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.
Everyone who was informed as to why AA was held liable following the ENRON collapse.Arthur Anderson was deregulated? Who knew?No, I asked what deregulation occurred in 2000.
There isn't any. It is a myth propagated by the Left. You are left arguing that an act signed by Clinton in 1999 was somehow responsible for a downturn nearly 10 years later.
It won't wash.
The deregulation of Arthur Anderson occurred in 1995 and it went bust in 2002.
The time required to set up and fund the deregulated Wall St banks and then sell all of those subprime mortgages and then for them to start maturing 5 years later fits perfectly with the 2008 collapse.
The New York attorney general may be bringing a civil fraud lawsuit against Ernst & Young, accusing the accounting firm of helping Lehman mislead investors, according to the WSJ.
The accountants were the pushers to the Streets junkies. They allowed all manner of shenanigans to go on, under their imprimatur of legitimacy. From WorldCom to Tyco to Enron and now to Lehman Brothers, most of these frauds would not have been possible without the loving assistance of large and credible accounting firms.
And they did it for the money. Ernst & Young earned approximately $100 million in fees for its auditing work from 2001 through 2008 for Lehman Brothers.
Some people assumed that the death penalty for Arthur Anderson would have kept the industry in line. But such restraint was not to be. Thanks to yet another piece of radical deregulation, the accounting industry was given carte blanche to run wild. The Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 had created a civil liability out for the accountants. It allowed them to legally become Wall Streets pushers, no longer answerable to Investors who were defrauded due to their accounting audits. It practically decriminalized accounting fraud.
Here is a piece of trivia about this ruinous legislation: Prior to becoming SEC Chair, Christopher Cox was one of the authors of the Securities Litigation Reform Act. When a radical deregulator becomes Wall Streets chief cop, what could possibly go wrong?
Here is what I wrote in Bailout Nation about the Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995:
This legislation was supposed to be a way to eliminate class action lawsuits that were the bane of public companies existence. Buried in the legislation was a little-noticed clause that eliminated joint and several liability for those who contribute to securities fraud. The consequences of the change were significant. It removed liability for fraud from the accountants who audited quarterly statements for public companies.
What do you think happened once accountants were no longer liable? An explosion of accounting fraud! The accounting scandals of the late 1990s and early 2000s were directly attributable to this small legal change. So too was the collapse of Enron, which led to the corporate death penalty for Arthur Andersen. We can probably pin the subsequent enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley, which is undoubtedly having all sorts of its own unintended consequences, on that same clause. These all trace back to what the industry itself had requested.
As the saying goes: Be careful what you wish for; you may get it.
We are left to wonder: Who else has questionable accounting . . .?
Sub prime loans are typically 30 year mortgages. They don't mature in 5 years.
Teaser Rates and the ARM
With mortgage lenders exporting much of the risk in subprime lending out the door to investors, they were free to come up with interesting strategies to originate loans with their freed up capital. By using teaser rates (special low rates that would last for the first year or two of a mortgage) within adjustable-rate mortgages (ARM), borrowers could be enticed into an initially affordable mortgage in which payments would skyrocket in three, five, or seven years. (To learn more, read ARMed And Dangerous and American Dream Or Mortgage Nightmare?)
As the real estate market pushed to its peaks in 2005 and 2006, teaser rates, ARMs, and the "interest-only" loan (where no principle payments are made for the first few years) were increasingly pushed upon homeowners. As these loans became more common, fewer borrowers questioned the terms and were instead enticed by the prospect of being able to refinance in a few years (at a huge profit, the argument stated), enabling them to make whatever catch-up payments would be necessary. What borrowers didn't take into account in the booming housing market, however, was that any decrease in home value would leave the borrower with an untenable combination of a balloon payment and a much higher mortgage payment.
A market as close to home as real estate becomes impossible to ignore when it's firing on all cylinders. Over the space of five years, home prices in many areas had literally doubled, and just about anyone who hadn't purchased a home or refinanced considered themselves behind in the race to make money in that market. Mortgage lenders knew this, and pushed ever-more aggressively. New homes couldn't be built fast enough, and homebuilders' stocks soared.
The CDO market (secured mainly with subprime debt) ballooned to more than $600 billion in issuance during 2006 alone - more than 10-times the amount issued just a decade earlier. These securities, although illiquid, were picked up eagerly in the secondary markets, which happily parked them into large institutional funds at their market-beating interest rates.
You are talking out of your ass. Like most libs.
Ironically, if the Republicans were to somehow succeed in repealing Obamacare,
more Americans would lose their current or soon to be acquired insurance than will ever possibly lose it if Obamacare proceeds.
That is now the Republican agenda.
