Debt under Obama: money well spent (mostly)

[The T]

Nothing Reagan did reduced inflation.

That was Jimmy Carter and Paul Volcker.

But he did create a HUGE deficit with that tax cut.

Boy Howdy!

Nothing Reagan did reduced inflation.

Really? Increasing production doesn't help "soak up" money supply to reduce inflation?

But he did create a HUGE deficit with that tax cut.

Revenues went from $599 billion in FY 1981 all the way down to $991 billion in FY 1989.
Just awful!

No.

It was just awful. Especially when you add in the bailouts.

Again? What Bailouts?

 

[The T]

Stupid people like you should be locked away.

The US economy under Reagan undermined the USSR's ability to keep pace with our military advances. Also, people in the Eastern Bloc saw the lifestyle of Americans in the 1980s under Reagan and it undermined the sales pitch of your fellow socialists enslaving them behind the Iron Curtain.

Reagan destroyed the USSR, period, dumbfuck.

Reagan's spending STIMULATED the economy which created jobs and in the long run ended the Cold War and freed millions in Eastern Europe.

Obama's spending has only lined the pockets of his scumbag friends and helped drive more people out of work/the workforce.

Reagan did do a lot of spending..and it did stimulate the economy. The spending, however, did not "end" the cold war. That was diplomacy.

Obama's been stopped from spending. And that's a myth about lining the "pockets of his friends".

Sallow likes to project...

 

[depotoo]

9-11 Plane Crash (Super Angle) - YouTube
Bush: Truly not concerned about bin Laden (short version) - YouTube
President Bush Addresses Nation on Economic Crisis - YouTube

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?

What a load of crap.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were not involved in the Subprimes that lead to the financial collapse.

And they actually came to the rescue in 2008 as a way keep the whole housing industry from going under when they finally picked them up.

You guys really have a ridiculously skewed version of history.

The mortgage crisis from late 2007[edit]

Following their mission to meet federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing goals, GSEs such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) have striven to improve home ownership of low and middle income families, underserved areas, and generally through special affordable methods such as "the ability to obtain a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a low down payment... and the continuous availability of mortgage credit under a wide range of economic conditions." (HUD 2002 Annual Housing Activities Report)[dead link] Then in 2003–2004, the subprime mortgage crisis began.[31] The market shifted away from regulated GSE's and radically toward Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) issued by unregulated private-label securitization conduits, typically operated by investment banks.

As mortgage originators began to distribute more and more of their loans through private label MBS's, GSE's lost the ability to monitor and control mortgage originators. Competition between the GSEs and private securitizers for loans further undermined GSEs power and strengthened mortgage originators. This contributed to a decline in underwriting standards and was a major cause of the financial crisis.[32]

Investment bank securitizers were more willing to securitize risky loans because they generally retained minimal risk. Whereas the GSE's guaranteed the performance of their MBS's, private securitizers generally did not, and might only retain a thin slice of risk.[32] Often, banks would offload this risk to insurance companies or other counterparties through credit default swaps, making their actual risk exposures extremely difficult for investors and creditors to discern.[33]

The shift toward riskier mortgages and private label MBS distribution occurred as financial institutions sought to maintain earnings levels that had been elevated during 2001–2003 by an unprecedented refinancing boom due to historically low interest rates. Earnings depended on volume, so maintaining elevated earnings levels necessitated expanding the borrower pool using lower underwriting standards and new products that the GSE's would not (initially) securitize. Thus, the shift away from GSE securitization to private-label securitization (PLS) also corresponded with a shift in mortgage product type, from traditional, amortizing, fixed-rate mortgages (FRM's) to nontraditional, structurally riskier, nonamortizing, adjustable-rate mortgages (ARM's), and in the start of a sharp deterioration in mortgage underwriting standards.[31] The growth of PLS, however, forced the GSEs to lower their underwriting standards in an attempt to reclaim lost market share to please their private shareholders. Shareholder pressure pushed the GSEs into competition with PLS for market share, and the GSEs loosened their guarantee business underwriting standards in order to compete. In contrast, the wholly public FHA/Ginnie Mae maintained their underwriting standards and instead ceded market share.[31]

The growth of private-label securitization and lack of regulation in this part of the market resulted in the oversupply of underpriced housing finance[31] that led, in 2006, to an increasing number of borrowers, often with poor credit, who were unable to pay their mortgages – particularly with adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), caused a precipitous increase in home foreclosures. As a result, home prices declined as increasing foreclosures added to the already large inventory of homes and stricter lending standards made it more and more difficult for borrowers to get mortgages. This depreciation in home prices led to growing losses for the GSEs, which back the majority of US mortgages. In July 2008, the government attempted to ease market fears by reiterating their view that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in the US housing finance system". The US Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve took steps to bolster confidence in the corporations, including granting both corporations access to Federal Reserve low-interest loans (at similar rates as commercial banks) and removing the prohibition on the Treasury Department to purchase the GSEs' stock. Despite these efforts, by August 2008, shares of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had tumbled more than 90% from their one-year prior levels.

