worst in American history.
Gorelick Memo Allegedly Impeded Probe of Clinton Fundraising Scandal
1995 memo [Clinton presidency-concerned about Chinese election sales] Gorelick wrote, stated explicitly that they would “go beyond what is legally required, [to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.” GORELICK Memo!
Jamie Gorelick’s wall barred anti-terror investigators from accessing the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, already in custody on an immigration violation shortly before 9/11.
At the time, an enraged FBI investigator wrote a prophetic memo to headquarters about the wall.
Whatever has happened to this — someday someone will die — and wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective in throwing every resource we had at certain problems…..
especially since the biggest threat to us UBL [Usama bin Laden], is getting the most protection.
So, a year before the 9/11 attacks, a special unit in the U.S. military was aware of the presence of an al-Queda cell in Brooklyn, New York, and sought to share its information with the FBI but was stopped cold.Why?Because (as described in the April 16, 2004 Washington Times piece) “on March 4, 1995, [Jamie Gorelick, the then number 2 official in the Clinton Justice Department, sent a 4-page directive] to FBI Director Louis Freeh and Mary Jo White, the New York-based U.S. attorney investigating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
In the memo, Ms. Gorelick ordered Mr. Freeh and Ms. White to follow information-sharing procedures
that ‘go beyond what is legally required,’ in order to avoid ‘any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance’
that the Justice Department was using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, instead of ordinary criminal investigative procedures, in an effort to undermine the civil liberties of terrorism suspects.”
Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented? The Gorelick Memo and What We Knew

Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history. 2,215 lives lost
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of:
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts... In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property..

Yo, Rainman!

 

[Faun]

Big Government proponents from both parties contributed to the Recession, but the Dems are responsible for the lack of a proper recovery.

If we had just had an AVERAGE recovery, the economy would be $2.2T larger - $17,000 per household. Instead, we've been subjected to the blinding stupidity and incompetence of Obamanomics.

Obama's Economic Recovery Is Now $2.2 Trillion Below Average | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

Oh, goody! We now have a Moron Quorum.....

The "reasons" for the lack of a proper recovery include

a) household deleveraging
b) the complete absence of stimulative fiscal policy - which is NOT the "fault" of Democrats....Net Government contribution to GDP has been 0.85% below the levels of 1981-1989 and 0.5% below 2001-2009.....

You are an economic illiterate.

Which President added more to the federal debt than all Presidents before him COMBINED?

Show me the part of my post which you believe demonstrates a lack of economic literacy.....

Which President added more to the federal debt than all Presidents before him COMBINED?

That would be Scrub......consider that it involves more than simple "coincidence".....If you were possessed of reading comprehension skills, you would find that all but the most unhinged sources will use the phrase "increase under Obama", not "added by".....

First of all you are NOT believable because YOU provide NO Sources, NO links... JuST stupid ass personal subjective observations. Nothing
to prove your statement.

On the other hand given your dumb ass comment...

GEEZ I wonder why???
Could it be we had THESE EVENTS which YOU have NOT even acknowledged happened?
All of these events affected tax revenue. Government outlays. And more important the entire country was unnerved about 9/11, then Anthrax attacks.
While regionally millions of people were affected by the WORST HURRICANE SEASONS...not just one BUT SEASONS in history.
Coupled that with the dumb ass dot.com which cost revenue to the government and required helping millions of people out of work... none
of which you acknowledge!

Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $8 trillion market loss
Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $8 trillion in losses?
Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$8 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue. PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $8 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies.
More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 -
and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives, $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Now before you idiots say "well Bush should have known"! DUMMIES... ever hear of the Gorelick Memo signed under CLINTON??
Gorelick Memo that created the wall between FBI & CIA thus no knowledge of the 9/11 bombers shared with the FBI!!! Looks especially imprudent 10 years later.
Because the memo created a barrier for U.S. intelligence agencies to share information with the FBI, one of its unintended consequences may have been to prevent the FBI from receiving the necessary intelligence to stop the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the worst in American history.
Gorelick Memo Allegedly Impeded Probe of Clinton Fundraising Scandal
1995 memo [Clinton presidency-concerned about Chinese election sales] Gorelick wrote, stated explicitly that they would “go beyond what is legally required, [to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.” GORELICK Memo!
Jamie Gorelick’s wall barred anti-terror investigators from accessing the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, already in custody on an immigration violation shortly before 9/11.
At the time, an enraged FBI investigator wrote a prophetic memo to headquarters about the wall.
Whatever has happened to this — someday someone will die — and wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective in throwing every resource we had at certain problems…..
especially since the biggest threat to us UBL [Usama bin Laden], is getting the most protection.
So, a year before the 9/11 attacks, a special unit in the U.S. military was aware of the presence of an al-Queda cell in Brooklyn, New York, and sought to share its information with the FBI but was stopped cold.Why?Because (as described in the April 16, 2004 Washington Times piece) “on March 4, 1995, [Jamie Gorelick, the then number 2 official in the Clinton Justice Department, sent a 4-page directive] to FBI Director Louis Freeh and Mary Jo White, the New York-based U.S. attorney investigating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
In the memo, Ms. Gorelick ordered Mr. Freeh and Ms. White to follow information-sharing procedures
that ‘go beyond what is legally required,’ in order to avoid ‘any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance’
that the Justice Department was using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, instead of ordinary criminal investigative procedures, in an effort to undermine the civil liberties of terrorism suspects.”
Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented? The Gorelick Memo and What We Knew

Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history. 2,215 lives lost
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of:
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts... In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property..

But totally ignorant people like you forgot about those events! They happened. People died. Businesses were destroyed!
Tax revenue was reduced!
GEEZ and YOU fault GWB for these events???

How totally dumb ass!

You've been shown many, many times ... there was no recession under Clinton. For you to continue repeating that nonsense anyway, despite knowing no recession started during his watch, proves conclusively that you're a liar.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

 

[Skylar]

Now is a good time to weed out all the GOP shills and move them to your ignore list.

This sh!t is only going to get worse as November approaches.

I'm here strictly for entertainment purposes. If I start ignoring the rightards here, whom provide nearly all of my entertainment, I would have no reason to post here.

I suspect that the entertainment is going to shift to why Trump is being robbed of the election as we actually get closer to it.

 

[IcebergSlim]

A summary I wrote more than six years ago. Even more timely today, with the Democrats re-starting the same policies that led to the economic crash of 2008: Millions of risky housing loans to people unlikely to be able to pay them back.

----------------------------------------

An hour-long program on the origins of the current financial crisis, was put together by Fox News in 2008. It contains a great many clips from various officials who were involved, interviews by news people, etc. They called it "Saving Our Economy". Someone put it on YouTube, in six segments. Go there and do a search on that title, and you should get all six segments. They vary from 5 to 10 minutes each, about 45 minutes running time total (no commercials).

It's an excellent explanation of how the crisis started, who did what, what the results were, etc. A real must-see.

Here's a summary:

-----------------------------------------

Sept. 23, 2008: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson: "The events leading us here began many years ago, starting with bad lending practices by banks and financial institutions, and by borrowers taking up mortgages they couldn't afford."

-----------------------------------------

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, or "Fannie Mae") was created in 1938 during the Great Depression, to create a market for mortgages where they could be bought and sold.

In 1968, Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress spun off Fannie Mae so that it would not show up in the Federal budget. But the Federal govt was always there, ready to bail out Fannie Mae if problems happened. This enables Fannie Mae to offer lower rates for the mortgages it bought, since it was not taking the risks that other banks and institutions had to. In 1970, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") was formed, to create competition for Fannie Mae, since ordinary banks could NOT compete with the government-backed rates they offered.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. It made sure banks were lending to people of all colors and income levels. But things quickly began going off the rails, as activist groups found a new weapon in the law: The could start suing lenders for discrimination if they didn't lend to enough minority families, regardless of the families' ability to pay the loans back as promised. Banks began making riskier and riskier loans for fear of having to fight expensive lawsuits.

Community groups began bullying the banks, especially one called the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now ("ACORN"). It hired several specialized lawyers, including a young man named Barack Obama, to teach its employees how to go to the homes of bank CEOs and senior officers, harassing and publicly embarrassing them while remaining within the limits of local law to avoid prosecution. At one point, ACORN brought a lawsuit against a thrift merger in Illinois, insisting that the lending institutions had not made as many loans to minorities as ACORN thought they should. The bank replied that such loans would be financially irresponsible, and would put ALL the bank's customers at unacceptable risk. ACORN prevailed in court, and banks began making more and more risky loans to home buyers who could have never qualified for those loans under ordinary circumstances.

In late 2000, in the last days of the Clinton administration, the government ordered Fannie and Freddie to increase the numbers of these risky ("sub-prime") mortgages they were buying from banks and lending institutions across the country. They did, lowering their rates and buying more and more, until fully half their portfolios consisted of these risky sub-prime mortgages, combined and packaged in various ways.

The Bush administration raised red flags starting in April 2001. Their 2002 Budget Request declared that the size of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is "a potential problem" because financial trouble in either one of them "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets".

