Actually, it is the historically low interest rates.
Your personal attack on me makes you look even more foolish. Month-to-month changes in economic indicators have nothing to do with the president.
If the most recent increase in housing numbers is because of something President Bush did and should receive credit for, was the most recent decline in retail sales something Bush should be blamed for?
Housing numbers were good today--the bond market is bad today. Should Bush get credit for good housing numbers and blamed for the bond numbers?
You first post made you look foolish. Your second post even more foolish. Presidents can't control month-to-month changes in economic indicators. If you believe Bush is the reason for the good housing numbers, then you also believe he is the reason for the poor retail sales number and the poor bond market today (as of 1150 am ET) and the poor stock market today (as current also).
You are not this foolish--I have confidence in that. Rethink what you are writing, and redeem yourself. The Internet world is no place to showcase a lack of knowledge and common sense so try posting something that has a basis in reality.
Stop the personal attack. Stop posting nonsense. Try to rethink your opinion and please post something that does make sense, and avoid the personal attacks.
Presidents DO NOT have control over short-term economic indicators, whether good or bad, and should never receive credit not be pointed to as the blame for these short-term fluctuations.