Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh good, a straw man. I didn't say Paulson was "actually running the country".Well, since I'm an investment advisor, neck deep in the investing & financial world and had to guide the life savings of a couple of hundred clients through the Meltdown, I'll have to take your word for it. You must know MUCH more about it than I.Bush had to stand back and allow TARP to be crammed through because he had no choice. The economy was in abject collapse.From your end of the spectrum, that's what I would expect.
Bush left behind the worst and most complex financial/business disaster of our lifetimes, but he was better.
Okay, sure.
.
Bush set Obama up with TARP. Obama gave us ObamaCare and the Obama Stimulus...the first was a job killer and the second under performed so badly they had to bullshit us on the numbers with "Jobs Saved or Created"!
What I found telling about Obama was what his next big policy goal was going to be...passing Cap & Trade legislation. THAT would have been devastating to the US economy!
Bush celebrated and trumpeted the phony real estate numbers all the way through his presidency. He celebrated and trumpeted the lack of regulations that allowed the ratings agencies to sell AAA (Treasury-level!) ratings for the absolute shit securities that brought us down. He celebrated and trumpeted the lack of regulations that allowed AIG to sell zillions of dollars in credit default swaps (insurance) on those shit securities with zero (0) dollars in reserve for them. Hey, what could go wrong?!
He happily turned a blind eye to the absolutely insane loans being offered and sold by mortgage companies, who knew they'd have them packaged and sold as (holy shit, wtf) AAA by noon the next day. He loved the lack of regulation that allowed the banks to SHORT the very shit securities they were SELLING as AAA. He smiled as Alan Greenspan - who would later say "oops, shit, sorry, my bad" - aggressively refused to regulate critical derivatives markets even though he had the authority to do so, even though CFTC Chairperson Brooksley Born herself BEGGED him to.
In other words, Bush took credit for the all supposed good stuff, and then handed a steaming pile of shit to his successor. Nothing Obama did after that, as blatantly naive as he was about business, caused as much damage to both businesses and individuals as Bush did. Not even close.
.
Did you sleep through the Bush Presidency, Mac? You might want to go back and read up on it.
Bush pushed TARP through despite getting some pretty serious heat from fiscal conservatives from his own party who were dead set against "bailing out" financial institutions.
He also was one of the few in Washington that was warning about a looming problem with the housing market and what was being done over at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Bush is far from blameless for the 2007 recession but he's also not the "master" of that disaster as you'd like to make him out to be and his handling of TARP loans...in hindsight...was well done.
As for what Obama "did" to businesses? Passing the ACA?...putting in place more new regulations than any other administration in history?...changing the rule of law to favor the UAW over creditors in the GM deal?...using the Gulf oil spill to shut down permitting for all drilling even shallow water drilling that had an almost perfect safety record?...taking Boeing to court because they opened a plant in South Carolina, a right to work State, rather than Washington? That's not even delving into what his PROPOSED regulations...like Cap & Trade...did to businesses trying to plan their long term strategies!
It seems like you've managed to sleep through two Presidencies, Mac!
I notice you didn't address my specifics. That's okay. Most people's knowledge of what actually happened is shallow, distorted or both.
And actually it was then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson who came up with and pushed TARP through the political morass. Bush just did as he was told and otherwise stayed the hell out of the way like a good boy.
You may want to fool with someone else on this topic.
.
Are you kidding me? Now you're claiming that it was Henry Paulson that was actually running the country and George W. Bush just did what he was told to do...like a good little boy?
I sincerely hope that nobody goes to you for investment advise, Mac...because to be quite blunt...you're an IDIOT!
As for addressing your "specifics"? What clueless thing did you want me to address?
Oh good, a straw man. I didn't say Paulson was "actually running the country".Well, since I'm an investment advisor, neck deep in the investing & financial world and had to guide the life savings of a couple of hundred clients through the Meltdown, I'll have to take your word for it. You must know MUCH more about it than I.Bush had to stand back and allow TARP to be crammed through because he had no choice. The economy was in abject collapse.Bush set Obama up with TARP. Obama gave us ObamaCare and the Obama Stimulus...the first was a job killer and the second under performed so badly they had to bullshit us on the numbers with "Jobs Saved or Created"!
