Why didn't John Kerry get a post-convention bounce?

[Derek]

Anybody would have beaten that moron, Gore would have crushed him.

Actually, that's false. Despite Bush Jr.'s incomptence and lack of intellect, he knew how to run a good and extremely nasty and dishonest campaign. He would have beaten a lot of candidates with those kinds of campaign skills. Gore might have beat Bush Jr., but also might not have. It depends on what kind of campaign he would have ran. I mean, after all, Gore did lose in 2000 when all the factors were in his favor.

Bush ran a very friendly campaign.

I'd replace the word friendly with either "scary", "nasty", or "dishonest".

If the truth is scary for you then I can't help you. Sometimes people need to be scared if that's how they remember what they're up against and nothing else distracts them from their MTV.

This post is ironic since the only way Bush won (or even was competitive) is that he knew how to appeal to certain types of people who rely on their fears and intuition.

The only reason 2004 was remotely close was because the gay marriage amendment was on the ballot and it brought the evangelicals out in droves.

That helped Bush in Ohio, but that statement doesn't add up with the polls. I know I'm not one to go by what polls say being that they almost always show democrats in the lead, but Bush was averaged to win about 50-48 and 50-49 by most polls and it was 51-49 I believe. Bush would have won the states with that amendment anyhow. I remember minimum wage being on the ballot as well in Ohio though. I laughed because a month before the election, the Republicans in the Ohio congress proposed a minimum wage amendment to prevent it from being on the ballot. The democrats had to go on record as voting against a minimum wage increase for the sake of getting out their base in November. Their actions were harder to explain than perform and it backfired. That is conservatism at its finest.

[Derek]

Anybody would have beaten that moron, Gore would have crushed him.

Actually, that's false. Despite Bush Jr.'s incomptence and lack of intellect, he knew how to run a good and extremely nasty and dishonest campaign. He would have beaten a lot of candidates with those kinds of campaign skills. Gore might have beat Bush Jr., but also might not have. It depends on what kind of campaign he would have ran. I mean, after all, Gore did lose in 2000 when all the factors were in his favor.

Bush ran a very friendly campaign.

I'd replace the word friendly with either "scary", "nasty", or "dishonest".

If the truth is scary for you then I can't help you. Sometimes people need to be scared if that's how they remember what they're up against and nothing else distracts them from their MTV.

This post is ironic since the only way Bush won (or even was competitive) is that he knew how to appeal to certain types of people who rely on their fears and intuition.

The only reason 2004 was remotely close was because the gay marriage amendment was on the ballot and it brought the evangelicals out in droves.

That was a good idea.

[Derek]

Anybody would have beaten that moron, Gore would have crushed him.

Actually, that's false. Despite Bush Jr.'s incomptence and lack of intellect, he knew how to run a good and extremely nasty and dishonest campaign. He would have beaten a lot of candidates with those kinds of campaign skills. Gore might have beat Bush Jr., but also might not have. It depends on what kind of campaign he would have ran. I mean, after all, Gore did lose in 2000 when all the factors were in his favor.

Bush ran a very friendly campaign.

I'd replace the word friendly with either "scary", "nasty", or "dishonest".

If the truth is scary for you then I can't help you. Sometimes people need to be scared if that's how they remember what they're up against and nothing else distracts them from their MTV.

This post is ironic since the only way Bush won (or even was competitive) is that he knew how to appeal to certain types of people who rely on their fears and intuition.

Bush won by running a positive campaign based on fighting terror, home ownership, and a robust economy.

[Derek]

LOL he always does that. He just makes this crap up as he goes. All of his arguments are  just made up and he will finish with stuff like "they dont teach that in schools anymore". LOL I would like to know what they taught him. And he doesnt even know what the definition of treason is.

Derek is just a right-wing pundit that echoes all of Fox News's talking points in this Forum.

Some of his stuff is so ridiculous that fox's talking points wouldnt even say. I swear sometimes I am floored by what he says. I dont mind right wing and left wingers opinions if they can atleast make a sound arguement. He just pulls stuff out of left field.

