Debt under Obama: money well spent (mostly)

[Billy000]

Yes Billy, facts are facts. And the fact is you are wrong.
Let's try this again. Can you put these numbers in order from highest to lowest?
15.0;15.2;16.7

I'll help. Those numbers are in order. They represent, from your own link, revenue as a percentage of GDP for 2011, 2012, and 2013. The numbers have gotten bigger, not smaller.
Ass kicking #1.

Unemployment under Bush reached a maximum of 7.8% For most of his 2 terms it was closer to 5%. There was lots of job loss at the end of his term but that was mostly stabilized by the time Obama got in office.
For Obama 7.3% was the best showing. And even there we cannot trust the gov't figures much because we know they are manipulated. Equally, workforce participation is the lowest it's ever been. If it were where it was when Obama took office the UE rate would be over 10%.
Obama has not created many jobs. More people have dropped out of the labor force, gone on disability, than have gotten jobs.
Ass kicking #2.

Finally, are you giving Obama credit for creating jobs or not? Or does he get credit when jobs are created but Bush gets blame when not enough are? Your last sentence is completely incoherent. Even for you.
Ass kicking #3.
I'd say you're way behind here. "Behind". Get it?

You and I both know you are losing this argument horribly. Stop kidding yourself. Revenue is very low. A percentage point hardly makes a difference.

You are completley wrong about the jobs lost in Bush's final months:

Sept. 2008: 432,000 lost
October 2008: 289,000 lost
November 2008: 803,000 lost
Dec 2008: 661,000 lost
January 2009: 818,000 lost
February 2009: 724,000 lost
March 2009 799,000lost
April 2009 692,000 lost
May 2009 369,000 lost
June 2009 482,000 lost
July 337,000 lost
August 231,000 lost
Sept 199,000 lost
October 202,000 lost
November 64,000 GAINED
Dec 2009 109,000 lost
January 2010 40,000 lost
February 2010 35,000 lost
March 2010 189,000 GAINED
April 2010 232,000 GAINED
May 516,000 GAINED

As you can see, the stimulus not only slowed down the job loss rate dramatically, it also began to CREATE jobs. In total, the stimulus created 2.5 million.

Suure. Let's play spin doctor. Stimulus? What stimulus? If that money were truly helping, there would be more people participating in the labor force. Consider your argument annulled.

Current Labor Force Participation Rate as of October:

So Obama should have just waved his magic wand and fix the whole thing huh? there is nothing surprising about tor graph. Obviously the great recession did horrible things to the work force.

Tell me genius. What would you do? How would you create jobs? Tax cuts won't help.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You and I both know you are losing this argument horribly. Stop kidding yourself. Revenue is very low. A percentage point hardly makes a difference.

You are completley wrong about the jobs lost in Bush's final months:

Sept. 2008: 432,000 lost
October 2008: 289,000 lost
November 2008: 803,000 lost
Dec 2008: 661,000 lost
January 2009: 818,000 lost
February 2009: 724,000 lost
March 2009 799,000lost
April 2009 692,000 lost
May 2009 369,000 lost
June 2009 482,000 lost
July 337,000 lost
August 231,000 lost
Sept 199,000 lost
October 202,000 lost
November 64,000 GAINED
Dec 2009 109,000 lost
January 2010 40,000 lost
February 2010 35,000 lost
March 2010 189,000 GAINED
April 2010 232,000 GAINED
May 516,000 GAINED

As you can see, the stimulus not only slowed down the job loss rate dramatically, it also began to CREATE jobs. In total, the stimulus created 2.5 million.

Suure. Let's play spin doctor. Stimulus? What stimulus? If that money were truly helping, there would be more people participating in the labor force. Consider your argument annulled.

Current Labor Force Participation Rate as of October:

So Obama should have just waved his magic wand and fix the whole thing huh? there is nothing surprising about tor graph. Obviously the great recession did horrible things to the work force.

Tell me genius. What would you do? How would you create jobs? Tax cuts won't help.