What I found telling about Obama was what his next big policy goal was going to be...passing Cap & Trade legislation. THAT would have been devastating to the US economy!
Bush celebrated and trumpeted the phony real estate numbers all the way through his presidency. He celebrated and trumpeted the lack of regulations that allowed the ratings agencies to sell AAA (Treasury-level!) ratings for the absolute shit securities that brought us down. He celebrated and trumpeted the lack of regulations that allowed AIG to sell zillions of dollars in credit default swaps (insurance) on those shit securities with zero (0) dollars in reserve for them. Hey, what could go wrong?!
He happily turned a blind eye to the absolutely insane loans being offered and sold by mortgage companies, who knew they'd have them packaged and sold as (holy shit, wtf) AAA by noon the next day. He loved the lack of regulation that allowed the banks to SHORT the very shit securities they were SELLING as AAA. He smiled as Alan Greenspan - who would later say "oops, shit, sorry, my bad" - aggressively refused to regulate critical derivatives markets even though he had the authority to do so, even though CFTC Chairperson Brooksley Born herself BEGGED him to.
In other words, Bush took credit for the all supposed good stuff, and then handed a steaming pile of shit to his successor. Nothing Obama did after that, as blatantly naive as he was about business, caused as much damage to both businesses and individuals as Bush did. Not even close.
.
Did you sleep through the Bush Presidency, Mac? You might want to go back and read up on it.
Bush pushed TARP through despite getting some pretty serious heat from fiscal conservatives from his own party who were dead set against "bailing out" financial institutions.
He also was one of the few in Washington that was warning about a looming problem with the housing market and what was being done over at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Bush is far from blameless for the 2007 recession but he's also not the "master" of that disaster as you'd like to make him out to be and his handling of TARP loans...in hindsight...was well done.
As for what Obama "did" to businesses? Passing the ACA?...putting in place more new regulations than any other administration in history?...changing the rule of law to favor the UAW over creditors in the GM deal?...using the Gulf oil spill to shut down permitting for all drilling even shallow water drilling that had an almost perfect safety record?...taking Boeing to court because they opened a plant in South Carolina, a right to work State, rather than Washington? That's not even delving into what his PROPOSED regulations...like Cap & Trade...did to businesses trying to plan their long term strategies!
It seems like you've managed to sleep through two Presidencies, Mac!
I notice you didn't address my specifics. That's okay. Most people's knowledge of what actually happened is shallow, distorted or both.
And actually it was then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson who came up with and pushed TARP through the political morass. Bush just did as he was told and otherwise stayed the hell out of the way like a good boy.
You may want to fool with someone else on this topic.
.
Are you kidding me? Now you're claiming that it was Henry Paulson that was actually running the country and George W. Bush just did what he was told to do...like a good little boy?
I sincerely hope that nobody goes to you for investment advise, Mac...because to be quite blunt...you're an IDIOT!
As for addressing your "specifics"? What clueless thing did you want me to address?
It's always a good sign when a partisan has to resort to straw man arguments. And personal insults. And name-calling.
I provided a long list of specific, fundamental elements of the Meltdown and you're avoiding them because you have absolutely no idea what they mean.
I can understand that, since talk radio doesn't cover them much, 'n stuff.
.
Great, thanks.Oh good, a straw man. I didn't say Paulson was "actually running the country".Well, since I'm an investment advisor, neck deep in the investing & financial world and had to guide the life savings of a couple of hundred clients through the Meltdown, I'll have to take your word for it. You must know MUCH more about it than I.Bush had to stand back and allow TARP to be crammed through because he had no choice. The economy was in abject collapse.
Bush celebrated and trumpeted the phony real estate numbers all the way through his presidency. He celebrated and trumpeted the lack of regulations that allowed the ratings agencies to sell AAA (Treasury-level!) ratings for the absolute shit securities that brought us down. He celebrated and trumpeted the lack of regulations that allowed AIG to sell zillions of dollars in credit default swaps (insurance) on those shit securities with zero (0) dollars in reserve for them. Hey, what could go wrong?!
He happily turned a blind eye to the absolutely insane loans being offered and sold by mortgage companies, who knew they'd have them packaged and sold as (holy shit, wtf) AAA by noon the next day. He loved the lack of regulation that allowed the banks to SHORT the very shit securities they were SELLING as AAA. He smiled as Alan Greenspan - who would later say "oops, shit, sorry, my bad" - aggressively refused to regulate critical derivatives markets even though he had the authority to do so, even though CFTC Chairperson Brooksley Born herself BEGGED him to.