Some of the stuff I say? Like what?

Just about everything you say makes no sense and is made up, we should make a forum just for that. I dont mind a right winger or a liberal who has an opinion that can be backed up by fact and logic, but  you write some of the  most  ridiculous things I have ever seen, it really is an insult to peoples intelligence.

I back up almost all of what I say with some form of reasoning. We happen to differ on Iraq and on Bush.

LOL no dude you dont, you just make stuff up.

give it up

[Derek]

Anybody would have beaten that moron, Gore would have crushed him.

Actually, that's false. Despite Bush Jr.'s incomptence and lack of intellect, he knew how to run a good and extremely nasty and dishonest campaign. He would have beaten a lot of candidates with those kinds of campaign skills. Gore might have beat Bush Jr., but also might not have. It depends on what kind of campaign he would have ran. I mean, after all, Gore did lose in 2000 when all the factors were in his favor.

Bush ran a very friendly campaign.

I'd replace the word friendly with either "scary", "nasty", or "dishonest".

If the truth is scary for you then I can't help you. Sometimes people need to be scared if that's how they remember what they're up against and nothing else distracts them from their MTV.

This post is ironic since the only way Bush won (or even was competitive) is that he knew how to appeal to certain types of people who rely on their fears and intuition.

Bush won by running a positive campaign based on fighting terror, home ownership, and a robust economy.

LOL case in point of ridiculous statements that you make are made up and have no reasoning. Please tell me why you make this stuff up. That campaign was rated as one of the dirtiest in history. Bus ran a negative campaign, the economy was anything but robust, and the housing market was because of Clinton. LOL your make believe world is so funny, dude.

The housing market was fictitious but we didn't find that out until 2008. It was the same policies in 1996 that caused the housing collapse of 2008 with the greedy buy and sell for more technique of the American people. It eventually got to a point where people had to sell their homes for so much more than they were worth that they couldn't sell and got stuck with loans they never had any intention on paying back. Rated one of the dirtiest by who? The Kerry campaign? lol The unemployment rate when Bush was reelected was the same as it was in 1996 just in case you didn't know. Why do you hate Bush so much anyways, it's almost as if his presidency has scarred you.

[Derek]

Please dont tell me your trying to compare the economy in 1996 to 2004. And there was a book written a few years back called the 25 dirtiest races in american history, that covered anywhere from governors, senate and prez elections.And do you try to have things both ways in one sentence you try to give bush credit for the home ownership and then claim clinton for the collapse. And I have Bush for what he did to this great nation. We are a 1,000 times worse off than when he took office. Greater divide between rich and poor, the povery rate rose, illegal wars, worse economic situation since the great depression, had a net loss of jobs etc, ect.

Ok Obama. Anyone can write a book. I could write a book about how Clinton caused 9/11 and it would be just as credible with "proper" sources. The home ownership boom was a fake and yes Clinton is responsible for it as YOU SAID SO YOURSELF. It's because of Clinton's policies that got us into the meltdown but what I typed probably went way over your head. I'm not jealous of the rich and don't expect them to pay for my school loans or health care. Illegal wars according to whom, our enemies in Europe and Asia? Worst economy since the great depression is today, not when Bush was in office. Unless of course you go back to the 1946 DEPRESSION which neither you or myself learned from the public schools or our history books. I bet you never heard of it until you had the opportunity to hear it from me but it's ok. SIGH

[Derek]

Its illegal to invade a soverign nation by the laws of war, and yes the housing meltdown started because of Clinton policies and this recession started when Bush was in office. And as far as sources go you never have any because most of your stuff is made up, but thats ok dude because I have figured out you say this stuff to try to make people mad, lol because no one  could ever  actually believe some of this ridiculous stuff that you write.