That is what he meant by change, wasn't it? Oh wait, nevermind. Unless you run a business, I doubt you know what good tax cuts can do. Given that when Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton all cut taxes, the economy expanded and jobs were created. You need only look at recent examples in history to know you are wrong.

Genius? TK will suffice thanks.

 

[FactFinder]

Suure. Let's play spin doctor. Stimulus? What stimulus? If that money were truly helping, there would be more people participating in the labor force. Consider your argument annulled.

Current Labor Force Participation Rate as of October:

So Obama should have just waved his magic wand and fix the whole thing huh? there is nothing surprising about tor graph. Obviously the great recession did horrible things to the work force.

Tell me genius. What would you do? How would you create jobs? Tax cuts won't help.

That is what he meant by change, wasn't it? Oh wait, nevermind. Unless you run a business, I doubt you know what good tax cuts can do. Given that when Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton all cut taxes, the economy expanded and jobs were created. You need only look at recent examples in history to know you are wrong.

Genius? TK will suffice thanks.

Yeah, yeah and we were all living in bliss for eternity. Tell that to the veterans who returned from Iraq missing limbs.

 

[Billy000]

Suure. Let's play spin doctor. Stimulus? What stimulus? If that money were truly helping, there would be more people participating in the labor force. Consider your argument annulled.

Current Labor Force Participation Rate as of October:

So Obama should have just waved his magic wand and fix the whole thing huh? there is nothing surprising about tor graph. Obviously the great recession did horrible things to the work force.

Tell me genius. What would you do? How would you create jobs? Tax cuts won't help.

That is what he meant by change, wasn't it? Oh wait, nevermind. Unless you run a business, I doubt you know what good tax cuts can do. Given that when Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton all cut taxes, the economy expanded and jobs were created. You need only look at recent examples in history to know you are wrong.

Genius? TK will suffice thanks.

Well see the problem with tax cuts is that it only stimulates the supply side of the economy. It does nothing to stimulate the demand side of business.

Bush Jr had the most expensive tax cuts and job growth was pathetic under him. So no, tax cuts create very ltttle in terms of jobs. They also only stimulate .59 cents for every dollar lost in revenue. Job growth under Regan was great....for the middle class and rich. The poor only got more poor. There is no evidence however tax cuts were the reason he had job growth. The same goes for Clinton.

Haha that was funny. I'll give you that.

 

[FactFinder]

Actually the more accurate gauge is the business cycle. Guess what? We are about to turn back to a recession in ~ 2014.

Although it is likely to be mild since we didn't go crazy with housing bubbles and such.

2008-2014: 8 years the normal business cycle.

 

[The Rabbi]

Uh, yeah it was one percent lower a year ago and it was 4 points higher 13 years ago. Last year was the lowest it had ever gotten. We aren't much better than one year later now are we?

If someone is going to kick my ass on this forum, it sure as hell won't be you lol. Don't flatter yourself. You are a complete simpleton.

You people are so stupid with this unemployment figure under Bush. The financial crisis happened on his watch. The economy went into a tail spin from 2008 on. We were losing 100,000s.of thousands of jobs a month but the job loss rate was dramatically reduced when the stimulus package by Obama came into effect. Obviously the employment rate is going to be higher than it was with Bush. We lost a shit load of jobs. This all happened in his last few months! Get this crap through your heads. Obama inherited a complete mess. There is no denying that, however, under his reign and through his policies, 2.5x more jobs have been created under Obama's 5 than Bush's 8. Unfortunately we have lost more jobs than we have gained and there is no evidence Obama's policies have had anything to do with it.

Facts are facts.

Yes Billy, facts are facts. And the fact is you are wrong.
Let's try this again. Can you put these numbers in order from highest to lowest?
15.0;15.2;16.7

I'll help. Those numbers are in order. They represent, from your own link, revenue as a percentage of GDP for 2011, 2012, and 2013. The numbers have gotten bigger, not smaller.
Ass kicking #1.