In other words, Bush took credit for the all supposed good stuff, and then handed a steaming pile of shit to his successor. Nothing Obama did after that, as blatantly naive as he was about business, caused as much damage to both businesses and individuals as Bush did. Not even close.
.
Did you sleep through the Bush Presidency, Mac? You might want to go back and read up on it.
Bush pushed TARP through despite getting some pretty serious heat from fiscal conservatives from his own party who were dead set against "bailing out" financial institutions.
He also was one of the few in Washington that was warning about a looming problem with the housing market and what was being done over at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Bush is far from blameless for the 2007 recession but he's also not the "master" of that disaster as you'd like to make him out to be and his handling of TARP loans...in hindsight...was well done.
As for what Obama "did" to businesses? Passing the ACA?...putting in place more new regulations than any other administration in history?...changing the rule of law to favor the UAW over creditors in the GM deal?...using the Gulf oil spill to shut down permitting for all drilling even shallow water drilling that had an almost perfect safety record?...taking Boeing to court because they opened a plant in South Carolina, a right to work State, rather than Washington? That's not even delving into what his PROPOSED regulations...like Cap & Trade...did to businesses trying to plan their long term strategies!
It seems like you've managed to sleep through two Presidencies, Mac!
I notice you didn't address my specifics. That's okay. Most people's knowledge of what actually happened is shallow, distorted or both.
And actually it was then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson who came up with and pushed TARP through the political morass. Bush just did as he was told and otherwise stayed the hell out of the way like a good boy.
You may want to fool with someone else on this topic.
.
Are you kidding me? Now you're claiming that it was Henry Paulson that was actually running the country and George W. Bush just did what he was told to do...like a good little boy?
I sincerely hope that nobody goes to you for investment advise, Mac...because to be quite blunt...you're an IDIOT!
As for addressing your "specifics"? What clueless thing did you want me to address?
It's always a good sign when a partisan has to resort to straw man arguments. And personal insults. And name-calling.
I provided a long list of specific, fundamental elements of the Meltdown and you're avoiding them because you have absolutely no idea what they mean.
I can understand that, since talk radio doesn't cover them much, 'n stuff.
.
Explain to me what you WERE saying when you said that TARP was all Paulson and George W. Bush did what he was told like a good little boy? You weren't saying that Paulson was running the economy? Oh, wait...you DID say that but then realized how stupid a comment it was and tried to walk it back! Then you whine about "straw man arguments"? How is it a straw man to point out that you're full of shit on what you claimed?
Your so called long list of specific, fundamental elements of the Meltdown was nothing more than you blaming everything that happened on Bush. I replied to that nonsense...which you ignored...Bush bears some of the blame for the meltdown but he also deserves credit for seeing a problem with how credit was being handled at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and trying to get Congress to address the problem.
Great, thanks.Oh good, a straw man. I didn't say Paulson was "actually running the country".Well, since I'm an investment advisor, neck deep in the investing & financial world and had to guide the life savings of a couple of hundred clients through the Meltdown, I'll have to take your word for it. You must know MUCH more about it than I.Did you sleep through the Bush Presidency, Mac? You might want to go back and read up on it.
Bush pushed TARP through despite getting some pretty serious heat from fiscal conservatives from his own party who were dead set against "bailing out" financial institutions.
He also was one of the few in Washington that was warning about a looming problem with the housing market and what was being done over at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Bush is far from blameless for the 2007 recession but he's also not the "master" of that disaster as you'd like to make him out to be and his handling of TARP loans...in hindsight...was well done.
As for what Obama "did" to businesses? Passing the ACA?...putting in place more new regulations than any other administration in history?...changing the rule of law to favor the UAW over creditors in the GM deal?...using the Gulf oil spill to shut down permitting for all drilling even shallow water drilling that had an almost perfect safety record?...taking Boeing to court because they opened a plant in South Carolina, a right to work State, rather than Washington? That's not even delving into what his PROPOSED regulations...like Cap & Trade...did to businesses trying to plan their long term strategies!
It seems like you've managed to sleep through two Presidencies, Mac!