The recession started in March of 2000 just look at the DJ numbers. This link states the unemployment rate in March of 2004 was 5.6% and in November of 1996 it was 5.4%. The unemployment rate continued to fall throughout 2004. Also, by the night of the election, we were at 19 months of economic growth. I don't know why you just keep saying over and over again that things were terrible under Bush and great under Clinton because that is far from true. http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/moran200403040834.asp

[Derek]

I am talking about the recession that started in 2008. And wow dude yes life was good under Clinton and horrible under Bush. Worse president ever by far.

You don't find it funny that we had 56 months of economic growth under Bush Jr. and not even 10 months after the democrats won back both houses, the economy was in shambles? You don't blame Chris Dodd and Barack Obama for accepting sweet heart deals on their loans at the expense of us common folks? You don't blame the greed of the American people who were flipping houses and causing inflation in exchange for a profit? I don't blame the president for the way things are either. It's all what you make of it.

[Derek]

Lol um no the economy did not go into shamble because the democrats were in office ten months. I have heard economist say that the economy is 2 years behind whats actually going on. And no the loans that Dodd and Obama did not cause the economic failure. And the president is the captain of the ship.

2 years behind what's going on and some say 4 years and some say 8 years. If the recession in 2000 was 2 years behind then you are telling me that it goes back to 1998 when Clinton was in the middle of his second term? No it wasn't only the 2 of them, Barney Frank and fat cats from wall street were getting those deals too. It was going on for years. I left you a link to the unemployment rate in September of 2004.

http://economics.about.com/od/unemployment/a/metro04septMetr.htm

[Derek]

I am talking about the recession that started in 2008. And wow dude yes life was good under Clinton and horrible under Bush. Worse president ever by far.

You don't find it funny that we had 56 months of economic growth under Bush Jr. and not even 10 months after the democrats won back both houses, the economy was in shambles? You don't blame Chris Dodd and Barack Obama for accepting sweet heart deals on their loans at the expense of us common folks? You don't blame the greed of the American people who were flipping houses and causing inflation in exchange for a profit? I don't blame the president for the way things are either. It's all what you make of it.

I mostly blame Bush Jr. and Greenspan for the current recession (and financial crisis) since Greenspan (with Bush Jr.'s support) kept interest rates too low for too long and thus blew a housing bubble. Also, I blame the Republicans in the late 1990s who proposed to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and to deregulate derivatives.

The recession, or the housing market meltdown? The latter was caused by low interest rates but more than anything the buy/sell buy/sell mentality that drove us since the 90's which goes back to 1996. When the economy is good, the next downturn is the end result so really it's all a state of mind. The economy has always been what it is. It's us who make it go up and down.

[Derek]

I am talking about the recession that started in 2008. And wow dude yes life was good under Clinton and horrible under Bush. Worse president ever by far.

You don't find it funny that we had 56 months of economic growth under Bush Jr. and not even 10 months after the democrats won back both houses, the economy was in shambles? You don't blame Chris Dodd and Barack Obama for accepting sweet heart deals on their loans at the expense of us common folks? You don't blame the greed of the American people who were flipping houses and causing inflation in exchange for a profit? I don't blame the president for the way things are either. It's all what you make of it.

I mostly blame Bush Jr. and Greenspan for the current recession (and financial crisis) since Greenspan (with Bush Jr.'s support) kept interest rates too low for too long and thus blew a housing bubble. Also, I blame the Republicans in the late 1990s who proposed to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and to deregulate derivatives.

The recession, or the housing market meltdown? The latter was caused by low interest rates but more than anything the buy/sell buy/sell mentality that drove us since the 90's which goes back to 1996. When the economy is good, the next downturn is the end result so really it's all a state of mind. The economy has always been what it is. It's us who make it go up and down.

The low interest rates were started by the GOP Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, in 2001 with Bush Jr.'s support. That's what caused the housing bubble. Greenspan could have made interest rates much higher and also could have begun raising them much sooner. Bush could have always told Greenspan that he believes that the Fed is pursuing the wrong economic policy.

You could've written a letter too. I mean it's your first amendment right isn't it? I love it when democrats try to blame the GOP for every bad thing about their lives.