In 2003, the White House warning about Fannie and Freddie, was upgraded to a "Systemic Risk that could spread beyond just the housing sector".

As Fannie and Freddie continued to lower their rates and buy mortgages, lenders made more and more mortgages to buyers with questionable ability to pay, safe in the knowledge that they could immediately turn around and sell the mortgages to the government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie, thus avoiding any consequences if the loans were later defaulted. They were happy to make more and more such mortgages, collecting fees for each and selling the mortgages to F&F.

Countrywide Financial chairman Angelo Mazzillo literally started screaming at Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot, when Gigot asked him about the wisdom of making so many loans to buyers unlikely to pay them back. Mazzillo insisted loudly that Gigot had no idea what he was talking about, did not understand the first thing about mortgage lending, etc., etc. He failed, however, to answer any of Gigot's questions in even the simplest terms or explain why they were "wrong".


(to be continued)

was put together by Fox News in 2008
STOP RIGHT THERE!

Can't reply to the points made, eh?

So you try to pretend that having the "wrong" source somehow changes the truth of the article?

You people are getting REALLY desperate.

One more time.....FCIC report......google it.....

 

[jillian]

A summary I wrote more than six years ago. Even more timely today, with the Democrats re-starting the same policies that led to the economic crash of 2008: Millions of risky housing loans to people unlikely to be able to pay them back.

----------------------------------------

An hour-long program on the origins of the current financial crisis, was put together by Fox News in 2008. It contains a great many clips from various officials who were involved, interviews by news people, etc. They called it "Saving Our Economy". Someone put it on YouTube, in six segments. Go there and do a search on that title, and you should get all six segments. They vary from 5 to 10 minutes each, about 45 minutes running time total (no commercials).

It's an excellent explanation of how the crisis started, who did what, what the results were, etc. A real must-see.

Here's a summary:

-----------------------------------------

Sept. 23, 2008: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson: "The events leading us here began many years ago, starting with bad lending practices by banks and financial institutions, and by borrowers taking up mortgages they couldn't afford."

-----------------------------------------

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, or "Fannie Mae") was created in 1938 during the Great Depression, to create a market for mortgages where they could be bought and sold.

In 1968, Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress spun off Fannie Mae so that it would not show up in the Federal budget. But the Federal govt was always there, ready to bail out Fannie Mae if problems happened. This enables Fannie Mae to offer lower rates for the mortgages it bought, since it was not taking the risks that other banks and institutions had to. In 1970, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") was formed, to create competition for Fannie Mae, since ordinary banks could NOT compete with the government-backed rates they offered.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. It made sure banks were lending to people of all colors and income levels. But things quickly began going off the rails, as activist groups found a new weapon in the law: The could start suing lenders for discrimination if they didn't lend to enough minority families, regardless of the families' ability to pay the loans back as promised. Banks began making riskier and riskier loans for fear of having to fight expensive lawsuits.

Community groups began bullying the banks, especially one called the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now ("ACORN"). It hired several specialized lawyers, including a young man named Barack Obama, to teach its employees how to go to the homes of bank CEOs and senior officers, harassing and publicly embarrassing them while remaining within the limits of local law to avoid prosecution. At one point, ACORN brought a lawsuit against a thrift merger in Illinois, insisting that the lending institutions had not made as many loans to minorities as ACORN thought they should. The bank replied that such loans would be financially irresponsible, and would put ALL the bank's customers at unacceptable risk. ACORN prevailed in court, and banks began making more and more risky loans to home buyers who could have never qualified for those loans under ordinary circumstances.

In late 2000, in the last days of the Clinton administration, the government ordered Fannie and Freddie to increase the numbers of these risky ("sub-prime") mortgages they were buying from banks and lending institutions across the country. They did, lowering their rates and buying more and more, until fully half their portfolios consisted of these risky sub-prime mortgages, combined and packaged in various ways.

The Bush administration raised red flags starting in April 2001. Their 2002 Budget Request declared that the size of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is "a potential problem" because financial trouble in either one of them "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets".

In 2003, the White House warning about Fannie and Freddie, was upgraded to a "Systemic Risk that could spread beyond just the housing sector".

As Fannie and Freddie continued to lower their rates and buy mortgages, lenders made more and more mortgages to buyers with questionable ability to pay, safe in the knowledge that they could immediately turn around and sell the mortgages to the government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie, thus avoiding any consequences if the loans were later defaulted. They were happy to make more and more such mortgages, collecting fees for each and selling the mortgages to F&F.

