Forget Econ Stats, Do Americans Feel Economic Exhuberance or Malaise?

[Dad2three]

How can you debate people like Krugman and Dads 2 who don't even know what a sumprime mortgage is or understand that the government was slapping AAA rating on subprime paper?!!

You do realize Gov't doesn't rate loans right?

Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."


Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie


“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a great example, quoted by Andrew in another discussion about the Unemployment Rate:

"People change their behavior to reflect the fact they do have income coming in, verses those who have no income coming in. Those who did not, were more likely to get back into the work force quicker."




Talkin' about common sense here.....

So we should force the poor to become the working poor and that will make things better?

 

[EconChick]

BARNEY? Minority member of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007, Barney?


June 17, 2004



NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf


In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."


DUBYA REGULATOR FAILURE. WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE FBI, SEC, F/F, HUD, ETC?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

So you dig up one thing Frank says and ignore the other 50 big-spending things he says??????????? Way to go, that's persuasive.

Please anyone out there..... raise your hand if you think Barney Frank was a financial conservative who urged as little spending, as little government subsidization, and as little handouts as Dad2three would have you think.

Nope, don't see any hands.

What does spending have to do with DUBYA'S REGULATOR PROBLEM AS HE CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS IN A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE? Grow a brain



I know, the Dems and Barney HATED regulations and regulators right?

BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET 2004

There's a balance when it comes to regulation. I don't agree with the ZERO regulation mentality....anymore than I agree with the other extreme.

It's obvious you don't know where the balance is. You just parrot left wing points. In fact we've gone too far in the other direction now with Dodd/Frank.

That's why so many banks aren't lending!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dad2three]

Good Lord you are dense. I'm talking about the entire economy. I'm sure gun sales are up too. Some things have an inverse relationship.

If you live in Florida, you have to really not be paying attention to see how bummed many people are in that state.

How you think that one little data point - if it can even be believed - reflects on the whole economy is in keeping with quite a flaky POV.

Ohhhhhhh! You don't want personal anecdotes? You want some data? Cool.

Here, dummy. This is how Americans FEEL.

https://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerconfidence.cfm

You knew about that index, right?

Thread fail.

I love when you reveal what a really low IQ you have. First of all, June's wasn't that great, but being the genius that you are, you failed to look at the current data - for July.

It ain't good goldilocks.

U.S. consumer sentiment dips in preliminary July reading | Reuters


U.S. Consumer Sentiment Dips in Preliminary July readings



(Reuters) - U.S. consumer sentiment dipped in early July while an index of consumer expectations weakened for a third straight month, a survey released on Friday showed..........


LL, you really need to head off to the Macy's sales rack and leave this discussion to people who have a clue.

YOUR LINK:

"The most remarkable aspect of recent trends in consumer confidence has been its resistance to change in either direction due to very negative GDP nor very positive employment gains," survey director Richard Curtin said in a statement.

"This stability will provide the necessary strength for consumer spending to continue to expand, but does not support an acceleration in spending above 2.5 percent."

The survey's barometer of current economic conditions rose to 97.1 from 96.6, compared with a forecast of 97.0."

 

[LoneLaugher]

Clinton owns much of the blame for the shitty state of the economy. Of course....his errors were the result of his borrowing ideas from cons. But he did fuck up.

If Bush had recognized the problems when he took the reins, he might have done something about them. But he didn't. He was a full on supporter of free trade agreements and weak regulatory atmosphere that led to our being fucked.

EconChic is right. The troubles began long ago.

But.....that does not pertain to the topic of this thread. This thread assumes that Americans are down on the economy. They are not.....especially in comparison to January, 2009.

Fucking thread fail.

Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”


2000 US mortgage origination $1 trillion a year

2004-2007 $4 TRILLION A YEAR

Bush REQUIRED F/F to buy $44o BILLION in MBS's to meet his 'affordable housing goals', the ones he ramped up from 50% to 56% for F/F AND TOOK CLINTON'S RULE OF NOT CREDITING F/F FOR 'HIGH COST (SEE SUBPRIME LOANS) OFF IN 2004


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35+-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

US household debt doubled under Bush. WHILE incomes stagnated

CLINTON?

Yeah. Glass-Steagall/Gramm-Leach-Billey and NAFTA. He fucked up.

 

[EconChick]

Clinton owns much of the blame for the shitty state of the economy. Of course....his errors were the result of his borrowing ideas from cons. But he did fuck up.