[Derek]

I am talking about the recession that started in 2008. And wow dude yes life was good under Clinton and horrible under Bush. Worse president ever by far.

You don't find it funny that we had 56 months of economic growth under Bush Jr. and not even 10 months after the democrats won back both houses, the economy was in shambles? You don't blame Chris Dodd and Barack Obama for accepting sweet heart deals on their loans at the expense of us common folks? You don't blame the greed of the American people who were flipping houses and causing inflation in exchange for a profit? I don't blame the president for the way things are either. It's all what you make of it.

I mostly blame Bush Jr. and Greenspan for the current recession (and financial crisis) since Greenspan (with Bush Jr.'s support) kept interest rates too low for too long and thus blew a housing bubble. Also, I blame the Republicans in the late 1990s who proposed to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and to deregulate derivatives.

The recession, or the housing market meltdown? The latter was caused by low interest rates but more than anything the buy/sell buy/sell mentality that drove us since the 90's which goes back to 1996. When the economy is good, the next downturn is the end result so really it's all a state of mind. The economy has always been what it is. It's us who make it go up and down.

The low interest rates were started by the GOP Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, in 2001 with Bush Jr.'s support. That's what caused the housing bubble. Greenspan could have made interest rates much higher and also could have begun raising them much sooner. Bush could have always told Greenspan that he believes that the Fed is pursuing the wrong economic policy.

You could've written a letter too. I mean it's your first amendment right isn't it? I love it when democrats try to blame the GOP for every bad thing about their lives.

I was a minor before this year. I'm not sure the Federal Govt. reads letters from minors.

I believe that and I'd believe you're still a minor because of how you miss the point. The point is anyone can write a letter to the government. Anyone could have told Greenspan that. The economy is what it is and any good or bad cycle evens out.

[Derek]

I am talking about the recession that started in 2008. And wow dude yes life was good under Clinton and horrible under Bush. Worse president ever by far.

You don't find it funny that we had 56 months of economic growth under Bush Jr. and not even 10 months after the democrats won back both houses, the economy was in shambles? You don't blame Chris Dodd and Barack Obama for accepting sweet heart deals on their loans at the expense of us common folks? You don't blame the greed of the American people who were flipping houses and causing inflation in exchange for a profit? I don't blame the president for the way things are either. It's all what you make of it.

I mostly blame Bush Jr. and Greenspan for the current recession (and financial crisis) since Greenspan (with Bush Jr.'s support) kept interest rates too low for too long and thus blew a housing bubble. Also, I blame the Republicans in the late 1990s who proposed to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and to deregulate derivatives.

The recession, or the housing market meltdown? The latter was caused by low interest rates but more than anything the buy/sell buy/sell mentality that drove us since the 90's which goes back to 1996. When the economy is good, the next downturn is the end result so really it's all a state of mind. The economy has always been what it is. It's us who make it go up and down.

The low interest rates were started by the GOP Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, in 2001 with Bush Jr.'s support. That's what caused the housing bubble. Greenspan could have made interest rates much higher and also could have begun raising them much sooner. Bush could have always told Greenspan that he believes that the Fed is pursuing the wrong economic policy.

You could've written a letter too. I mean it's your first amendment right isn't it? I love it when democrats try to blame the GOP for every bad thing about their lives.

I was a minor before this year. I'm not sure the Federal Govt. reads letters from minors.

I believe that and I'd believe you're still a minor because of how you miss the point. The point is anyone can write a letter to the government. Anyone could have told Greenspan that. The economy is what it is and any good or bad cycle evens out.

I'm not a minor. And I seriously doubt Greenspan and most politicans actually care about what people write to them about.

I wouldn't either if I was hired by the president to do a job. It's not like I'd be going anywhere. That's why you're supposed to write to your congressmen. They don't teach that in public schools anymore.

[Derek]

So why don't you think Kerry got a post convention bounce? I think it's because he was a weak candidate.

[Derek]

So why don't you think Kerry got a post convention bounce? I think it's because he was a weak candidate.