Unemployment under Bush reached a maximum of 7.8% For most of his 2 terms it was closer to 5%. There was lots of job loss at the end of his term but that was mostly stabilized by the time Obama got in office.
For Obama 7.3% was the best showing. And even there we cannot trust the gov't figures much because we know they are manipulated. Equally, workforce participation is the lowest it's ever been. If it were where it was when Obama took office the UE rate would be over 10%.
Obama has not created many jobs. More people have dropped out of the labor force, gone on disability, than have gotten jobs.
Ass kicking #2.

Finally, are you giving Obama credit for creating jobs or not? Or does he get credit when jobs are created but Bush gets blame when not enough are? Your last sentence is completely incoherent. Even for you.
Ass kicking #3.
I'd say you're way behind here. "Behind". Get it?

You and I both know you are losing this argument horribly. Stop kidding yourself. Revenue is very low. A percentage point hardly makes a difference.

You are completley wrong about the jobs lost in Bush's final months:

Sept. 2008: 432,000 lost
October 2008: 289,000 lost
November 2008: 803,000 lost
Dec 2008: 661,000 lost
January 2009: 818,000 lost
February 2009: 724,000 lost
March 2009 799,000lost
April 2009 692,000 lost
May 2009 369,000 lost
June 2009 482,000 lost
July 337,000 lost
August 231,000 lost
Sept 199,000 lost
October 202,000 lost
November 64,000 GAINED
Dec 2009 109,000 lost
January 2010 40,000 lost
February 2010 35,000 lost
March 2010 189,000 GAINED
April 2010 232,000 GAINED
May 516,000 GAINED

As you can see, the stimulus not only slowed down the job loss rate dramatically, it also began to CREATE jobs. In total, the stimulus created 2.5 million.

Revenue is higher now than it was at the start of the recession. Your grasp of facts is very tenuous. When called you want to switch from gross revenue to revenue as a percent of GDP. No matter what you pick you are simply wrong. The government is taking in more money than ever before but spending even more than ever before. Thus the high deficit and growing debt.
Who said anything about jobs under Bush? This is a deflection by you.

 

[The Rabbi]

You and I both know you are losing this argument horribly. Stop kidding yourself. Revenue is very low. A percentage point hardly makes a difference.

You are completley wrong about the jobs lost in Bush's final months:

Sept. 2008: 432,000 lost
October 2008: 289,000 lost
November 2008: 803,000 lost
Dec 2008: 661,000 lost
January 2009: 818,000 lost
February 2009: 724,000 lost
March 2009 799,000lost
April 2009 692,000 lost
May 2009 369,000 lost
June 2009 482,000 lost
July 337,000 lost
August 231,000 lost
Sept 199,000 lost
October 202,000 lost
November 64,000 GAINED
Dec 2009 109,000 lost
January 2010 40,000 lost
February 2010 35,000 lost
March 2010 189,000 GAINED
April 2010 232,000 GAINED
May 516,000 GAINED

As you can see, the stimulus not only slowed down the job loss rate dramatically, it also began to CREATE jobs. In total, the stimulus created 2.5 million.

Suure. Let's play spin doctor. Stimulus? What stimulus? If that money were truly helping, there would be more people participating in the labor force. Consider your argument annulled.

Current Labor Force Participation Rate as of October:

So Obama should have just waved his magic wand and fix the whole thing huh? there is nothing surprising about tor graph. Obviously the great recession did horrible things to the work force.

Tell me genius. What would you do? How would you create jobs? Tax cuts won't help.

So Bush should have waved his magic wand and fixed the whole thing?
See how that works? Probably not.
Obama's policies did horrible things to the workforce. Keep people unemployed for 99 weeks and their job skills suffer. Give more money for disability and more people will get on it. Increase taxes on people and increase regulations on business and fewer jobs will be created.
Obama's recovery has been worse than Bush's recession.

 

[editec]

Trying to have a serious discussion about government spending and debt here is an exercise in futility.

These partisan morons actually believe the crap their party propagandists tell them.

 

[depotoo]

let's look at the household survey employment numbers under Bush vs Obama (which includes all self employed)
Feb 2001 135,815,000 employed
Jan 2009 142,099,000 employed
a difference of 6,284,400 jobs created in 8 years, an avg of 785,550 each year.

