bald eagle wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
So you guys aren’t going to celebrate I take it?
I did not think you could defend that surging economy in Jan 2001 comment.
Oh you got me, you are so right and I am so wrong. Bush took a country that was in shambles and led us to where we are now, the epoch of our greatness.
The Politics forum tends to be mental masturbation for most of you guys anyways, huh? You generally post on here only to reinforce your own point of view.
Most of you will probably disagree with that last and give me examples of how you’ve learned and grown on here, but truly, the majority are only on here to dismiss those things that disagree with their beliefs and to pat each other on the back when a like-minded individual tells them what they want to hear.
Perhaps I misspoke with ‘surging,’ but relative to where we are now the economy was indeed surging. Is it your contention that our economy was in dire straits at the end of Clinton’s administration and Bush brought it out of the doldrums? Congratulations Bushy, I was sorely mistaken.
I did not say that the problems were deeper then than they are now. However, Bush did not inherit a “strong” economy which is what dems like to portray. He did indeed inherit a weak economy. But I am not blaming that on Clinton or anyone else. I understand that economies go up and down. We have this thing called the business cycle.
The economy under Bush did indeed rebound starting in 2003 and climbed until 2008. You can’t deny that. The problem we find ourselves in now is not about any one economic policy. At the heart of this problem is the push by the fed gov using fannie and freddie - to loan to people who were not qualified borrowers in an effort to get minorities and the poor into homes of their own.
That is what happened and it was not caused by Bush. I fault Bush as I said in my post above that he and the repubs did not sound the alarm loud enough if they knew and it appears they did know enough to suspect problems at fannie and freddie.
You do know that this administration brought it the attention of congress in 2003 and Barney Frank said that there was no problem at fannie and freddie. And in 2005 McCain and 3 others put a bill out to reign in fannie and freddie but it was blocked by the dems. The repubs did not have 60 votes to stop a filibuster.
That does not bother you? You still blame all this on Bush? How can you overlook the dems in this? Their hands were actually much deeper into fannie and freddie.
Also, just for your info, Clinton was the one who took over a surging economy in Jan of 1993. Go back and check the growth of the 4th quarter of 1992 - it was 5%. No one knew it at the time because the numbers obviously were not out that early and it takes a little while to feel it.
And hey, I don’t like the way Bush has spent too much money either. But I sure do not think that Obama will curb spending.
nobel effort. Too full of actual facts, logic and reason. I doubt he’ll get it.[/quote]
Ah yes, the man who misspells ‘noble’ questions my intelligence and reasoning…nice bit of irony there.
I also enjoy the fact that the one part of my post that you guys zeroed in on is in regards to the economy, completely disregarding my contentions about our military endeavors and international relations, giving credence to the common stereotype that conservatives don’t give a shit about anything but their own coffers.
What are you? The fucking politics forum cheerleader? Way to make your own points, parrot.