I notice you didn't address my specifics. That's okay. Most people's knowledge of what actually happened is shallow, distorted or both.
And actually it was then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson who came up with and pushed TARP through the political morass. Bush just did as he was told and otherwise stayed the hell out of the way like a good boy.
You may want to fool with someone else on this topic.
.
Are you kidding me? Now you're claiming that it was Henry Paulson that was actually running the country and George W. Bush just did what he was told to do...like a good little boy?
I sincerely hope that nobody goes to you for investment advise, Mac...because to be quite blunt...you're an IDIOT!
As for addressing your "specifics"? What clueless thing did you want me to address?
It's always a good sign when a partisan has to resort to straw man arguments. And personal insults. And name-calling.
I provided a long list of specific, fundamental elements of the Meltdown and you're avoiding them because you have absolutely no idea what they mean.
I can understand that, since talk radio doesn't cover them much, 'n stuff.
.
Explain to me what you WERE saying when you said that TARP was all Paulson and George W. Bush did what he was told like a good little boy? You weren't saying that Paulson was running the economy? Oh, wait...you DID say that but then realized how stupid a comment it was and tried to walk it back! Then you whine about "straw man arguments"? How is it a straw man to point out that you're full of shit on what you claimed?
Your so called long list of specific, fundamental elements of the Meltdown was nothing more than you blaming everything that happened on Bush. I replied to that nonsense...which you ignored...Bush bears some of the blame for the meltdown but he also deserves credit for seeing a problem with how credit was being handled at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and trying to get Congress to address the problem.
.
I don't know what you want from me. You clearly don't know the details of what happened.Great, thanks.Oh good, a straw man. I didn't say Paulson was "actually running the country".Well, since I'm an investment advisor, neck deep in the investing & financial world and had to guide the life savings of a couple of hundred clients through the Meltdown, I'll have to take your word for it. You must know MUCH more about it than I.
I notice you didn't address my specifics. That's okay. Most people's knowledge of what actually happened is shallow, distorted or both.
And actually it was then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson who came up with and pushed TARP through the political morass. Bush just did as he was told and otherwise stayed the hell out of the way like a good boy.
You may want to fool with someone else on this topic.
.
Are you kidding me? Now you're claiming that it was Henry Paulson that was actually running the country and George W. Bush just did what he was told to do...like a good little boy?
I sincerely hope that nobody goes to you for investment advise, Mac...because to be quite blunt...you're an IDIOT!
As for addressing your "specifics"? What clueless thing did you want me to address?
It's always a good sign when a partisan has to resort to straw man arguments. And personal insults. And name-calling.
I provided a long list of specific, fundamental elements of the Meltdown and you're avoiding them because you have absolutely no idea what they mean.
I can understand that, since talk radio doesn't cover them much, 'n stuff.
.
Explain to me what you WERE saying when you said that TARP was all Paulson and George W. Bush did what he was told like a good little boy? You weren't saying that Paulson was running the economy? Oh, wait...you DID say that but then realized how stupid a comment it was and tried to walk it back! Then you whine about "straw man arguments"? How is it a straw man to point out that you're full of shit on what you claimed?
Your so called long list of specific, fundamental elements of the Meltdown was nothing more than you blaming everything that happened on Bush. I replied to that nonsense...which you ignored...Bush bears some of the blame for the meltdown but he also deserves credit for seeing a problem with how credit was being handled at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and trying to get Congress to address the problem.
.
That's your explanation? Noted.
The 108th Congress was completely controlled by the GOP!!!!!LIAR!It never made it to the Senate because it was stopped in committee with equal number of representatives on both sides.
The majority Party always has 2 more votes than the minority Party, one more member plus the chairman.
In 2003, the Bush Administration sought to create a new agency, replacing the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 1992 in the wake of the savings and loan crisis, and over concern similar lending problems would develop, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight was created as part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.[19] While Senate and House leaders voiced their intention to bring about the needed legislation, no reform bills materialized. A Senate reform bill introduced by Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) (S.1656[20]) never made it out of the 21-member (10 D, 11 R) Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.[21] At the time, some members of the 108th congress expressed faith in the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), for example, described them as "not facing any kind of financial crisis".[22]
Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - Wikipedia
I don’t always bash on Trump, I give him credit when credit is due. You don’t seem objective enough to call this one for what it obviously is so it makes you sound like an ideologue. You either can’t give Obama credit because you don’t like him or you can’t call out Trumps BS. Either way it’s a credibility loss for you.Dodging an answer then huh? Nicelibertarians have a side of the aisle now? Bam, cool!Well take a position, it isn’t rocket science. It’s ok to call out the bullshit that comes from your side of the aisle. It might actually give you some credibilityWhat about i didnt take a position on that dont you grasp?So when Trump takes credit for the amazing unemployment rates in 2017, you understand that he is full of shit right?