According to your twisted, indoctrinated, leftard bubble head.
LOGICAL reform to health insurance laws is what was NEEDED in the FIRST PLACE, but OOOOOOHHH NOOOOOO, you commie demos wanted GOVERNMENT RUN health care. It's been your wet dream for 50 years. Well you finally got what you wanted without a SINGLE VOTE FROM REPUBLICANS, and AGAINST THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, and now that we all see that it's a MASSIVE TRAIN WRECK, YOU OWN IT, and your boi king's PLUMMETING approval rating shows what Americans think of it all.
Yeah, I think conservatives are sitting in a nice place right now, because you socialist leftards are SELF DESTRUCTING. It's fun to watch. You're all in MELT DOWN MODE here too.
Ironically, if the Republicans were to somehow succeed in repealing Obamacare,
more Americans would lose their current or soon to be acquired insurance than will ever possibly lose it if Obamacare proceeds.
That is now the Republican agenda.
Remember when I explained how you Leftist hangers-on keep seeking someone to bow down to?
This line from the OP fits your deepest desires:
"What made [ObamaCare] peculiarly progressive were the mandates. And not just the law's individual and business mandates to purchase their insurance. The essence of modern Democratic progressivism is: "You will participate in what we have created for you, and you will comply with the law's demands.""
Where, exactly, did you lose your desire for freedom and liberty, and learn to love your totalitarian masters?
The revelation should be interesting.
Do you know the meaning of "debunked"???
NO.....it does not mean "denied."
Behold:
1. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.
FDR was not president until 1933. Oddly picking 1931 as some sort of benchmark makes no sense,
except to shave 8 points off the 1933 year's unemployment of 25%.
Now why did you do that?
Why did you avoid defining "debunked"?
Was it because you didn't know the definition?
Or because it was a lie?
Which one?
You never debunked anything.
Everything in the post is true and correct.
You.....trying to genuflect to FDR, have no compunctions about lying.
"except to shave 8 points off the 1933 year's unemployment of 25%."
Here is the statement in the quote:
"Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %.[some sources state it as 19%]"
Totally true.....isn't it.
That makes you a liar who tried to hide his lie under the word 'debunked.'
Everyone who was informed as to why AA was held liable following the ENRON collapse.Arthur Anderson was deregulated? Who knew?The deregulation of Arthur Anderson occurred in 1995 and it went bust in 2002.
The time required to set up and fund the deregulated Wall St banks and then sell all of those subprime mortgages and then for them to start maturing 5 years later fits perfectly with the 2008 collapse.
!
Everyone who was informed as to why AA was held liable following the ENRON collapse.Arthur Anderson was deregulated? Who knew?
!
Gee, you think maybe bad policies and decisions at Arthur Anderson were responsible for their demise, vs "deregulation"? Just maybe?
You fail again.
How many hours did you spend Googling "Arthur Anderson" and "Deregulation" to come up with that crap?
Behold:
1. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.
FDR was not president until 1933. Oddly picking 1931 as some sort of benchmark makes no sense,
except to shave 8 points off the 1933 year's unemployment of 25%.
Now why did you do that?
Why did you avoid defining "debunked"?
Was it because you didn't know the definition?
Or because it was a lie?
Which one?
You never debunked anything.
Everything in the post is true and correct.
You.....trying to genuflect to FDR, have no compunctions about lying.
"except to shave 8 points off the 1933 year's unemployment of 25%."
Here is the statement in the quote:
"Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %.[some sources state it as 19%]"
Totally true.....isn't it.
That makes you a liar who tried to hide his lie under the word 'debunked.'
1929 3.14
1930 8.67
1931 15.82
1932 23.53
1933 24.75
1934 21.60
1935 19.97
1936 16.80
1937 14.18
1938 18.91
1939 17.05
1940 14.45
1941 9.66
Those are the unemployment rates. You picked 1931 as a starting point for no good reason,
because you wanted to create a dishonest impression of how UE rates went under FDR.
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression
The author of this thread cannot stop complaining about anything 'progressive' -
progressive government, progressive people, prgressiv -ism, and yet, she's an immigrant,
a foreigner who chooses not just to come here, but also chooses to live in one of the most progressive cities in one of the most progressive states in the nation.
Really? And then she rants about 'liberty', blah blah ad nauseum.
Here's an idea. Move to conservative America. Move to someplace like Mississippi, or rural Kentucky, or northern Florida or Texas or a fundamentalist Mormon ranch in Utah.
Go be conservative, among conservatives. See how you like it.
Just look at the lies, farrago, and missteps associated with the ObamaCare mess, and it is simple to connect same with the political philosophy responsible.
For those of us a bit slower on the uptake.....Daniel Henninger explains it.
1. " ...Obama is running out of human shields. With the father of ObamaCare unavailable to explain the greatest fiasco of his presidency to Congress, the American people had to settle Wednesday for his surrogate, Kathleen Sebelius.
2. .... not merely the failure of a federal website or a software program or Ms. Sebelius's management skills. This is the failure of the very idea of progressive government. Not liberal government. Progressive government.
3. ....what is happening this week to ObamaCare and the political class that created it is historic. Forty years from now, the millennials who in 2008 and 2012 believed in and voted for the progressive ideal—limitless, mandated, state-led goodness—can tell their grandchildren they watched it fall apart in 2013.
4. ....the American left, ... rebranded itself in the U.S. as the "progressive movement." Teddy Roosevelt invokes cheerier memories than Leon Trotsky....American progressives saw their win with Mr. Obama as the overthrowing of the postwar Democratic liberalism that culminated with the Clintons, a liberalism willing most of the time to coexist with markets, property and private enterprise.
5. What made [ObamaCare] peculiarly progressive were the mandates. And not just the law's individual and business mandates to purchase their insurance. The essence of modern Democratic progressivism is: "You will participate in what we have created for you, and you will comply with the law's demands."
[The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.” Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198]
a. If this White House and its progressive ecosystem have a political motto, it's this: Get over it..... politics by cramdown.
[And those with the slave mentality still support it.]
b. .... the 20,000 inner-city parents and students who marched across the Brooklyn Bridge to protest obliteration of their charter schools by New York's progressive mayoral candidate, Bill de Blasio.
6..... it has become impossible not to recognize that the Affordable Care Act is an offensive ideological exercise, not merely an entitlement program. By Mr. Obama's own admission, this law is the way he wants the world to work in the U.S.—whether in health, education, energy, infrastructure or finance.
7. Most Republican politicians aren't particularly comfortable doing ideology. But the left revels in it. Mr. Obama bellows it in every speech. And absent someone shouting that the progressive emperor suddenly isn't wearing any clothes, they will win with it again.
8. Barack Obama may have spent a lifetime failing up, but eventually it's just failure. He has presided over five years of sickly economic growth, inadequate job creation, a doubling of the food stamp population and now this—ObamaCare.
9. Progressive government has failed in the U.S
10. Most fascinating to behold will be whether the Democratic presidential candidate who follows this meltdown will embrace it, fake it or move on."
Daniel Henninger: Progressive Government Fails - WSJ.com
The American People Get the Government They Deserve
Tocqueville.
The author of this thread cannot stop complaining about anything 'progressive' -
progressive government, progressive people, prgressiv -ism, and yet, she's an immigrant,
a foreigner who chooses not just to come here, but also chooses to live in one of the most progressive cities in one of the most progressive states in the nation.
Really? And then she rants about 'liberty', blah blah ad nauseum.
Here's an idea. Move to conservative America. Move to someplace like Mississippi, or rural Kentucky, or northern Florida or Texas or a fundamentalist Mormon ranch in Utah.
Go be conservative, among conservatives. See how you like it.
This is one of your truly stupidest posts.....
...the equivalent of putting up the white flag.
I didn't know you were French.
Just look at the lies, farrago, and missteps associated with the ObamaCare mess, and it is simple to connect same with the political philosophy responsible.
For those of us a bit slower on the uptake.....Daniel Henninger explains it.
1. " ...Obama is running out of human shields. With the father of ObamaCare unavailable to explain the greatest fiasco of his presidency to Congress, the American people had to settle Wednesday for his surrogate, Kathleen Sebelius.
2. .... not merely the failure of a federal website or a software program or Ms. Sebelius's management skills. This is the failure of the very idea of progressive government. Not liberal government. Progressive government.
3. ....what is happening this week to ObamaCare and the political class that created it is historic. Forty years from now, the millennials who in 2008 and 2012 believed in and voted for the progressive ideallimitless, mandated, state-led goodnesscan tell their grandchildren they watched it fall apart in 2013.
4. ....the American left, ... rebranded itself in the U.S. as the "progressive movement." Teddy Roosevelt invokes cheerier memories than Leon Trotsky....American progressives saw their win with Mr. Obama as the overthrowing of the postwar Democratic liberalism that culminated with the Clintons, a liberalism willing most of the time to coexist with markets, property and private enterprise.
5. What made [ObamaCare] peculiarly progressive were the mandates. And not just the law's individual and business mandates to purchase their insurance. The essence of modern Democratic progressivism is: "You will participate in what we have created for you, and you will comply with the law's demands."