Countrywide Financial chairman Angelo Mazzillo literally started screaming at Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot, when Gigot asked him about the wisdom of making so many loans to buyers unlikely to pay them back. Mazzillo insisted loudly that Gigot had no idea what he was talking about, did not understand the first thing about mortgage lending, etc., etc. He failed, however, to answer any of Gigot's questions in even the simplest terms or explain why they were "wrong".


(to be continued)

was put together by Fox News in 2008
STOP RIGHT THERE!

Can't reply to the points made, eh?

So you try to pretend that having the "wrong" source somehow changes the truth of the article?

You people are getting REALLY desperate.

no. you are if you think that some crap put together by the news agency of the GOP is something worth responding to. desperation is making up the nonsense that you wingers make up.

RWNJ's are funny.

Spoken like a true left wing whack job.

no. spoken like someone who is tired of your lies and nonsense and propaganda.

RWNJ's are fact averse.

try sources that are legitimate.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Whenever democrats want to say that it was the economic policies of the repubican party that led to the recession of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 then someone should just point out this video


There are plenty of other videos of democrats preventing people from addressing the issues that led to the housing bubble and collapse.

You are a moron......Take a gander at the conclusions of the FCIC........the GSEs were not among the primary causes of the Great Recession......

and the recession ended near the end of Q2, 2009.....

OK once again the facts...

Major causes of the initial subprime mortgage crisis and following recession include:

• International trade imbalances and
• lax lending standards contributing to high levels of developed country household debt and real-estate bubbles that have since burst;
• U.S. government housing policies;
• and limited regulation of non-depository financial institutions.

Once the recession began, various responses were attempted with different degrees of success. These included fiscal policies of governments; monetary policies of central banks; measures designed to help indebted consumers refinance their mortgage debt; and inconsistent approaches used by nations to bail out troubled banking industries and private bondholders, assuming private debt burdens or socializing losses.
Causes of the Great Recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"
New York Times, 9/11/03)
* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also
ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised"
position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle

Pure and simple.
A) with Fannie/Freddie (F&F) guaranteeing subprime loans...(Fannie and Freddie remain two of the largest financial institutions in the world, responsible for a combined $5 trillion in mortgage assets.) 7 Things You Need to Know About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

B) They have the power to guarantee or purchase mortgages years after the original loan is made.
The commitment of F&F to maintain a liquid market changes the market. Imagine the positive and negative side effects of central banks, apply them to the long-term debt market, lather rinse repeat. Will somebody be there to take this hot potato off my hands? If so, I'm more willing to buy the potato today.
How Many Bad Loans Did Fannie and Freddie Originate? | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

Now for many of you really DUMB people...
Oct. 23,2008 (Bloomberg) -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have an ``effective'' federal guarantee, not the "full faith
and credit'' of the U.S. government, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart
said after the hearing. That does give them effectively a guarantee of the U.S. government.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajIEoZCommlk

So IF F&F backed by the U.S. government will take the bad loans off the banks hands
Federal officials heap much of the blame for the subprime mortgage mess on lenders,
claiming they recklessly made too many high-cost home loans to borrowers who couldn't afford them.

It turns out that the U.S. government itself was one of the lenders giving out high-interest, subprime mortgages, some of them predatory, according to government documents filed in federal court.
Case in point: "Rather than immediately shuttering or selling Superior, as it normally does with failed banks, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. continued to run the bank's subprime-mortgage business for months as it looked for a buyer. With FDIC people supervising day-to-day operations, Superior funded more than 6,700 new subprime loans worth more than $550 million, according to federal mortgage data."
FDIC Faces Mortgage Mess After Running Failed Bank

So in summary GWB warned 17 times alone in 2008 (by the way why didn't he do it earlier??? Oh I guess there were some other more pressing
issues like the following MAJOR cataclysmic events that preceded the housing bubble!!!!)

Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $8 trillion market loss
Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $8 trillion in losses? Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$8 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue. PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $8 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies.
More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 -
and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives, $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Now before you idiots say "well Bush should have known"! DUMMIES... ever hear of the Gorelick Memo signed under CLINTON??
Gorelick Memo that created the wall between FBI & CIA thus no knowledge of the 9/11 bombers shared with the FBI!!! Looks especially imprudent 10 years later.
Because the memo created a barrier for U.S. intelligence agencies to share information with the FBI, one of its unintended consequences may have been to prevent the FBI from receiving the necessary intelligence to stop the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the worst in American history.
Gorelick Memo Allegedly Impeded Probe of Clinton Fundraising Scandal
1995 memo [Clinton presidency-concerned about Chinese election sales] Gorelick wrote, stated explicitly that they would “go beyond what is legally required, [to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.” GORELICK Memo!
Jamie Gorelick’s wall barred anti-terror investigators from accessing the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, already in custody on an immigration violation shortly before 9/11.
At the time, an enraged FBI investigator wrote a prophetic memo to headquarters about the wall.
Whatever has happened to this — someday someone will die — and wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective in throwing every resource we had at certain problems…..
especially since the biggest threat to us UBL [Usama bin Laden], is getting the most protection.
So, a year before the 9/11 attacks, a special unit in the U.S. military was aware of the presence of an al-Queda cell in Brooklyn, New York, and sought to share its information with the FBI but was stopped cold.Why?Because (as described in the April 16, 2004 Washington Times piece) “on March 4, 1995, [Jamie Gorelick, the then number 2 official in the Clinton Justice Department, sent a 4-page directive] to FBI Director Louis Freeh and Mary Jo White, the New York-based U.S. attorney investigating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
In the memo, Ms. Gorelick ordered Mr. Freeh and Ms. White to follow information-sharing procedures
that ‘go beyond what is legally required,’ in order to avoid ‘any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance’
that the Justice Department was using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, instead of ordinary criminal investigative procedures, in an effort to undermine the civil liberties of terrorism suspects.”
Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented? The Gorelick Memo and What We Knew

Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history. 2,215 lives lost
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of:
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts... In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property..

IN SPITE of the above:
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20

BEA National Economic Accounts
Average annual growth in the Gross Domestic Product over 8 years 2.9% compared to the Idiot's..
SMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth

IN Spite of all the events AND if the housing bubble caused by the below people hadn't occurred it would have
been: 4.4% compared to what now???
2001 2.3% increase
2002 2.4%
2003 6.8%
2004 6.4%
2005 5.4%
2006 4.6%
2007 3.2%
2008 -7.7%

At least one person knows the facts. Thank you.

Do you know the difference between REAL and NOMINAL GDP?

cause the imbecile you are celebrating doesn't......

 

[eagle7_31]

A summary I wrote more than six years ago. Even more timely today, with the Democrats re-starting the same policies that led to the economic crash of 2008: Millions of risky housing loans to people unlikely to be able to pay them back.

----------------------------------------

An hour-long program on the origins of the current financial crisis, was put together by Fox News in 2008. It contains a great many clips from various officials who were involved, interviews by news people, etc. They called it "Saving Our Economy". Someone put it on YouTube, in six segments. Go there and do a search on that title, and you should get all six segments. They vary from 5 to 10 minutes each, about 45 minutes running time total (no commercials).

It's an excellent explanation of how the crisis started, who did what, what the results were, etc. A real must-see.

Here's a summary:

-----------------------------------------

Sept. 23, 2008: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson: "The events leading us here began many years ago, starting with bad lending practices by banks and financial institutions, and by borrowers taking up mortgages they couldn't afford."

-----------------------------------------

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, or "Fannie Mae") was created in 1938 during the Great Depression, to create a market for mortgages where they could be bought and sold.

In 1968, Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress spun off Fannie Mae so that it would not show up in the Federal budget. But the Federal govt was always there, ready to bail out Fannie Mae if problems happened. This enables Fannie Mae to offer lower rates for the mortgages it bought, since it was not taking the risks that other banks and institutions had to. In 1970, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") was formed, to create competition for Fannie Mae, since ordinary banks could NOT compete with the government-backed rates they offered.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. It made sure banks were lending to people of all colors and income levels. But things quickly began going off the rails, as activist groups found a new weapon in the law: The could start suing lenders for discrimination if they didn't lend to enough minority families, regardless of the families' ability to pay the loans back as promised. Banks began making riskier and riskier loans for fear of having to fight expensive lawsuits.

Community groups began bullying the banks, especially one called the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now ("ACORN"). It hired several specialized lawyers, including a young man named Barack Obama, to teach its employees how to go to the homes of bank CEOs and senior officers, harassing and publicly embarrassing them while remaining within the limits of local law to avoid prosecution. At one point, ACORN brought a lawsuit against a thrift merger in Illinois, insisting that the lending institutions had not made as many loans to minorities as ACORN thought they should. The bank replied that such loans would be financially irresponsible, and would put ALL the bank's customers at unacceptable risk. ACORN prevailed in court, and banks began making more and more risky loans to home buyers who could have never qualified for those loans under ordinary circumstances.

In late 2000, in the last days of the Clinton administration, the government ordered Fannie and Freddie to increase the numbers of these risky ("sub-prime") mortgages they were buying from banks and lending institutions across the country. They did, lowering their rates and buying more and more, until fully half their portfolios consisted of these risky sub-prime mortgages, combined and packaged in various ways.

The Bush administration raised red flags starting in April 2001. Their 2002 Budget Request declared that the size of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is "a potential problem" because financial trouble in either one of them "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets".

In 2003, the White House warning about Fannie and Freddie, was upgraded to a "Systemic Risk that could spread beyond just the housing sector".

As Fannie and Freddie continued to lower their rates and buy mortgages, lenders made more and more mortgages to buyers with questionable ability to pay, safe in the knowledge that they could immediately turn around and sell the mortgages to the government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie, thus avoiding any consequences if the loans were later defaulted. They were happy to make more and more such mortgages, collecting fees for each and selling the mortgages to F&F.

Countrywide Financial chairman Angelo Mazzillo literally started screaming at Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot, when Gigot asked him about the wisdom of making so many loans to buyers unlikely to pay them back. Mazzillo insisted loudly that Gigot had no idea what he was talking about, did not understand the first thing about mortgage lending, etc., etc. He failed, however, to answer any of Gigot's questions in even the simplest terms or explain why they were "wrong".


(to be continued)

was put together by Fox News in 2008
STOP RIGHT THERE!

Can't reply to the points made, eh?

So you try to pretend that having the "wrong" source somehow changes the truth of the article?

You people are getting REALLY desperate.

no. you are if you think that some crap put together by the news agency of the GOP is something worth responding to. desperation is making up the nonsense that you wingers make up.

RWNJ's are funny.

Spoken like a true left wing whack job.

no. spoken like someone who is tired of your lies and nonsense and propaganda.

RWNJ's are fact averse.

try sources that are legitimate.

Now that is funny considering you would not know a fact if it bit you in the face.

 

[Faun]

Big Government proponents from both parties contributed to the Recession, but the Dems are responsible for the lack of a proper recovery.

If we had just had an AVERAGE recovery, the economy would be $2.2T larger - $17,000 per household. Instead, we've been subjected to the blinding stupidity and incompetence of Obamanomics.

Obama's Economic Recovery Is Now $2.2 Trillion Below Average | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

Oh, goody! We now have a Moron Quorum.....

The "reasons" for the lack of a proper recovery include

a) household deleveraging
b) the complete absence of stimulative fiscal policy - which is NOT the "fault" of Democrats....Net Government contribution to GDP has been 0.85% below the levels of 1981-1989 and 0.5% below 2001-2009.....

Geez... do you think these events had any affect on the economy? People's lives? Jobs? Tax revenue???

Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

Moron -- from your own link....

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months​

 

[Faun]

Now is a good time to weed out all the GOP shills and move them to your ignore list.

This sh!t is only going to get worse as November approaches.

I'm here strictly for entertainment purposes. If I start ignoring the rightards here, whom provide nearly all of my entertainment, I would have no reason to post here.

Gee another low IQ left winger. Have a nice day.

With threads like this one, I certainly will.

 

[jillian]

A summary I wrote more than six years ago. Even more timely today, with the Democrats re-starting the same policies that led to the economic crash of 2008: Millions of risky housing loans to people unlikely to be able to pay them back.

----------------------------------------

An hour-long program on the origins of the current financial crisis, was put together by Fox News in 2008. It contains a great many clips from various officials who were involved, interviews by news people, etc. They called it "Saving Our Economy". Someone put it on YouTube, in six segments. Go there and do a search on that title, and you should get all six segments. They vary from 5 to 10 minutes each, about 45 minutes running time total (no commercials).

It's an excellent explanation of how the crisis started, who did what, what the results were, etc. A real must-see.

Here's a summary:

-----------------------------------------

Sept. 23, 2008: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson: "The events leading us here began many years ago, starting with bad lending practices by banks and financial institutions, and by borrowers taking up mortgages they couldn't afford."

-----------------------------------------

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, or "Fannie Mae") was created in 1938 during the Great Depression, to create a market for mortgages where they could be bought and sold.

In 1968, Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress spun off Fannie Mae so that it would not show up in the Federal budget. But the Federal govt was always there, ready to bail out Fannie Mae if problems happened. This enables Fannie Mae to offer lower rates for the mortgages it bought, since it was not taking the risks that other banks and institutions had to. In 1970, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") was formed, to create competition for Fannie Mae, since ordinary banks could NOT compete with the government-backed rates they offered.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. It made sure banks were lending to people of all colors and income levels. But things quickly began going off the rails, as activist groups found a new weapon in the law: The could start suing lenders for discrimination if they didn't lend to enough minority families, regardless of the families' ability to pay the loans back as promised. Banks began making riskier and riskier loans for fear of having to fight expensive lawsuits.

