A couple of years ago when Clinton came into office and again when Bush came into office, comments were made in the press about the economy always doing better after a democratic party win . . .
Ummmm, no. It is due to unbridled consumerism. Bush didn't force anyone to value a house at more than it is worth. A correction is coming and probably necessary.
Housing prices inflated at least as much under Clinton... yet you don't blame his policies.
Wonder why?
Low taxes are better for the economy than high taxes... but in the long term only if it translates into smaller gov't.
The stock market tends to do better with split gov't because they like predictability more than anything... and with split gov't it is predictable that anything of real concern will happen.
BTW, Dems are generally bad for the real economy of consumers and small to mid-sized businesses.
As much as Dems demagogue "big business", big companies don't mind higher taxes and regulations as much as smaller competitors do... it creates entry barriers that secure their market.
It also had to do with extremely low mortgage rates. There was also new loan rate structuring with interest-only payments and very low down payments :eek: Many of those loans are due to balloon which may cause the "owners" to sell, or be foreclosed upon if their loans are upside down, flood the market and force prices lower.
They've been low since the early 90's... they didn't just get low.
It is stupid... but do you really think we should outlaw "stupid"?
And that begs the question of who is responsible for them being irresponsible?
When greed for consumption drives you to such a level of recklessness... that is not an indication that the nanny state needs to step in to save you from yourself paid for by people who behave responsibly.