Obama
Feb 2009 141,748,000 employed
Oct 2013 143,568,000
a difference of 1,820,00, an avg of 371,429 a yr (4.9 yrs )

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_03092001.txt
Employment Situation News Release
Employment Situation News Release
Employment Situation Archived News Releases

Nice try. You know a lie by omission is still a lie and yours is a whopper.

Consider the Feb. 2001 to January 2002 budget and economy was that of Pres. Clinton; and, the Feb. 2009 to Jan. 2010 Budget & Economy was that of Pres. Bush.

Consider GWB expanded the Federal Gov't by leaps when he established the Dept. of Homeland Security; Consider, President Obama was handed a Sequester and many government employees lost their jobs.

Was any of this considered by depotoo? Or was his/her post an effort to fool us?

consider Bush was handed the Clinton dot com recession, consider Bush was handed the mortgage crisis which the top Dems denied even existed when he gave them warning before its fallout, consider Bush had the financial strains from 9/11, consider that Bush had the strain of the worst hurricane season on record, yet still more jobs were produced under him than under Obama. True, he expanded the gov't with Homeland security, yet Obama has created more new agencies than Bush did. Ever look to see how many agencies et al the healthcare bill has created alone?

Now, look who is attempting to fool who.

 

[Sallow]

Oh great...another thread that somehow is supposed to "prove" something".

Deficits are caused when revenues don't keep up with expeditures.

And not every president has it equally as bad.

Reagan got Carter's sh&tstorm and Obama got Bush's.

The fact remains that while Obama may not have spent (not saying he didn't) up a ton....his revenues fell and he kept on spending. That isn't what you do at home and that isn't what Obama should have done.

Sorry...don't have the bucks.....put away the card.

And the stimulus....5 years later has turned out to be a huge failure.

Yeah you're right. Obama has spent a lot.

No, the stimulus was very much not a failure.

Five years later, over $1 trillion in fake stimulus spending, $85 billion being pumped into the market by the Fed each month, and economic growth still can't break the 3% barrier?

If that's success, I'd like to know what failure looks like.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPvi8sOGN5U]9-11 Plane Crash (Super Angle) - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o]Bush: Truly not concerned about bin Laden (short version) - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsDmPEeurfA]President Bush Addresses Nation on Economic Crisis - YouTube[/ame]

Anymore stupid questions?

 

[zeke]

Trying to have a serious discussion about government spending and debt here is an exercise in futility.

These partisan morons actually believe the crap their party propagandists tell them.

Agreed. However I do give Billy credit for sincerely trying to educate these republican assholes.

Why he does that is beyond me for surely trying to educate someone like a stephanie is beyond possible. Not much hope for the rabbit either.

 

[skookerasbil]

Trying to shine shit is gay.......and thank God the majority is now on to this fraud. Took 5 years but better late than never.


Income gap between rich and poor biggest in 100 years!!!!


Income gap between rich and poor is biggest in a century - Los Angeles Times



How laughable.........but give the guy credit.......he duped 50 million people not once but twice!!!




And like in 1979, we had to go through hell to learn yet again that liberal public policy is ALWAYS a disaster. At least a whole generation is starting to get it.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Sallow]

Suure. Let's play spin doctor. Stimulus? What stimulus? If that money were truly helping, there would be more people participating in the labor force. Consider your argument annulled.

Current Labor Force Participation Rate as of October:

So Obama should have just waved his magic wand and fix the whole thing huh? there is nothing surprising about tor graph. Obviously the great recession did horrible things to the work force.

Tell me genius. What would you do? How would you create jobs? Tax cuts won't help.

That is what he meant by change, wasn't it? Oh wait, nevermind. Unless you run a business, I doubt you know what good tax cuts can do. Given that when Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton all cut taxes, the economy expanded and jobs were created. You need only look at recent examples in history to know you are wrong.

Genius? TK will suffice thanks.

I ran a business.

Taxes weren't my biggest problem.

It was the services provided by the electric company and the city of Atlanta that were.

We had outages almost weekly. It rained? A tree fell over. Cut electrical lines and shutdown my bar. It also caused spoilage, which was a financial catastrophe for me.