Idiot
Look ass wipe. I'm not a Trump supporter and you can't assign me the task of giving enough of a shit about one specific stat one specific year to argue it with an ideologue who's not intellectually honest enough to have any position on any point but to bash Trump.
Find a Trump supporter to bicker with about your Trump butt hurt. They're all over the board, stupid fuck
I don’t always bash on Trump, I give him credit when credit is due. You don’t seem objective enough to call this one for what it obviously is so it makes you sound like an ideologue. You either can’t give Obama credit because you don’t like him or you can’t call out Trumps BS. Either way it’s a credibility loss for you.Dodging an answer then huh? Nicelibertarians have a side of the aisle now? Bam, cool!Well take a position, it isn’t rocket science. It’s ok to call out the bullshit that comes from your side of the aisle. It might actually give you some credibilityWhat about i didnt take a position on that dont you grasp?
Idiot
Look ass wipe. I'm not a Trump supporter and you can't assign me the task of giving enough of a shit about one specific stat one specific year to argue it with an ideologue who's not intellectually honest enough to have any position on any point but to bash Trump.
Find a Trump supporter to bicker with about your Trump butt hurt. They're all over the board, stupid fuck
What have I not been honest about Kaz? Point to something, otherwise you are just pulling shit out of your ass. I’m not a Trump hater. He acts like a bully child which is embarrassing but he also has been doing good things with some of his policy’s which I appreciate.I don’t always bash on Trump, I give him credit when credit is due. You don’t seem objective enough to call this one for what it obviously is so it makes you sound like an ideologue. You either can’t give Obama credit because you don’t like him or you can’t call out Trumps BS. Either way it’s a credibility loss for you.Dodging an answer then huh? Nicelibertarians have a side of the aisle now? Bam, cool!Well take a position, it isn’t rocket science. It’s ok to call out the bullshit that comes from your side of the aisle. It might actually give you some credibility
Idiot
Look ass wipe. I'm not a Trump supporter and you can't assign me the task of giving enough of a shit about one specific stat one specific year to argue it with an ideologue who's not intellectually honest enough to have any position on any point but to bash Trump.
Find a Trump supporter to bicker with about your Trump butt hurt. They're all over the board, stupid fuck
Slade: Um ... kaz, here's a stat, take a position on it and defend it
kaz: pass
Slade: O ... M .... G. You're an ideologue!
Idiot.
If you were more interesting, I might dabble in it. But you're another leftist butt hurt obsessed with Trump. There is no debate with you because you're not intellectually honest. You just want to bicker about Trump. Find a Trump supporter to do that with. They're all over the board and they'll be glad to bicker with you about Trump
[What have I not been honest about Kaz?
LOLOLOLOLOLI didnt put anyone on ignore for that. I put the couple of playgrounders you rounded up who were chanting on ignore for playground chanting someone else's material.LOLFaun is kazzing again. A recession that started 3/11 is because of 9/11. Cant make up the stupid that he actually isCorrect, and there would have been no recession at all if not for 9.11.There was no recession at the end of Clinton’s presidency.
Exactly! The recession didn't start until March 2001.
WTF is 3/11??
And who’s making anything up? You think 9.11 wasn’t the catalyst for that recession just because you’re ignorant of that fact?
The group also said the economy might have been able to avoid a recession without the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, which all but shut down the economy for several days and has had a lasting impact on tourism, the airline industry and other businesses.
Economists say recession began in March - Nov. 26, 2001
By the way, are you going to put yourself on ignore for using the name “Kaz” as a synonym for liar?
It was your line. I didnt put you on ignore until you started flaming me.
3/11 is march 2011, stupid fuck. You are blaming a recession on an event that happened six months later the recession started. My god you are stupid
Keep calling me a "stupid fuck" while you keep railing about a recession in "March, 2011," when the recession was actually a decade earlier; in 2001.
Damn, I love that kind of irony, don't you?
Oh, and by the way, kazzing Kaz .... it wasn't me who came up with the notion that 9.11 could have been the final hit to our economy in 2001 which resulted in a recession -- it was the NBER.
LOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLI didnt put anyone on ignore for that. I put the couple of playgrounders you rounded up who were chanting on ignore for playground chanting someone else's material.LOLFaun is kazzing again. A recession that started 3/11 is because of 9/11. Cant make up the stupid that he actually isCorrect, and there would have been no recession at all if not for 9.11.
WTF is 3/11??
And who’s making anything up? You think 9.11 wasn’t the catalyst for that recession just because you’re ignorant of that fact?
The group also said the economy might have been able to avoid a recession without the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, which all but shut down the economy for several days and has had a lasting impact on tourism, the airline industry and other businesses.
Economists say recession began in March - Nov. 26, 2001
By the way, are you going to put yourself on ignore for using the name “Kaz” as a synonym for liar?
It was your line. I didnt put you on ignore until you started flaming me.
3/11 is march 2011, stupid fuck. You are blaming a recession on an event that happened six months later the recession started. My god you are stupid
Keep calling me a "stupid fuck" while you keep railing about a recession in "March, 2011," when the recession was actually a decade earlier; in 2001.
Damn, I love that kind of irony, don't you?
Oh, and by the way, kazzing Kaz .... it wasn't me who came up with the notion that 9.11 could have been the final hit to our economy in 2001 which resulted in a recession -- it was the NBER.
This is your reaction to finding a typo. I guess with your record in having your ass handed to you across the board, you'll take what you can get.
The economy had been in a recession for six months before 9/11. It would have been in recession for over a year other than that 3Q00 which was originally rated negative was later recast as a minuscule positive.
Leftists never have the gonads to take any responsibility. You're finger pointers. On the other hand, look at the bright side. Here's another post you can scour for another typo!!!
Hey look, I used three explanation points. Is that right???
LOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLI didnt put anyone on ignore for that. I put the couple of playgrounders you rounded up who were chanting on ignore for playground chanting someone else's material.LOLFaun is kazzing again. A recession that started 3/11 is because of 9/11. Cant make up the stupid that he actually is
WTF is 3/11??
And who’s making anything up? You think 9.11 wasn’t the catalyst for that recession just because you’re ignorant of that fact?
The group also said the economy might have been able to avoid a recession without the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, which all but shut down the economy for several days and has had a lasting impact on tourism, the airline industry and other businesses.
Economists say recession began in March - Nov. 26, 2001
By the way, are you going to put yourself on ignore for using the name “Kaz” as a synonym for liar?
It was your line. I didnt put you on ignore until you started flaming me.
3/11 is march 2011, stupid fuck. You are blaming a recession on an event that happened six months later the recession started. My god you are stupid
Keep calling me a "stupid fuck" while you keep railing about a recession in "March, 2011," when the recession was actually a decade earlier; in 2001.
Damn, I love that kind of irony, don't you?
Oh, and by the way, kazzing Kaz .... it wasn't me who came up with the notion that 9.11 could have been the final hit to our economy in 2001 which resulted in a recession -- it was the NBER.
This is your reaction to finding a typo. I guess with your record in having your ass handed to you across the board, you'll take what you can get.
The economy had been in a recession for six months before 9/11. It would have been in recession for over a year other than that 3Q00 which was originally rated negative was later recast as a minuscule positive.
Leftists never have the gonads to take any responsibility. You're finger pointers. On the other hand, look at the bright side. Here's another post you can scour for another typo!!!
Hey look, I used three explanation points. Is that right???
Typos are mistakes. You posted “11” three times because you are an idiot as well as a kazzer.
As far as 9.11 being what pushed the economy into recession l’m not the one who made that up, I gave you a link showing you the NBER was the one who said that. Stay stupid. See if anyone cares.
Damn, just how fucking retarded are you?? The 2001 Recession wasn’t formally declared by the NBER until November, 2001. That’s After 9.11, ya flamin’ idiot. AND I gave you a link which stated the NBER said without 9.11, they might not have determined any recession at all.LOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLI didnt put anyone on ignore for that. I put the couple of playgrounders you rounded up who were chanting on ignore for playground chanting someone else's material.LOL
WTF is 3/11??
