> > So you are saying there is no economic crisis? > Of course there is a crisis---a government induced and government hyped crisis designed to alter this country fundamentally from a free republic into a socialist welfare state after the European model.
If you think this mess wasn't foreseen, consider attempts by the Bush administration to regulate GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Dems, lead by Barney Frank, fiercely opposed and successfully blocked such attempts in 2003, 2005 and 2006, on the basis that there was no crisis. They accused of Republicans of going after Franklin Raines just because he was black. Consider the federal mandate for "affordable housing" that, when markets bent to the government's will and found a way to give people mortgages outside of their established lending rules---now called "subprime" loans---lead to what these same hypocrites call "predatory lending". The government wanted this! Consider that guys like Geithner, a Democrat who Bush appointed, whose job it was to regulate the markets (in his case, the New York Federal Reserve), sat back and let new and potentially dangerous financial instruments be used on top of these toxic loans, and now this guy is the head of the treasury, despite not even knowing how to use Turbo Tax, and it's hard to conclude that all of this was somehow an accident. It's too absurd to be an accident. FWIW, before you try the same tired line again, no I don't exempt Bush from guilt or complicity. All of you pointing fingers at those of us who supported Bush should at least consider your ga-ga love affair over Obama is the same thing, magnified. Nor do I take comfort in the lie that Bush is somehow the cause of all of it and now we have hope and change. The larger component of the cause of all of it now has total power over our government with no checks and no balances. I'm not talking about Obama personally; like Bush he's a kind of figure head for something bigger. But I am referring to all the hacks around him, and the corrupt Chicago gutter politics that put this fraud where he is, and now controls our national dialog. - Bob > > Hey Adam! > > > Hi Bob, > > > > Whilst the normal definition of a recession is 2 consecutive quarters > > of > > negative growth... > > > > I was talking about a depression, not a recession. Clearly we are in > recession. But overall for the year we still posted a positive 1.3% > growth > in 2008. > > Bill Clinton's last year in office handed Bush an even more anemic but > positive 0.73% growth rate for 2000. No one was calling that anything > but a > recession, nor was anybody comparing it to a depression, or > disingenuously > trying to scare the population into a $1 trillion pig-in-a-poke in the > name > of 'stimulus'. > > - Bob _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
