George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine. A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations o'seas, living large!...
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep--we got 'CHANGE' all right!.....
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
2) Gasoline is at or near $4 a gallon
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~<10,000--$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS! YEP , IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE!...AND WE SURE AS HELL GOT IT!!!....NOW the DEM'S CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT--AND THE POLLS SAY HE'S GONNA BE 'THE MAN'--CLAIMS HE'S GONNA REALLY GIVE US CHANGE!!....JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YA THINK YOU CAN STAND???.....
7 comments:
One of these days, you will take a statistics class and learn the difference between correlation and causation. You've made this phony argument on at least three occassions now: the relationship between tax cuts and tax revenues, poor cities with democratic mayors, and now this. You need to ask the question "why" these events occurred and look beyond your hatred for democrats.
jsj is a wise prophet.
JSJ should teach you an economic class james, and just because the Democrats were elected and soon after the economy took a hit means nothing. There is no correlation between the 2. do u have any idea how long it takes for tings to take effect on the economy. Regan's action led to the economic boom of the 90's. it takes a while for stuff to take affect. And while i won't say Clinton is completely innocent of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, his small sub-prime laws were expanded by a very, very large amount by Bush.
and y is it that the U.S. has been in an overall bear market since 2000. now lets think what has gone on since then......
The point is that the Democrats had oversight and and did not do anything. While everyone is to blame partially, the Democrats are largely responsible. While this thing was happening Chris Dodd and other Democrats were packing their pockets with money from Fannie and Freddie. Yes I understand how the economy works. So what clinton did is mostly effecting what is going on today. See my post on whos to blame, that should give you insight. Here are some videos to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz-d6WPTXa8&feature=related
The housing bubble started 4 - 5 years ago (I know because my condo appreciated by 100%, and home builders started a lottery system to buy a new house). As Barney Franks points out in that hilarious O'Reilly video, he passed a regulation bill in his first 2 months on the committee, near the end of 2007.
So what, exactly, would you have had the Democrats do?
What the democrats could have done was look closer into the situation and not completely denied it as they did. Since the last 2 years they have had a majority why wasn't some of this passed or at least proposed? They could also take some responsibility.
Like I said, Barney proposed and passed tighter regulation in his first two months (something the Republicans didn't do in their 12 years), but the bad loans had already been made.
McCain was saying as recently as a few weeks/months ago that he was fundamentally a de-regulator and that the fundamentals of the economy were strong.
Furthermore, the Secretary of the Treasury, the chairman of the SEC, and the chairman of the Federal Reserve are all Bush appointees, and all had as much or more responsibility.
To suggest that Demcrats are "largely" to blame and that they "did not do anything" is flat out wrong.
Post a Comment