And who’s making anything up? You think 9.11 wasn’t the catalyst for that recession just because you’re ignorant of that fact?
The group also said the economy might have been able to avoid a recession without the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, which all but shut down the economy for several days and has had a lasting impact on tourism, the airline industry and other businesses.
Economists say recession began in March - Nov. 26, 2001
By the way, are you going to put yourself on ignore for using the name “Kaz” as a synonym for liar?
It was your line. I didnt put you on ignore until you started flaming me.
3/11 is march 2011, stupid fuck. You are blaming a recession on an event that happened six months later the recession started. My god you are stupid
Keep calling me a "stupid fuck" while you keep railing about a recession in "March, 2011," when the recession was actually a decade earlier; in 2001.
Damn, I love that kind of irony, don't you?
Oh, and by the way, kazzing Kaz .... it wasn't me who came up with the notion that 9.11 could have been the final hit to our economy in 2001 which resulted in a recession -- it was the NBER.
This is your reaction to finding a typo. I guess with your record in having your ass handed to you across the board, you'll take what you can get.
The economy had been in a recession for six months before 9/11. It would have been in recession for over a year other than that 3Q00 which was originally rated negative was later recast as a minuscule positive.
Leftists never have the gonads to take any responsibility. You're finger pointers. On the other hand, look at the bright side. Here's another post you can scour for another typo!!!
Hey look, I used three explanation points. Is that right???
Typos are mistakes. You posted “11” three times because you are an idiot as well as a kazzer.
As far as 9.11 being what pushed the economy into recession l’m not the one who made that up, I gave you a link showing you the NBER was the one who said that. Stay stupid. See if anyone cares.
You're kazzing again. You're such a kazzer.
"According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which is the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization charged with determining economic recessions, the U.S. economy was inrecession from March 2001 to November 2001"
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia
You keep kazzing and saying that an event in September, 2001 caused an event that happened six months earlier. You're just kazzing all the time at this point
There is no fair judge of Obama & budget on this board by any one either side of the isle, I join the rest, just a dump site, not an information learning site.
Damn, just how fucking retarded are you?? The 2001 Recession wasn’t formally declared by the NBER until November, 2001. That’s After 9.11, ya flamin’ idiot. AND I gave you a link which stated the NBER said without 9.11, they might not have determined any recession at all.LOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLI didnt put anyone on ignore for that. I put the couple of playgrounders you rounded up who were chanting on ignore for playground chanting someone else's material.
It was your line. I didnt put you on ignore until you started flaming me.
3/11 is march 2011, stupid fuck. You are blaming a recession on an event that happened six months later the recession started. My god you are stupid
Keep calling me a "stupid fuck" while you keep railing about a recession in "March, 2011," when the recession was actually a decade earlier; in 2001.
Damn, I love that kind of irony, don't you?
Oh, and by the way, kazzing Kaz .... it wasn't me who came up with the notion that 9.11 could have been the final hit to our economy in 2001 which resulted in a recession -- it was the NBER.
This is your reaction to finding a typo. I guess with your record in having your ass handed to you across the board, you'll take what you can get.
The economy had been in a recession for six months before 9/11. It would have been in recession for over a year other than that 3Q00 which was originally rated negative was later recast as a minuscule positive.
Leftists never have the gonads to take any responsibility. You're finger pointers. On the other hand, look at the bright side. Here's another post you can scour for another typo!!!
Hey look, I used three explanation points. Is that right???
Typos are mistakes. You posted “11” three times because you are an idiot as well as a kazzer.
As far as 9.11 being what pushed the economy into recession l’m not the one who made that up, I gave you a link showing you the NBER was the one who said that. Stay stupid. See if anyone cares.
You're kazzing again. You're such a kazzer.
"According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which is the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization charged with determining economic recessions, the U.S. economy was inrecession from March 2001 to November 2001"
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia
You keep kazzing and saying that an event in September, 2001 caused an event that happened six months earlier. You're just kazzing all the time at this point
Economists say recession began in March - Nov. 26, 2001
Doesn’t being as stupid as you are hurt your head?