Community groups began bullying the banks, especially one called the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now ("ACORN"). It hired several specialized lawyers, including a young man named Barack Obama, to teach its employees how to go to the homes of bank CEOs and senior officers, harassing and publicly embarrassing them while remaining within the limits of local law to avoid prosecution. At one point, ACORN brought a lawsuit against a thrift merger in Illinois, insisting that the lending institutions had not made as many loans to minorities as ACORN thought they should. The bank replied that such loans would be financially irresponsible, and would put ALL the bank's customers at unacceptable risk. ACORN prevailed in court, and banks began making more and more risky loans to home buyers who could have never qualified for those loans under ordinary circumstances.

In late 2000, in the last days of the Clinton administration, the government ordered Fannie and Freddie to increase the numbers of these risky ("sub-prime") mortgages they were buying from banks and lending institutions across the country. They did, lowering their rates and buying more and more, until fully half their portfolios consisted of these risky sub-prime mortgages, combined and packaged in various ways.

The Bush administration raised red flags starting in April 2001. Their 2002 Budget Request declared that the size of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is "a potential problem" because financial trouble in either one of them "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets".

In 2003, the White House warning about Fannie and Freddie, was upgraded to a "Systemic Risk that could spread beyond just the housing sector".

As Fannie and Freddie continued to lower their rates and buy mortgages, lenders made more and more mortgages to buyers with questionable ability to pay, safe in the knowledge that they could immediately turn around and sell the mortgages to the government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie, thus avoiding any consequences if the loans were later defaulted. They were happy to make more and more such mortgages, collecting fees for each and selling the mortgages to F&F.

Countrywide Financial chairman Angelo Mazzillo literally started screaming at Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot, when Gigot asked him about the wisdom of making so many loans to buyers unlikely to pay them back. Mazzillo insisted loudly that Gigot had no idea what he was talking about, did not understand the first thing about mortgage lending, etc., etc. He failed, however, to answer any of Gigot's questions in even the simplest terms or explain why they were "wrong".


(to be continued)

was put together by Fox News in 2008
STOP RIGHT THERE!

Can't reply to the points made, eh?

So you try to pretend that having the "wrong" source somehow changes the truth of the article?

You people are getting REALLY desperate.

no. you are if you think that some crap put together by the news agency of the GOP is something worth responding to. desperation is making up the nonsense that you wingers make up.

RWNJ's are funny.

Spoken like a true left wing whack job.

no. spoken like someone who is tired of your lies and nonsense and propaganda.

RWNJ's are fact averse.

try sources that are legitimate.

Now that is funny considering you would not know a fact if it bit you in the face.

you can pretend. your opinion is duly noted and discarded.

 

[IcebergSlim]

A summary I wrote more than six years ago. Even more timely today, with the Democrats re-starting the same policies that led to the economic crash of 2008: Millions of risky housing loans to people unlikely to be able to pay them back.

----------------------------------------

An hour-long program on the origins of the current financial crisis, was put together by Fox News in 2008. It contains a great many clips from various officials who were involved, interviews by news people, etc. They called it "Saving Our Economy". Someone put it on YouTube, in six segments. Go there and do a search on that title, and you should get all six segments. They vary from 5 to 10 minutes each, about 45 minutes running time total (no commercials).

It's an excellent explanation of how the crisis started, who did what, what the results were, etc. A real must-see.

Here's a summary:

-----------------------------------------

Sept. 23, 2008: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson: "The events leading us here began many years ago, starting with bad lending practices by banks and financial institutions, and by borrowers taking up mortgages they couldn't afford."

-----------------------------------------

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, or "Fannie Mae") was created in 1938 during the Great Depression, to create a market for mortgages where they could be bought and sold.

In 1968, Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress spun off Fannie Mae so that it would not show up in the Federal budget. But the Federal govt was always there, ready to bail out Fannie Mae if problems happened. This enables Fannie Mae to offer lower rates for the mortgages it bought, since it was not taking the risks that other banks and institutions had to. In 1970, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") was formed, to create competition for Fannie Mae, since ordinary banks could NOT compete with the government-backed rates they offered.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. It made sure banks were lending to people of all colors and income levels. But things quickly began going off the rails, as activist groups found a new weapon in the law: The could start suing lenders for discrimination if they didn't lend to enough minority families, regardless of the families' ability to pay the loans back as promised. Banks began making riskier and riskier loans for fear of having to fight expensive lawsuits.