[The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture. Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, p. 198]
a. If this White House and its progressive ecosystem have a political motto, it's this: Get over it..... politics by cramdown.
[And those with the slave mentality still support it.]
b. .... the 20,000 inner-city parents and students who marched across the Brooklyn Bridge to protest obliteration of their charter schools by New York's progressive mayoral candidate, Bill de Blasio.
6..... it has become impossible not to recognize that the Affordable Care Act is an offensive ideological exercise, not merely an entitlement program. By Mr. Obama's own admission, this law is the way he wants the world to work in the U.S.whether in health, education, energy, infrastructure or finance.
7. Most Republican politicians aren't particularly comfortable doing ideology. But the left revels in it. Mr. Obama bellows it in every speech. And absent someone shouting that the progressive emperor suddenly isn't wearing any clothes, they will win with it again.
8. Barack Obama may have spent a lifetime failing up, but eventually it's just failure. He has presided over five years of sickly economic growth, inadequate job creation, a doubling of the food stamp population and now thisObamaCare.
9. Progressive government has failed in the U.S
10. Most fascinating to behold will be whether the Democratic presidential candidate who follows this meltdown will embrace it, fake it or move on."
Daniel Henninger: Progressive Government Fails - WSJ.com
The American People Get the Government They Deserve
Tocqueville.
They own this disaster and many others. Sebelius was asked if the problems with Obamacare implementation was ultimately Obama's fault and she replied, "Whatver." It was so similar to the smug "What difference does it make" uttered by Clinton.
That sums up their feelings toward the anguish put upon citizens by their greedy and self-serving decisions. I don't expect any of them will ever feel bad about what they've done to people, let alone apologize.
Obama gets away with claiming total ignorance of all that happens within his administration. If he is that clueless, then why do the sheeple worship him?
The only reason I can come up with is that those on the government doles are simply unaware of the real problems America faces because our biggest problems don't affect them. If people are permanently workshy, then unemployment rates don't mean shit to them. When people are struggling to pay higher taxes, they don't care because April 15 isn't a day they dread, it's a day where many receive the biggest handout of the year. When people are having their life completely subsidized, then it doesn't phase them to hear some people had their insurance policies cancelled and people in certain states are being forced to pay over 300% more.
The only thing these government dependents understand and begrudge is the fact that some people have nicer things than they do and somehow they find that unfair. With no comprehension of why some people are doing so much better, they must assume that government gave some people more than others.
These useful idiots bitterly cling to their EBT cards, free cell phones and other benefits that they have come to believe they are entitled to. They don't spend a moment worrying that living off others is unsustainable in the long run. Either they don't understand that or they are such dyed-in-the-wool communists that they cheer on the destruction of the middle class.
Of course, progressive know that the increasing number of sheep is necessary so they may make capitalism a thing of the past and become the dictators they always dreamed of being. The progressive mindset is that the people should all live in communes, rely on a monorail to commute and live in equal misery. Of course, the ones who have self-appointed themselves as the superior elite will never abide by their own laws or live the way they expect the rest of the population to do.
They know what they are doing. It's a carefully laid out plan that took years, but they've never veered from the goal of putting the successful, smug capitalist Americans in their place.
Only those who leech off others or the wealthy leaders of socialism can even stomach the current policies. The rest of us, who cherish the liberties and freedoms granted us, not by government, are scared and disgusted at what the future holds if we stay on this path.
The Conservative "free market deregulation" dogma was such a resounding success in 2008.Taken until now for Obama to set a new record for the DOW.
If we could lay the crash of 08 at someone's feet it would be Barney Frank and his ilk.
Nope, Republican "free market deregulation" is what opened the door for Wall St to fund the Great Subprime Mortgage Scam.
Why did you avoid defining "debunked"?
Was it because you didn't know the definition?
Or because it was a lie?
Which one?
You never debunked anything.
Everything in the post is true and correct.
You.....trying to genuflect to FDR, have no compunctions about lying.
"except to shave 8 points off the 1933 year's unemployment of 25%."
Here is the statement in the quote:
"Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %.[some sources state it as 19%]"
Totally true.....isn't it.
That makes you a liar who tried to hide his lie under the word 'debunked.'
1929 3.14
1930 8.67
1931 15.82
1932 23.53
1933 24.75
1934 21.60
1935 19.97
1936 16.80
1937 14.18
1938 18.91
1939 17.05
1940 14.45
1941 9.66
Those are the unemployment rates. You picked 1931 as a starting point for no good reason,
because you wanted to create a dishonest impression of how UE rates went under FDR.
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression
You're pedaling faster than Ed Begley, Jr., trying to make a piece of toast.