I think it had more to do with Bush's scare tactics and with many people deciding early that year. I mean, Gore and Dukakis got convention bounces even though they were also bad candidates.

Oh right like people weren't smart enough to vote for the best candidate so somehow they were tricked into it. Just admit it, Bush kicked your asses. Kerry was a loser and that's why he didn't get a bounce.

[Derek]

So why don't you think Kerry got a post convention bounce? I think it's because he was a weak candidate.

I think it had more to do with Bush's scare tactics and with many people deciding early that year. I mean, Gore and Dukakis got convention bounces even though they were also bad candidates.

Oh right like people weren't smart enough to vote for the best candidate so somehow they were tricked into it. Just admit it, Bush kicked your asses. Kerry was a loser and that's why he didn't get a bounce.

I'll admit that Kerry was a bad candidate, but I honestly don't think that was why Kerry didn't get a convention bounce. I think my previously stated reasons were correct. And I'm actually happy that Kerry lost because that allowed Bush and the GOP to get blamed for the financial crisis instead of the Democrats. You Republicans would have been so much better off right now had Kerry won in 2004.

You're happy that people get blamed for something they didn't do? What a great American, at least you're a democrat still. You realize that would be like me saying that I hope people lose jobs and families struggle so that Obama loses in 2012? No we wouldn't have been better off because unlike you, we care about our country first and Kerry would've been stubborn enough to try something of his own in Iraq or Afghanistan and gotten more troops killed or pulled out and had both countries collapse because he'd do so prematurely. At least Obama just continued Bush's policies mostly except for the torture issue. Stop thinking like a partisan and start thinking like an American.

[Derek]

So why don't you think Kerry got a post convention bounce? I think it's because he was a weak candidate.

I think it had more to do with Bush's scare tactics and with many people deciding early that year. I mean, Gore and Dukakis got convention bounces even though they were also bad candidates.

Oh right like people weren't smart enough to vote for the best candidate so somehow they were tricked into it. Just admit it, Bush kicked your asses. Kerry was a loser and that's why he didn't get a bounce.

I'll admit that Kerry was a bad candidate, but I honestly don't think that was why Kerry didn't get a convention bounce. I think my previously stated reasons were correct. And I'm actually happy that Kerry lost because that allowed Bush and the GOP to get blamed for the financial crisis instead of the Democrats. You Republicans would have been so much better off right now had Kerry won in 2004.

You're happy that people get blamed for something they didn't do? What a great American, at least you're a democrat still. You realize that would be like me saying that I hope people lose jobs and families struggle so that Obama loses in 2012? No we wouldn't have been better off because unlike you, we care about our country first and Kerry would've been stubborn enough to try something of his own in Iraq or Afghanistan and gotten more troops killed or pulled out and had both countries collapse because he'd do so prematurely. At least Obama just continued Bush's policies mostly except for the torture issue. Stop thinking like a partisan and start thinking like an American.

Bush did support Greenspan when he blew up that housing bubble, and that caused the financial crisis. Kerry would have just gotten blamed for the timing. I don't know how Kerry would have handled Iraq, but I do think that he would have done a better job of handling Afghanistan. Bush gave Obama a huge mess in Afghanistan because he essentially ignored it for his last six years. And Obama saved our economy from total collapse, gave us universal healthcare, and gave us financial reform, which are things Bush wouldn't have done. And you know that many Republicans actually do want the economy to go bad so that Obama will lose reelection.

No giving loans to people from ACORN based on racial fairness that was started under the Clinton administration was what caused the financial crisis. There were no back room fat cat deals like you and your party want America to believe. It was the fairness requirements combined with politicians like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Barack Obama getting sweet heart deals from the corporate fat cats in exchange for favorable treatment from the government. What do you think of Fannie and Freddie being exempt from this new financial reform legislation? Are you suddenly supporting all that now?

[Derek]

So why don't you think Kerry got a post convention bounce? I think it's because he was a weak candidate.