If Bush had recognized the problems when he took the reins, he might have done something about them. But he didn't. He was a full on supporter of free trade agreements and weak regulatory atmosphere that led to our being fucked.

EconChic is right. The troubles began long ago.

But.....that does not pertain to the topic of this thread. This thread assumes that Americans are down on the economy. They are not.....especially in comparison to January, 2009.

Fucking thread fail.

CLINTON?

Oh here we go with how great the Clinton years were.


Is it too much to ask someone trying to convince the world they understand the topic of economics to acknowledge that

-some economic occurrences are due to short term factors
-some economic occurrences are due to medium term factors
-and some economic occurrences are due to long-term factors (like bubbles)

The success of the Clinton economy was in large part a result of the years of all the hard work Reagan had done to clean up the economy........and the hard work Reagan did to bring the Cold War to an end. Clinton also gets some credit but most of it was due to conditions laid down by Reagan in the 80s.

I'm not going to spend the 100s of hours it would take to explain that to you. Try researching it yourself instead of believing all the propaganda you slurp up.

 

[Dad2three]

Clinton owns much of the blame for the shitty state of the economy. Of course....his errors were the result of his borrowing ideas from cons. But he did fuck up.

If Bush had recognized the problems when he took the reins, he might have done something about them. But he didn't. He was a full on supporter of free trade agreements and weak regulatory atmosphere that led to our being fucked.

EconChic is right. The troubles began long ago.

But.....that does not pertain to the topic of this thread. This thread assumes that Americans are down on the economy. They are not.....especially in comparison to January, 2009.

Fucking thread fail.

Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”


2000 US mortgage origination $1 trillion a year

2004-2007 $4 TRILLION A YEAR

Bush REQUIRED F/F to buy $44o BILLION in MBS's to meet his 'affordable housing goals', the ones he ramped up from 50% to 56% for F/F AND TOOK CLINTON'S RULE OF NOT CREDITING F/F FOR 'HIGH COST (SEE SUBPRIME LOANS) OFF IN 2004


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35+-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

US household debt doubled under Bush. WHILE incomes stagnated

CLINTON?

Yeah. Glass-Steagall/Gramm-Leach-Billey and NAFTA. He fucked up.

' Glass-Steagall/Gramm-Leach-Billey '

ZERO to do with Dubya's regulator failure!


?Repeal? of Glass-Steagall Irrelevant to Financial Crisis | Tom Woods


NAFTA bad for US but didn't cause the crash

 

[EconChick]

Ohhhhhhh! You don't want personal anecdotes? You want some data? Cool.

Here, dummy. This is how Americans FEEL.

https://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerconfidence.cfm

You knew about that index, right?

Thread fail.

I love when you reveal what a really low IQ you have. First of all, June's wasn't that great, but being the genius that you are, you failed to look at the current data - for July.

It ain't good goldilocks.

U.S. consumer sentiment dips in preliminary July reading | Reuters


U.S. Consumer Sentiment Dips in Preliminary July readings



(Reuters) - U.S. consumer sentiment dipped in early July while an index of consumer expectations weakened for a third straight month, a survey released on Friday showed..........


LL, you really need to head off to the Macy's sales rack and leave this discussion to people who have a clue.

YOUR LINK:

"The most remarkable aspect of recent trends in consumer confidence has been its resistance to change in either direction due to very negative GDP nor very positive employment gains," survey director Richard Curtin said in a statement.

"This stability will provide the necessary strength for consumer spending to continue to expand, but does not support an acceleration in spending above 2.5 percent."

The survey's barometer of current economic conditions rose to 97.1 from 96.6, compared with a forecast of 97.0."

You can't even tell what the hell you're reading.

Go back and read my post about GRADATION.

 

[EconChick]

Ohhhhhhh! You don't want personal anecdotes? You want some data? Cool.

Here, dummy. This is how Americans FEEL.

https://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerconfidence.cfm

You knew about that index, right?

Thread fail.

I love when you reveal what a really low IQ you have. First of all, June's wasn't that great, but being the genius that you are, you failed to look at the current data - for July.

It ain't good goldilocks.


U.S. consumer sentiment dips in preliminary July reading | Reuters


U.S. Consumer Sentiment Dips in Preliminary July readings



(Reuters) - U.S. consumer sentiment dipped in early July while an index of consumer expectations weakened for a third straight month, a survey released on Friday showed..........