Community groups began bullying the banks, especially one called the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now ("ACORN"). It hired several specialized lawyers, including a young man named Barack Obama, to teach its employees how to go to the homes of bank CEOs and senior officers, harassing and publicly embarrassing them while remaining within the limits of local law to avoid prosecution. At one point, ACORN brought a lawsuit against a thrift merger in Illinois, insisting that the lending institutions had not made as many loans to minorities as ACORN thought they should. The bank replied that such loans would be financially irresponsible, and would put ALL the bank's customers at unacceptable risk. ACORN prevailed in court, and banks began making more and more risky loans to home buyers who could have never qualified for those loans under ordinary circumstances.

In late 2000, in the last days of the Clinton administration, the government ordered Fannie and Freddie to increase the numbers of these risky ("sub-prime") mortgages they were buying from banks and lending institutions across the country. They did, lowering their rates and buying more and more, until fully half their portfolios consisted of these risky sub-prime mortgages, combined and packaged in various ways.

The Bush administration raised red flags starting in April 2001. Their 2002 Budget Request declared that the size of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is "a potential problem" because financial trouble in either one of them "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets".

In 2003, the White House warning about Fannie and Freddie, was upgraded to a "Systemic Risk that could spread beyond just the housing sector".

As Fannie and Freddie continued to lower their rates and buy mortgages, lenders made more and more mortgages to buyers with questionable ability to pay, safe in the knowledge that they could immediately turn around and sell the mortgages to the government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie, thus avoiding any consequences if the loans were later defaulted. They were happy to make more and more such mortgages, collecting fees for each and selling the mortgages to F&F.

Countrywide Financial chairman Angelo Mazzillo literally started screaming at Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot, when Gigot asked him about the wisdom of making so many loans to buyers unlikely to pay them back. Mazzillo insisted loudly that Gigot had no idea what he was talking about, did not understand the first thing about mortgage lending, etc., etc. He failed, however, to answer any of Gigot's questions in even the simplest terms or explain why they were "wrong".


(to be continued)

was put together by Fox News in 2008
STOP RIGHT THERE!

Can't reply to the points made, eh?

So you try to pretend that having the "wrong" source somehow changes the truth of the article?

You people are getting REALLY desperate.

no. you are if you think that some crap put together by the news agency of the GOP is something worth responding to. desperation is making up the nonsense that you wingers make up.

RWNJ's are funny.

Spoken like a true left wing whack job.

no. spoken like someone who is tired of your lies and nonsense and propaganda.

RWNJ's are fact averse.

try sources that are legitimate.

Now that is funny considering you would not know a fact if it bit you in the face.

Are you a Drudge enthusiast?

 

[Faun]

I would say I'm amazed to see rightards suckered into another bullshit thread by SuperDemocrat, the same poster who earlier questioned if Hillary was a draft dodger during the Vietnam war; but honestly, I'm not at all surprised to see that yes, they really are that stupid.

 

[eagle7_31]

Can't reply to the points made, eh?

So you try to pretend that having the "wrong" source somehow changes the truth of the article?

You people are getting REALLY desperate.

no. you are if you think that some crap put together by the news agency of the GOP is something worth responding to. desperation is making up the nonsense that you wingers make up.

RWNJ's are funny.

Spoken like a true left wing whack job.

no. spoken like someone who is tired of your lies and nonsense and propaganda.

RWNJ's are fact averse.

try sources that are legitimate.

Now that is funny considering you would not know a fact if it bit you in the face.

you can pretend. your opinion is duly noted and discarded.

Keep with you DNC talking points, its what you do best.

 

[eagle7_31]

Can't reply to the points made, eh?

So you try to pretend that having the "wrong" source somehow changes the truth of the article?

You people are getting REALLY desperate.

no. you are if you think that some crap put together by the news agency of the GOP is something worth responding to. desperation is making up the nonsense that you wingers make up.

RWNJ's are funny.

Spoken like a true left wing whack job.

no. spoken like someone who is tired of your lies and nonsense and propaganda.

RWNJ's are fact averse.

try sources that are legitimate.

Now that is funny considering you would not know a fact if it bit you in the face.

Are you a Drudge enthusiast?

I check out Drudge among others on the web.

 

[jillian]

I would say I'm amazed to see rightards suckered into another bullshit thread by SuperDemocrat, the same poster who earlier questioned if Hillary was a draft dodger during the Vietnam war; but honestly, I'm not at all surprised to see that yes, they really are that stupid.

yep... mentally ill. but we can pretend he deals in reality if it makes him feel better about himself.