It should have never taken so long.
so the market took the most historic nose dive since the great depression because Democrats talked about more regulations and taxes?
Or, it could have taken longer.....cup is half full
so whether or not you'll admit it, you're saying Democrats taking congress in 2006 is what caused the housing bubble burst and the global financial crisis.
It also doesn't make sense that the market would have continued to go up in 2007 if Democrats taking control of congress in 2006 was such a scary prospect that doomed the economy.
Presumptuous, are you...
Why do you think the housing bubble had any significant effect on the Dow? Were these large corporations that the Dow indicator is based off on investing in real estate? If so, that's new to me.
You are also a forgetful . Republicans were warning about the housing bubble in 2003 or earlier. Kept getting slapped down by the democrats and their friends in the media.
Do you know what momentum is? Elected in 2006, took office in 2007, and it takes time for any legislation to get passed and signed. Then there was the bailout. What a killer of stocks.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you aren't gonna provide specific examples of this either.
Now you're changing your theory because you originally said it was their mere talk that scared business, not their actual legislation.
If it was legislation and not talk, what specific legislation caused it?
WC, you might want to stop before you dig in too deep. There is no verifiable cause/effect on stock market up/down vs. what political party controls the presidency or congress. Blaming the down on the Democrats is just as ignorant as Obama and the democrats blaming it all on Bush.
True, but it's fun to watch the reactions.
I never said it was legislation. You effectively asked why the effect wasn't immediate. I pointed out that it takes time to get new legislation through. The democrats never stopped talking about taxing business more, and later it became apparent they wouldn't get such legislation passed.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Sooooooooo then why did the markets crash if it became apparent they wouldn't get any legislation passed? You make no sense at all.
Not really.
I'm sorry if you don't follow my explanation. It didn't take long at all, after the democrats took control of congress. Before the housing crisis, the Dow already took a 900+ hit, from 7/9/07 to 8/13/07. The bubble didn't hit till late August or early September. I will not say the housing bubble didn't have any effect on the ^DJI, but it was already getting ready to fall. The scare probably complicated things, and many people lost money to contribute into the economy, but this money was being flipped like houses and effectively not driving stock prices anyway, for some time.
Really... Look at everything the democrats said they were going to do to evil business.
But couldn't do because you just said it became apparent they couldn't get any legislation passed...
You still haven't provided any specific example of what they said they would do.
Thats ALMOST as re ed as people blaming the recession on Bush.
Consider this.
Do you prepare for a disaster you think is coming, or do you wait for it?
If you have assets that you believe will be diminished by proposed changes, do you change the way you secure your assets before the changes, or do you let the changes destroy what you have?
I don't have an eidetic memory. Do you? Are you going to say the liberals said nothing that caused fear in the markets? They said dozens of things. You can look the specifics up as easily as I, and if you are going to act as if none of it did occur, then you are in denial.
What do you blame the recession on?
I didn't make any claim either way. you did and can't back it up with real examples.
dubya's WH was pe ioned by 19 states to shutdown predatory/sub-prime lending. dubya's politicized OCC denied the pe ion, to keep the destructive housing bubble going and the toxic ty loans rolling in.
We have booms and we have recessions. We have bubbles and we have bursting bubbles. happens.
Trying to make a case for a cause/effect relationship with who is President is monumentally Boutonesque stupid.
Trying to make a cause/effect relationship based off the president's mere political party is stupid, pointing to specific policy that's directly related to the crash isn't exactly stupid.
It wasn't just Bush, it was 30 years of neo-liberal deregulation from Reagan, Clinton and Bush. Bush was the guy who took the neo-liberalism too far though.
Repugs mismanaged the economy from 2001 to 2008, along with their general willful misgovernance.
They could have recognized and mitigated the housing/credit bubble. They didn't and left Barry a mega-ton of stinking and the worst, continuing recession in 80 years.
What's monumentally stupid is saying the Repugs (and VRWC policies) are completely innocent, blameless, and that capitalism's inherent, repeated, unpreventable economic instabilities are just innocent " happens"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote