And it was liberal laws like forcing banks to make bad loans to people who could not afford them. The Dow was up at 14,000 and when democrats took power of congress it fell.
Tags: 2006, blame, bush, congress, Liberals., Power, recession, took
Newest Articles
Category Options
RealEstateAppraisalsAustin.com
8127 Mesa Dr. B206-177
Austin, TX 78759
512-900-7929
Austin Real Estate Appraisal
8127 Mesa Dr. B206-177
Austin, TX 78759
512-900-7929
Austin Real Estate Appraisal
You Republicans who repealed Glass-Steagall.
Banks were never forced to make loans, and the President submits a budget, not Congress.
People aside from whiny, repetitive liberals on Y!A, are starting to see through this.
Um, well, oh yeah?! you’re a racist. Go burn a cross you klansman.
Cause he is responsible for everything – he even made that hurricane Katrina hit NO.
I have been saying that many times. They attacked me and ignore the facts. I don’t know why they never accept the facts. It’s like the truth is what they are allergic to.
The recession was not Bush’s fault and you can’t name one piece of legislation that Democrats pass in 2007 that caused this past recession that started in 2007.
I will narrow it down for you.
Democrats gained control of congress on Nov. 8, 2006.
Their first session of congress was Jan, 2007
Got to have some one to blame.
Usually those who are always busy pointing fingers are the ones who do not have the facts.
EDIT–
Mr. Wolf.
You might want to look at the bill Dodd (D-CN) pushed through in 2006 that passed early in 2007 that allowed the FHA to cover sub-prime loans.
If you will recall sub-prime loans was the major contributor to the fall of the economy.
It is interesting almost four years ago we heard ”we won bush is going to jail ” ”Election have consequences ” But to hear them today they act has if it were just a year and half ago they had any power
er. . . the economy has been dropping since 04. . . look at foreclosure rates. . .
the dems even ran on it as part of their platform in 06?
and what date did democrats take control of congress and what date did it hit 14k?
lol. . . I think you have your dates confused. . .
Actually, while the housing bill was pioneered by some liberals in the late 90s, it was a republican controlled congress that passed the bill in 97-98. The dems took office while this downfall was already in place. There was no market spike in over production in housing in 2008 that was a direct result of what happened from 2006-2007. That is foolish to think so.
Well except the Democratic majority did not take OFFICE until January 2007. The budget for 2007 was set by a Republican White House and Republican Majority Congress. The Housing and Economic Recovery act was passed in July of 2008. WELL after the official start of the recession in December 2007. . . which was triggered by the housing downturn in 2006. . . while REPUBLICANS still were in the majority. . . .
http://money. cnn. com/2008/12/01/news/economy/recession/index. htm
http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Housing_and_Economic_Recovery_Act_of_2008
we R Iraq Y? How much $$$ is that lil’ EFF up??/
The Dow was at 14000 because of the asset bubble that formed in real estate. The bubble began because of the cheap money policy pursued by the Fed in the aftermath of the dotcom meltdown and it formed specifically in the real estate market because lending standards were so watered down that anyone with a pulse could and did qualify for mortgage financing.
So when Senator Carl Levin and the President suggest that the recession was caused by excessive leverage on Wall Street they consciously omit the fact that it was the reverberations from the popping of the real estate bubble which transformed risky levels of leverage taken by Wall Street firms into unsustainable levels of leverage. which resulted in a recession after Barclay’s Bank refused to acquire Lehman Brothers and Lehman was forced to declare bankruptcy.
If you do not understand that at the heart of this recession was the deflation of an insane real estate asset bubble, then you simply do not have a clear and complete picture of the underlying mechanics that created this recession. And to suggest otherwise is a boldfaced lie. The Main Street asset bubble was sustained by cheap money and easy and often fraudulent credit. Wall Street should have done a much better job managing its exposure to this bubble, and indeed JPMorganChase avoided much of it and Goldman Sachs deflected much of its exposure through the use of credit default swaps and the like. The firms that didn’t do such a good job like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers are gone. AIG was rescued and is currently on a path to profitability as are the Big 5.
If you could make tens of thousands of dollars in compensation simply by refraining from checking up on someone’s employment and compensation, what would you do? If it appeared to be a victimless crime, what would you do? A system that permits/encourages lenders and borrowers to commit fraud inevitably is doomed to failure. And when it does fail it takes a lot of parties with it from the completely innocent to the much less innocent. So how has the system changed so that an uncontrolled bubble cannot form again in the real estate market in which tens of millions of Americans have an ownership stake? That’s the first line of defense.
The second line of defense is a more rational regulatory and oversight system for the American financial economy with real penalties for those federal agencies who fail to do the critical job to which they have been entrusted. If they face real civil liability, then finally you might see the SEC and others like the CFTC hiring competent and experienced personnel to fulfill their missions.
The Bush tax cuts were implemented in 2001. For 6 years republicans had power in all 3 chambers of Congress. Well OK the first 2 years had some grid lock as. Both parties had majority in the Senate from 2001-2003.
Another reason is this: http://search. yahoo. com/search?p=who+is+better+for+the+economy+republicans+or+democrats Democratic presidents have a much better record on the economy in terms of all economic indicators we use to measure how well the economy is doing.
Now you might say you have to look at the Congress too. Well I did. Going back to 1913, I took a look to see if both chambers of Congress had the same political party as the president. I did not include Hary Truman nor the first George Bush because both of them had their own party as president before each of them. I found 8/10 times in the first 2 years of those presidents’ terms they had their own party as majority in both chambers of congress. The 2 exceptions were Reagan and Nixon. Many democrats voted with Reagan because the economy was in a mess. Tax cuts for the super rich were one thing in the agenda as well as massive job creating investments. The democrats had to vote with Reagan or get voted out of office. That leaves Nixon alone who had a grid lock. The bottom line is, it’s plenty fair to measure the president’s performance because the first 2 years are the most important.