maybe you missed my original post or should learn to read:
did I say it was in "free fall" for 8 years?
I said it started to go down and was building momentum for 8 years not that it was "free falling" for eight years
Is arguing semantics and not understanding the written word the best you've got?
YES!
You're fucking quote is "8 years of free fall with increasing momentum."
You said it was "8 years of free fall" and during those "8 years of free fall" there was "increasing momentum."
Saying something existed for "8 years" means it was in existence for those 8 years. That's exactly what you said.
And it's not arguing "semantics." What you're proposing is "pragmatics," which I'm also not arguing. I'm quoting your entire post word for word, not interpreting any particular word or phrase in any manner what-so-ever. So yes, I suppose using the exact wording of your post in its entirety is the "best I've got."
Regardless, you're apparently no longer arguing that it was in free fall for 8 years--only "free falling" for a year.
In that case, I would argue that expecting a one-year free fall to "stop on a dime" is well within the range of reasonable expectation....and that's exactly what the STIMULUS was sold as....and failed to do.
You can't argue both sides.
If you want to argue that it was an "8 year free fall" and that's why it couldn't be reversed quickly, I will argue that it wasn't an "8 year free fall" (and it seems you agree with this).
If you want to argue that it couldn't be stopped on a dime, then I will argue that it was a one-year free fall (which you agree) and the STIMULUS was supposed to stop and reverse it. If you want to argue that the stimulus did reverse the one year free fall....and things are peachy-keen now....I'll just agree too disagree, because I don't believe the economy is better today than it was when the stimulus was enacted.