I think it had more to do with Bush's scare tactics and with many people deciding early that year. I mean, Gore and Dukakis got convention bounces even though they were also bad candidates.

Oh right like people weren't smart enough to vote for the best candidate so somehow they were tricked into it. Just admit it, Bush kicked your asses. Kerry was a loser and that's why he didn't get a bounce.

I'll admit that Kerry was a bad candidate, but I honestly don't think that was why Kerry didn't get a convention bounce. I think my previously stated reasons were correct. And I'm actually happy that Kerry lost because that allowed Bush and the GOP to get blamed for the financial crisis instead of the Democrats. You Republicans would have been so much better off right now had Kerry won in 2004.

You're happy that people get blamed for something they didn't do? What a great American, at least you're a democrat still. You realize that would be like me saying that I hope people lose jobs and families struggle so that Obama loses in 2012? No we wouldn't have been better off because unlike you, we care about our country first and Kerry would've been stubborn enough to try something of his own in Iraq or Afghanistan and gotten more troops killed or pulled out and had both countries collapse because he'd do so prematurely. At least Obama just continued Bush's policies mostly except for the torture issue. Stop thinking like a partisan and start thinking like an American.

Bush did support Greenspan when he blew up that housing bubble, and that caused the financial crisis. Kerry would have just gotten blamed for the timing. I don't know how Kerry would have handled Iraq, but I do think that he would have done a better job of handling Afghanistan. Bush gave Obama a huge mess in Afghanistan because he essentially ignored it for his last six years. And Obama saved our economy from total collapse, gave us universal healthcare, and gave us financial reform, which are things Bush wouldn't have done. And you know that many Republicans actually do want the economy to go bad so that Obama will lose reelection.

No giving loans to people from ACORN based on racial fairness that was started under the Clinton administration was what caused the financial crisis. There were no back room fat cat deals like you and your party want America to believe. It was the fairness requirements combined with politicians like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Barack Obama getting sweet heart deals from the corporate fat cats in exchange for favorable treatment from the government. What do you think of Fannie and Freddie being exempt from this new financial reform legislation? Are you suddenly supporting all that now?

Giving loans to poor people who couldn't afford it helped cause the housing bubble itself, but the financial crisis was caused by the financial deregulation that the Republicans proposed. Without that financial deregulation, the housing recession would have probably been much less severe and there would have been no financial crisis. That financial deregulation allowed commercial and investment banks to combine together, and that allowed those banks to become "too big to fail" (during the housing bubble) and to drag down the whole U.S. economy with them once they indeed failed after the housing bubble burst. And I know that the current financial reform that the Democrats passed isn't the best bill they could have written.

Well I hope you're happy that poor people caused the housing bubble which caused alot of families to go hungry who weren't already poor. Regulations have done nothing but kill jobs in terms of economics because the government is run by those who FLUNK OUT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR and can't do anything else for a living. Why would you think for half a second that the politicians who want to regulate know what they are talking about? What about those banks merging caused the housing burst? WHAT ABOUT THEM MERGING CAUSED THE COLLAPSE? Not the best? That's because the democrats in congress are a bunch of people who either couldn't get a job in the private sector like Obama, have so much money that they don't want others on their level like John Kerry, or want our economy to fail so government can run our lives like Pelosi.

It's very simple, members of ACORN took out loans that they had no intention of paying back. Middle class America defeated themselves with the old buy/sell technique that is caused by greed and eventually it got to a point where homes couldn't appreciate in value anymore.

[Derek]

So why don't you think Kerry got a post convention bounce? I think it's because he was a weak candidate.

I think it had more to do with Bush's scare tactics and with many people deciding early that year. I mean, Gore and Dukakis got convention bounces even though they were also bad candidates.

Oh right like people weren't smart enough to vote for the best candidate so somehow they were tricked into it. Just admit it, Bush kicked your asses. Kerry was a loser and that's why he didn't get a bounce.