Did you find anything in the post that was untrue.....
....you know, after you claimed you "debunked" it.
Did you?
1. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.
NO?
Well then....you lied when you said you "debunked" it.....didn't you?
In fact...your link shows 19% in 1938.....even more than the quote states.....worse for FDR.
Hurts, huh?
Speaking of "greatest fiasco" and "offensive ideological exercises" how did that government shutdown/debt ceiling freeze work out for you, PC?
Lead balloon.
At least we both agree that it was, PC!
1929 3.14
1930 8.67
1931 15.82
1932 23.53
1933 24.75
1934 21.60
1935 19.97
1936 16.80
1937 14.18
1938 18.91
1939 17.05
1940 14.45
1941 9.66
Those are the unemployment rates. You picked 1931 as a starting point for no good reason,
because you wanted to create a dishonest impression of how UE rates went under FDR.
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression
You're pedaling faster than Ed Begley, Jr., trying to make a piece of toast.
Did you find anything in the post that was untrue.....
....you know, after you claimed you "debunked" it.
Did you?
1. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.
NO?
Well then....you lied when you said you "debunked" it.....didn't you?
In fact...your link shows 19% in 1938.....even more than the quote states.....worse for FDR.
Hurts, huh?
'in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression'
1931 is your darkest days choice?
Why not 1932 with unemployment 7 points higher? Why not 1933 with unemployment 8 points higher?
You created a lie that FDR had not lowered unemployment at all in 6 years by going back to a year of lower unemployment.
By using the correct year, you would have had to concede that unemployment fell by 10 points during FDR's new deal,
and btw, the rise in UE in 38 occurred when FDR pulled back on stimulus and focused on balancing the budget.
You see, the TRUE story is anathema to conservatives, so, as always, you invent a myth.
The author of this thread cannot stop complaining about anything 'progressive' -
progressive government, progressive people, prgressiv -ism, and yet, she's an immigrant,
a foreigner who chooses not just to come here, but also chooses to live in one of the most progressive cities in one of the most progressive states in the nation.
Really? And then she rants about 'liberty', blah blah ad nauseum.
Here's an idea. Move to conservative America. Move to someplace like Mississippi, or rural Kentucky, or northern Florida or Texas or a fundamentalist Mormon ranch in Utah.
Go be conservative, among conservatives. See how you like it.
Let's make sure we agree....
I'm saying that the shutdown was Obama's strategy to make the Republicans look bad in the public's eye.....
...but the public has seen through this, and recognized the attempt to make it painful.
Watch:
"By a 41 percent-to-21 percent margin, respondents say they have a less favorable impression of President Obama after the shutdown rather than a more favorable one."
NBC/WSJ poll: Obama approval sinks to new low - First Read
By two to one they see him as a snake.
The feeble attempt at humor doesn't hide the fact that you have no understanding of the period.
Foremost....FDR turned a recession into 'The Great Depression.'
LMAO, EVEN THE MINSTER OF TRUTH WOULD BE ASHAMED TO MAKE SUCH A RIDICULOUS COMMENT. HAVE YOU NO SHAME (RHETORICAL QUESTION, OF COURSE YOU DON'T).
1. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.
2. March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.
3. After the stock market crash,, the Dow hit 250 in 1930 under Hoover (it had been 343 before the crash). January 1940, after seven years of the New Deal, the market had collapsed to 151, and remained in the low 100s through most of FDRs terms.
Get this:
4. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the second New Deal and Roosevelts second term. The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .
5. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that on the whole it retarded recovery.
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI
What your post does reveal is that the Left has no ability to judge which federal policies are important....and which are not.
YAWN. Our resident troll has become very prolific of late, might that be a result of the drubbing taken by Tea Party Radicals in Congress and her need to change the conversation?
We're trying to have a factual discussion here, if you can't be civil, then be quiet
Let's make sure we agree....
I'm saying that the shutdown was Obama's strategy to make the Republicans look bad in the public's eye.....
...but the public has seen through this, and recognized the attempt to make it painful.
Watch:
"By a 41 percent-to-21 percent margin, respondents say they have a less favorable impression of President Obama after the shutdown rather than a more favorable one."
NBC/WSJ poll: Obama approval sinks to new low - First Read
By two to one they see him as a snake.
And your response...Speaking of "greatest fiasco" and "offensive ideological exercises" how did that government shutdown/debt ceiling freeze work out for you, PC?
Lead balloon.
To paraphrase you are asking how I perceive it to have worked out for Obama?I'm saying that the shutdown was Obama's strategy to make the Republicans look bad in the public's eye.....
...but the public has seen through this, and recognized the attempt to make it painful.