So really..what business did you run again?

 

[skookerasbil]

so obama should have just waved his magic wand and fix the whole thing huh? There is nothing surprising about tor graph. Obviously the great recession did horrible things to the work force.

Tell me genius. What would you do? How would you create jobs? Tax cuts won't help.

that is what he meant by change, wasn't it? Oh wait, nevermind. Unless you run a business, i doubt you know what good tax cuts can do. Given that when reagan, bush sr. And clinton all cut taxes, the economy expanded and jobs were created. You need only look at recent examples in history to know you are wrong.

Genius? Tk will suffice thanks.

i ran a business.

Taxes weren't my biggest problem.

It was the services provided by the electric company and the city of atlanta that were.

We had outages almost weekly. It rained? A tree fell over. Cut electrical lines and shutdown my bar. It also caused spoilage, which was a financial catastrophe for me.

So really..what business did you run again?

oh gawd!!!

 

[depotoo]

Yeah you're right. Obama has spent a lot.

No, the stimulus was very much not a failure.

Five years later, over $1 trillion in fake stimulus spending, $85 billion being pumped into the market by the Fed each month, and economic growth still can't break the 3% barrier?

If that's success, I'd like to know what failure looks like.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPvi8sOGN5U]9-11 Plane Crash (Super Angle) - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o]Bush: Truly not concerned about bin Laden (short version) - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsDmPEeurfA]President Bush Addresses Nation on Economic Crisis - YouTube[/ame]

Anymore stupid questions?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM]Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube[/ame]

Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001

•April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
2002

•May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003

•February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.



•September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.



•September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)



•October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)



•November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004

•February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)



•February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)



•April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)



•June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
2005

•April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)



•July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)
2007

•August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)



•August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)



•December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)
2008

•February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)



•March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)



•April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)



•May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.


◦"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)



◦"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)



◦"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)


•June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)



•July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.



•September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)

the Democratic response?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyqYY72PeRM]Democrats in their own words Covering up Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac scandal - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE]Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble? - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTbIb75JdwY]Don't Regulate Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg]Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Democrats are Clueless on Freddie Mac Fannie Mae and the financial credit crisis. - YouTube[/ame]
any more questions?

 

[Gadawg73]

Unemployment rate is a government manipulated figure for the dumb masses.
The real gauge is labor participation rate which is at its lowest in 70 years.
The steep curve is largest over the last 5 years.

 

[1776]

Uh idiot....Obama even admitted the "shovel ready jobs" weren't ready when he explained the failure of the Porkulus.

The Porkulus was just a scam stealing taxpayer money and giving it to his political supporters running bankrupt "green" companies that stole millions/billions. It was a transfer of money from the taxpayer to his "friends" in companies and in community organizer scams.

The unemployment bullshit was just another welfare handout. Obama realized his Porkulus wasn't going to save jobs so the unemployment benefits was just a smokescreen to appease those losing jobs under Obama's terrible plan, also to help get more voters for the next elections. Handout goodies to dumb people expecting them to show up at the polls.

More people are out of work/out of the work force today compared to anytime in the history of the USA. He is doing it all by design to slowly implement socialist policies all in the name of "saving everyone."

Obama's biggest contribution to the debt (in terms of policy) was his stimulus package of 787 billion which was achieved by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and job creating public works projects. For the next two years, 858 billion was added because of he extended Bush's tax cuts. He increased defense spending by 800 billion a year. What also contributed to the debt under Obama was the low federal income because of low income tax receipts from 2008 financial crisis.

Both Obama and Bush had to contend with higher mandatory spending for social security and Medicare. The Patient Control and ACA was designed to reduce the debt by 143 billion over 10 years but these savings didn't show up til late.


US Debt by President


Here is what Obama did wrong: Extending the Bush tax cuts. The CBO estimates that the Bush tax cuts created 4.6 jobs for every million dollar cut. That is pathetic job growth. Bush was stupid to introduce them and Obama was stupid to extend them. Reductions in the tax rate actually hurt the economy. Every dollar lost in tax revenue only creates 59 cents in growth.

Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs?

What Obama did right: extending unemployment benefits. Not only did this provide relief to the Americans out of work, but it also helped the economy. 19 jobs were created per 1 million in benefits. Every 1 billion, creates 19,000 jobs. Not only that, but every dollar spent on these benefits created $ 1.73 in economic demand. This is because the unemployed spend every dollar they receive on basic essentials, such as food, clothing, and housing. It is estimated that every month these benefits were extended cost tax payers $10 billion. However, it also generated 17.3 billion in economic growth.. Without benefits during this time, demand drops.

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

Obama so-so spending was his increase in defense spending which did both good and bad, depending on how you look at it.

Lets not forget that there was no spending growth under Obama from Bush's years.

I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

Also, 2.5x more jobs were created under Obama's 5 years than all of Bush's 8.

Obama?s Numbers, October Update

What's the bottom line? Republican economic policies only help the wealthy and government can and does create jobs

 

[Stephanie]

Lets cut the bullshit

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama's biggest contribution to the debt (in terms of policy) was his stimulus package of 787 billion which was achieved by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and job creating public works projects. For the next two years, 858 billion was added because of he extended Bush's tax cuts. He increased defense spending by 800 billion a year. What also contributed to the debt under Obama was the low federal income because of low income tax receipts from 2008 financial crisis.

Both Obama and Bush had to contend with higher mandatory spending for social security and Medicare. The Patient Control and ACA was designed to reduce the debt by 143 billion over 10 years but these savings didn't show up til late.


US Debt by President


Here is what Obama did wrong: Extending the Bush tax cuts. The CBO estimates that the Bush tax cuts created 4.6 jobs for every million dollar cut. That is pathetic job growth. Bush was stupid to introduce them and Obama was stupid to extend them. Reductions in the tax rate actually hurt the economy. Every dollar lost in tax revenue only creates 59 cents in growth.

Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs?

What Obama did right: extending unemployment benefits. Not only did this provide relief to the Americans out of work, but it also helped the economy. 19 jobs were created per 1 million in benefits. Every 1 billion, creates 19,000 jobs. Not only that, but every dollar spent on these benefits created $ 1.73 in economic demand. This is because the unemployed spend every dollar they receive on basic essentials, such as food, clothing, and housing. It is estimated that every month these benefits were extended cost tax payers $10 billion. However, it also generated 17.3 billion in economic growth.. Without benefits during this time, demand drops.

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

Obama so-so spending was his increase in defense spending which did both good and bad, depending on how you look at it.

Lets not forget that there was no spending growth under Obama from Bush's years.

I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

Also, 2.5x more jobs were created under Obama's 5 years than all of Bush's 8.

Obama?s Numbers, October Update

What's the bottom line? Republican economic policies only help the wealthy and government can and does create jobs

He increased defense spending by 800 billion a year.

Obama did that? Wow!

The CBO estimates that the Bush tax cuts created 4.6 jobs for every million dollar cut.

I'd like to see the back up for that. But it sounds good to me. People keep their own money AND jobs are created? Count me in!!!

That is pathetic job growth. Bush was stupid to introduce them and Obama was stupid to extend them.

Better than Obama wasting money giving it to campaign donors who blow it on bankrupt green energy schemes. I will agree with one thing, Obama is stupid.

Every dollar lost in tax revenue only creates 59 cents in growth.

Keeping more of our money AND growth? Where is the downside?

What Obama did right: extending unemployment benefits. Not only did this provide relief to the Americans out of work, but it also helped the economy. 19 jobs were created per 1 million in benefits

Bullshit.

Lets not forget that there was no spending growth under Obama from Bush's years.

When you add $250 billion in TARP loans in FY 2009 as well as Obama's stimulus spending after his election, and blame it on Bush, and then ignore the $250 billion getting paid back in following years, and continuing the level of Obama's stimulus spending every year, it's easy for the math challenged on the left to believe that.

We know better.
Bush spent like a drunken sailor, no question about that.
Obama spends like a gay drunken sailor on crack and X.

Makes me miss Bush's "fiscal discipline".