its good to know the left has finally accepted that they are the cause for the recession

that's progress 

Surprised you spelled progress right.

Misspelled "finally".

******

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/01/30/was-the-financial-crisis-avoidable/the-financial-crisis-was-foreseeable-and-preventable

Foreseeable and Preventable

Jeffry A. Frieden
Jeffry A. Frieden, a professor of government at Harvard. He is the author of Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century" and "and co-author with Menzie Chinn of the forthcoming "Lost Decades: The Making of America's Debt Crisis and the Long Recovery."

UPDATED JANUARY 30, 2011, 7:00 PM

Many things contributed to the Great Recession of 2007-2010. Massive foreign borrowing, excessively loose monetary policy, reckless lending practices, lax regulation, and other factors all fed into the crisis. The relative importance of different causes is still open to debate.

Economists of varied ideological bents warned of dangers in the housing and financial markets long before the crash.
But there should be no dispute over the fact that there were major warning signals before the crisis. Nor should there be any dispute over the fact that more appropriate policies could have reduced the impact of the crisis, or avoided it altogether.

By 2003-2004, most analysts of international economic conditions were concerned by growing global macroeconomic imbalances, in particular, the fact that the United States was borrowing between a half trillion and a trillion dollars a year from the rest of the world. This huge capital inflow was fueling a financial and real estate boom, in ways typical of such borrowing experiences.

By 2005, most analysts agreed that these imbalances would cause serious problems, although the specific nature and timing of the problems were debated. All through 2005 and 2006, economists of varied ideological persuasions – from Raghuram Rajan and Ken Rogoff to Nouriel Roubini and Robert Shiller – warned of dangers accumulating in the housing and financial markets.

What could the government have done? The Bush administration could have reduced the outsized fiscal deficits that spurred foreign borrowing, and more generally could have acted to slow an overheated economy. The Federal Reserve could have raised lending rates to decelerate the credit boom. Regulators could have been more stringent about applying prudential principles to all of the complex financial operations in which financial institutions were engaging. But instead, none of these government agencies did anything.

Why was nothing done to heed the warnings? Electoral considerations may have mattered: no incumbent government wants to put the brakes on the economy before an election. Special-interest pressures undoubtedly mattered: real estate salesmen, homebuilders, financial institutions, and many borrowers had come to rely on a continuation of the boom. David Lereah, chief economist of the National Association of Realtors, whose 2006 book was titled "Why the Real Estate Boom Will Not Bust," explained to Business Week several years later, “I worked for an association promoting housing, and it was my job to represent their interests.”

Ideology probably mattered. Larry Kudlow, economics editor of the conservative National Review, in 2005 dismissed “all the bubbleheads who expect housing-price crashes in Las Vegas or Naples, Florida, to bring down the consumer, the rest of the economy, and the entire stock market.” Of course, the bubbleheads were exactly right, but the predictions did not accord with Kudlow’s partisan commitments or his ideology.

And so it is with the post-mortems. Politicians, special interests, and ideologues all have their reasons to insist on a particular interpretation of the crisis. And those connected to the Bush administration have strong incentives to deny that the administration could have done anything differently. But they are wrong.

In the aftermath of every financial crisis I know of – and I have studied dozens – the policymakers in office at the time deny that anything could have been done. The cause was always elsewhere: irrational markets, foreign lenders, state and local governments, evil bankers. But this is almost never accurate.

National governments can act to avoid, or reduce the effects of, massive financial crises, if they are willing to act in time. There is plenty of responsibility to go around for the Great Recession, and for the very difficult times its aftermath will cause for America and the world. It is profoundly irresponsible – and demonstrably untrue – to pretend that the crisis could not have been avoided or lessened. If this kind of thinking persists, we will be setting ourselves up for another crisis of roughly the same type.


-----------------

He left out: "Butter, not guns." "Bread, not bombs."

Every time the left here cries that the republicans in congress is to blame for the economy, which they have in threads all over this forum, I just want to remind them who was in control of both houses when the recession hit.

  

:)Every time the left here cries that the republicans in congress is to blame for the economy, which they have in threads all over this forum, I just want to remind them who was in control of both houses when the recession hit.

  

"Seventy-two days. That’s it. That’s the entirety of absolute Democratic control of the United States Senate in 2009 and 2010. And yet Republicans want America to believe that Obama and the Democrats ruled with a tyrannical zeal to pass every piece of frivolous legislation they could conjure up. They think that the voters are dumb enough to believe it."

some people might want to look at who has had majority control in our life time.

wow look at all the years dems have controlled both houses during our lifetime. I bet a lot of liberal policy making was done in those years that we are still feeling.   




dems won congressional elections in 2006 and were installed jan 2007 till 2009

According the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research (the official arbiter of U.S. recessions) the US recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, and thus spanned over 18 months
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession

The subsequent bust in 2008 caused the most devastating economic downturn since the Depression.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-01/clinton-officials-missed-chance-to-avert-2008-financial-crisis

But the dems didn't have control but for 72 days. Not two years so your graph is irrelevant.

What recession?

2seaoat wrote:What recession?

Lol... classic. Would you like to explain to dreams what the 72 days were? Or shall we just let the talkingpoint stand?

I honestly wish I could think the way y'all do... it seems like such a content state of mind. Happy Unicorn Day..!!

Again, I ask the question......what recession?

You have no concept of what you're trying to talk about here, so it's useless to argue with you.

:)some people might want to look at who has had majority control in our life time.

wow look at all the years dems have controlled both houses during our lifetime. I bet a lot of liberal policy making was done in those years that we are still feeling.   




dems won congressional elections in 2006 and were installed jan 2007 till 2009

According the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research (the official arbiter of U.S. recessions) the US recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, and thus spanned over 18 months
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession

The subsequent bust in 2008 caused the most devastating economic downturn since the Depression.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-01/clinton-officials-missed-chance-to-avert-2008-financial-crisis

unless you were born before 1933 its pretty clear who has had the upper hand at law making. I always hear about all this long term effects of previous admin, well, the chart and facts speak for themselves. The left fucked the country.

Here's the facts about Chrissy's pure ignorance.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/05/the-democratic-congress-did-all-that/

The One Hundred Tenth United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009, during the last two years of the second term of President George W. Bush. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. census.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes. No Democratic-held seats had fallen to the Republican Party in the 2006 elections.[2] Democrat Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House.[3] The House also received the first Muslim (Keith Ellison)[4][5] and Buddhist (Hank Johnson and Mazie Hirono)[6] members of Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress

and lets not forget that the senate has been dem majority for over 8 years.

2seaoat wrote:Again, I ask the question......what recession?

You're right, the recession ended in July of 2009. So things have been WONDERFUL for FIVE YEARS!

Who knew?

Plus, hey there are ONLY 92 MILLION workers...OUT OF WORK.