LL, you really need to head off to the Macy's sales rack and leave this discussion to people who have a clue.

Funny. How is it in comparison to January 2009?

I own some funds that include Macy's. But I shop at Men's Wearhouse and The Gap. You want some style tips?

This thread sucks, doesn't it? You have yet to prove the premise. Bottom line.....you said. Your bottom line is fucking wrong. Some economist.

Yet you can't stop posting in it. LMAO.

 

[Dad2three]

So you dig up one thing Frank says and ignore the other 50 big-spending things he says??????????? Way to go, that's persuasive.

Please anyone out there..... raise your hand if you think Barney Frank was a financial conservative who urged as little spending, as little government subsidization, and as little handouts as Dad2three would have you think.

Nope, don't see any hands.

What does spending have to do with DUBYA'S REGULATOR PROBLEM AS HE CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS IN A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE? Grow a brain



I know, the Dems and Barney HATED regulations and regulators right?

BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET 2004

There's a balance when it comes to regulation. I don't agree with the ZERO regulation mentality....anymore than I agree with the other extreme.

It's obvious you don't know where the balance is. You just parrot left wing points. In fact we've gone too far in the other direction now with Dodd/Frank.

That's why so many banks aren't lending!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BANKS AREN'T LENDING BECAUSE OF DODD/FRANK? lol



The most obvious problem with the act is the the name.

Dodd-Frank was never a reform bill.

It was never intended to reform the corrupt, dysfunctional casino that is Wall Street. It's purpose was always to merely regulate the corrupt, dysfunctional casino that is Wall Street.


Even on that limited level, of bringing the festering corruption under regulation, Dodd-Frank has failed.


One way to measure the failure of Dodd-Frank after four years is to see how well the regulations have been carried out. Unfortunately, that is impossible because half of the rules haven't even been written.

As of April 1, only 52% of the 398 rules mandated by the law have been completed, according to law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.

Now you might be thinking that it should only take another 3 years or so and we will finally see how Dodd-Frank looks like, but you would be wrong. Why? Because implementation of these rules often don't kick in for up to a decade later.
The Failures of Dodd-Frank


PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE TELL ME WHY D/F STOPS BANKS FROM LENDING?

 

[EconChick]

Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”


2000 US mortgage origination $1 trillion a year

2004-2007 $4 TRILLION A YEAR

Bush REQUIRED F/F to buy $44o BILLION in MBS's to meet his 'affordable housing goals', the ones he ramped up from 50% to 56% for F/F AND TOOK CLINTON'S RULE OF NOT CREDITING F/F FOR 'HIGH COST (SEE SUBPRIME LOANS) OFF IN 2004


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35+-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

US household debt doubled under Bush. WHILE incomes stagnated

CLINTON?

Yeah. Glass-Steagall/Gramm-Leach-Billey and NAFTA. He fucked up.

' Glass-Steagall/Gramm-Leach-Billey '

ZERO to do with Dubya's regulator failure!


?Repeal? of Glass-Steagall Irrelevant to Financial Crisis | Tom Woods


NAFTA bad for US but didn't cause the crash

Wow you dig up all these Keynsian morons and I'm supposed to jump up and down with excitement.

Do you even know what is meant by Keynsians?

 

[Dad2three]

Clinton owns much of the blame for the shitty state of the economy. Of course....his errors were the result of his borrowing ideas from cons. But he did fuck up.

If Bush had recognized the problems when he took the reins, he might have done something about them. But he didn't. He was a full on supporter of free trade agreements and weak regulatory atmosphere that led to our being fucked.

EconChic is right. The troubles began long ago.

But.....that does not pertain to the topic of this thread. This thread assumes that Americans are down on the economy. They are not.....especially in comparison to January, 2009.

Fucking thread fail.

CLINTON?

Oh here we go with how great the Clinton years were.


Is it too much to ask someone trying to convince the world they understand the topic of economics to acknowledge that

-some economic occurrences are due to short term factors
-some economic occurrences are due to medium term factors
-and some economic occurrences are due to long-term factors (like bubbles)

The success of the Clinton economy was in large part a result of the years of all the hard work Reagan had done to clean up the economy........and the hard work Reagan did to bring the Cold War to an end. Clinton also gets some credit but most of it was due to conditions laid down by Reagan in the 80s.

I'm not going to spend the 100s of hours it would take to explain that to you. Try researching it yourself instead of believing all the propaganda you slurp up.

Reagan gets credit huh? NEVER heard that one before *shaking head*

I guess tripling the debt and blowing up spending like Ronnie did helped Clinton? Or was it ignoring the regulator warnings on the S&L crisis?

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.

This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his “Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,” along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter.


...Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of “Containment” by eight U.S. presidents. As Tony Judt’s Postwar concluded: “…Washington did not ‘bring down’ Communism – Communism imploded of its own accord.”

Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


Establishing Fiscal Discipline and Paying off the National Debt

President Clinton’s Record on Fiscal Discipline: Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000.



To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote.

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." — Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994



"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." — Business Week, May 19, 1997

The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah. Glass-Steagall/Gramm-Leach-Billey and NAFTA. He fucked up.

' Glass-Steagall/Gramm-Leach-Billey '

ZERO to do with Dubya's regulator failure!


?Repeal? of Glass-Steagall Irrelevant to Financial Crisis | Tom Woods


NAFTA bad for US but didn't cause the crash

Wow you dig up all these Keynsian morons and I'm supposed to jump up and down with excitement.

Do you even know what is meant by Keynsians?

Tom Woods Keynasian? lol

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of 11 books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and Meltdown (on the financial crisis). A senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute,

YOU KNOW WHO MISES IS RIGHT? LOL

 

[Siete]

Who is stopping regulation of derivatives today?

Once again, blame it on Bush. Even 2nd graders can see through that bullsheeet.

no blame on Bush whatsoever... just disputing your inane comments.

see how that works?

 

[EconChick]

How can you debate people like Krugman and Dads 2 who don't even know what a sumprime mortgage is or understand that the government was slapping AAA rating on subprime paper?!!

LOL. I'm used to debating people who say the ocean is made of bubblegum and the skies made of cotton candy.

At some point even readers with the most elementary understanding start to grasp what kind of empty vessels they are.

 

[Dad2three]

I love when you reveal what a really low IQ you have. First of all, June's wasn't that great, but being the genius that you are, you failed to look at the current data - for July.

It ain't good goldilocks.

U.S. consumer sentiment dips in preliminary July reading | Reuters


U.S. Consumer Sentiment Dips in Preliminary July readings



(Reuters) - U.S. consumer sentiment dipped in early July while an index of consumer expectations weakened for a third straight month, a survey released on Friday showed..........


LL, you really need to head off to the Macy's sales rack and leave this discussion to people who have a clue.

YOUR LINK:

"The most remarkable aspect of recent trends in consumer confidence has been its resistance to change in either direction due to very negative GDP nor very positive employment gains," survey director Richard Curtin said in a statement.

"This stability will provide the necessary strength for consumer spending to continue to expand, but does not support an acceleration in spending above 2.5 percent."

The survey's barometer of current economic conditions rose to 97.1 from 96.6, compared with a forecast of 97.0."

You can't even tell what the hell you're reading.

Go back and read my post about GRADATION.

Got it, you are a TOOL..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How can you debate people like Krugman and Dads 2 who don't even know what a sumprime mortgage is or understand that the government was slapping AAA rating on subprime paper?!!

You do realize Gov't doesn't rate loans right?

Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."


Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie


“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast

You are just stupid, just plain stupid.

 

[EconChick]

How can you debate people like Krugman and Dads 2 who don't even know what a sumprime mortgage is or understand that the government was slapping AAA rating on subprime paper?!!

You do realize Gov't doesn't rate loans right?

Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."


Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie


“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast

I understood what he meant. The fact you didn't is because you don't know this topic....you just parrot a bunch of DNC talking points.

 

[Dad2three]

How can you debate people like Krugman and Dads 2 who don't even know what a sumprime mortgage is or understand that the government was slapping AAA rating on subprime paper?!!

You do realize Gov't doesn't rate loans right?

Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."


Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie


“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast

You are just stupid, just plain stupid.

Got it, ad homs and bullshit EVERYTHING I've come to expect from you

 

[Dad2three]

How can you debate people like Krugman and Dads 2 who don't even know what a sumprime mortgage is or understand that the government was slapping AAA rating on subprime paper?!!

You do realize Gov't doesn't rate loans right?

Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."


Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie


“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast

I understood what he meant. The fact you didn't is because you don't know this topic....you just parrot a bunch of DNC talking points.

Let me guess? Gov't made the Banksters create a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE? Right? lol



Grow a frkking brain