I'll admit that Kerry was a bad candidate, but I honestly don't think that was why Kerry didn't get a convention bounce. I think my previously stated reasons were correct. And I'm actually happy that Kerry lost because that allowed Bush and the GOP to get blamed for the financial crisis instead of the Democrats. You Republicans would have been so much better off right now had Kerry won in 2004.

You're happy that people get blamed for something they didn't do? What a great American, at least you're a democrat still. You realize that would be like me saying that I hope people lose jobs and families struggle so that Obama loses in 2012? No we wouldn't have been better off because unlike you, we care about our country first and Kerry would've been stubborn enough to try something of his own in Iraq or Afghanistan and gotten more troops killed or pulled out and had both countries collapse because he'd do so prematurely. At least Obama just continued Bush's policies mostly except for the torture issue. Stop thinking like a partisan and start thinking like an American.

Bush did support Greenspan when he blew up that housing bubble, and that caused the financial crisis. Kerry would have just gotten blamed for the timing. I don't know how Kerry would have handled Iraq, but I do think that he would have done a better job of handling Afghanistan. Bush gave Obama a huge mess in Afghanistan because he essentially ignored it for his last six years. And Obama saved our economy from total collapse, gave us universal healthcare, and gave us financial reform, which are things Bush wouldn't have done. And you know that many Republicans actually do want the economy to go bad so that Obama will lose reelection.

No giving loans to people from ACORN based on racial fairness that was started under the Clinton administration was what caused the financial crisis. There were no back room fat cat deals like you and your party want America to believe. It was the fairness requirements combined with politicians like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Barack Obama getting sweet heart deals from the corporate fat cats in exchange for favorable treatment from the government. What do you think of Fannie and Freddie being exempt from this new financial reform legislation? Are you suddenly supporting all that now?

Giving loans to poor people who couldn't afford it helped cause the housing bubble itself, but the financial crisis was caused by the financial deregulation that the Republicans proposed. Without that financial deregulation, the housing recession would have probably been much less severe and there would have been no financial crisis. That financial deregulation allowed commercial and investment banks to combine together, and that allowed those banks to become "too big to fail" (during the housing bubble) and to drag down the whole U.S. economy with them once they indeed failed after the housing bubble burst. And I know that the current financial reform that the Democrats passed isn't the best bill they could have written.

Well I hope you're happy that poor people caused the housing bubble which caused alot of families to go hungry who weren't already poor. Regulations have done nothing but kill jobs in terms of economics because the government is run by those who FLUNK OUT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR and can't do anything else for a living. Why would you think for half a second that the politicians who want to regulate know what they are talking about? What about those banks merging caused the housing burst? WHAT ABOUT THEM MERGING CAUSED THE COLLAPSE? Not the best? That's because the democrats in congress are a bunch of people who either couldn't get a job in the private sector like Obama, have so much money that they don't want others on their level like John Kerry, or want our economy to fail so government can run our lives like Pelosi.

It's very simple, members of ACORN took out loans that they had no intention of paying back. Middle class America defeated themselves with the old buy/sell technique that is caused by greed and eventually it got to a point where homes couldn't appreciate in value anymore.

How did the housing bubble cause people to go hungry? Some regulations are actually good for the economy to prevent/limit corporate abuse and greed. You know that the economy was heavily regulated between the 1930s and 1970s and grew at a pretty fast pace most of the time. Once commercial banks were allowed to combine with investment banks, commercial banks undertook a huge amount of risky investments in the housing industry (which they were not allowed to do before) and thus many of the commercial banks lost a lot of money or became bankrupt once the housing bubble burst. Had the Republicans not deregulated the financial sector, our economy would have been in better shape right now.

Corporate abuse and greed? 1932 called and the democrats want their talking points back. The economy was regulated alot until after Carter and look at the economy in the 80's and 90's. Risk, success, and failure is the American way as everyone gets to compete equally under the law. Again what about the GOP deregulations caused the housing market bubble?

[Derek]

There is more to the economy than GDP such as taxes and unemployment rate. There is even more to life than a good economy.