On Oct 21, 2010 FHFA estimates revealed that the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will likely cost taxpayers $224–360 billion in total, with over $150 billion already provided.[34]
Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sorry, hon, you are misinformed-

Private Profits With Public Risk
With a funding advantage over their Wall Street rivals, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made large profits for more than two decades. Over this time period, there was frequent debate and analysis among financial and housing market professionals, government officials, members of Congress and the executive branch about whether Fannie and Freddie's implied government backing was working mostly to benefit the companies, their management and their investors, or U.S. homeowners (particularly low-income homeowners) as was part of these firms' HUD-administered housing mission.

One thing was clear: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given a government-sponsored monopoly on a large part of the U.S. secondary mortgage market. It is this monopoly, combined with the government's implicit guarantee to keep these firms afloat, that would later contribute to the mortgage market's collapse. (For more on the secondary mortgage market, see Behind the Scenes of Your Mortgage.)...

In 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began to experience large losses on their retained portfolios, especially on their Alt-A and subprime investments. In 2008, the sheer size of their retained portfolios and mortgage guarantees led the FHFA to conclude that they would soon be insolvent. By September 6, 2008, it was clear that the market believed the firms were in financial trouble, and the FHFA put the companies into "conservatorship". American taxpayers were left on the hook for future losses beyond the companies' existing - and shrinking - capital cushions.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008

 

[Billy000]

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".

If I were to say one more time that tax cuts increase our debt, would any of you believe me?

 

[RKMBrown]

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".

If I were to say one more time that tax cuts increase our debt, would any of you believe me?

You want to reduce debt? Get a job parasite.

 

[Sallow]

Nothing Reagan did reduced inflation.

Really? Increasing production doesn't help "soak up" money supply to reduce inflation?

But he did create a HUGE deficit with that tax cut.

Revenues went from $599 billion in FY 1981 all the way down to $991 billion in FY 1989.
Just awful!

No.

It was just awful. Especially when you add in the bailouts.

What bailouts?

Really?

 

[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".

If I were to say one more time that tax cuts increase our debt, would any of you believe me?

You could say again that tax cuts hurt the economy, but we still wouldn't believe you.

Obama said he'd raise capital gains tax rates, even if that resulted in lower tax revenues.
You don't think higher rates always bring in promised increases in government revenue, do you?

 

[Sallow]

Stupid people like you should be locked away.

The US economy under Reagan undermined the USSR's ability to keep pace with our military advances. Also, people in the Eastern Bloc saw the lifestyle of Americans in the 1980s under Reagan and it undermined the sales pitch of your fellow socialists enslaving them behind the Iron Curtain.

Reagan destroyed the USSR, period, dumbfuck.

Reagan's spending STIMULATED the economy which created jobs and in the long run ended the Cold War and freed millions in Eastern Europe.

Obama's spending has only lined the pockets of his scumbag friends and helped drive more people out of work/the workforce.

Reagan did do a lot of spending..and it did stimulate the economy. The spending, however, did not "end" the cold war. That was diplomacy.

Obama's been stopped from spending. And that's a myth about lining the "pockets of his friends".

Yeah..that's the myth.

The reality is quite different.

Initially, Reagan's bellicose attitude toward the Soviets basically nearly killed the deal.

But he dumbed it down and began making all sorts of promises. Expensive ones.

Which cost us big.

We floated the Russian economy after the break up of the Soviet Union.

Of course you dumbfucks forget all about that shit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No.

It was just awful. Especially when you add in the bailouts.

What bailouts?

Really?

I'll wait for your answer.

 

[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.

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.

Um, no I never said Bush should have fixed the problem. However, he did let it happen on his watch.

"Obama's policies did horrible things to the workforce"

Lol oh man you are one of the most willfully ignorant people on this site. When you are presented with facts that challenge your perspective, you run away like a little girl.

Obama's policies created jobs. Bush's policies let us lose millions of jobs in his final months.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Um, no I never said Bush should have fixed the problem. However, he did let it happen on his watch.

"Obama's policies did horrible things to the workforce"

Lol oh man you are one of the most willfully ignorant people on this site. When you are presented with facts that challenge your perspective, you run away like a little girl.

Obama's policies created jobs. Bush's policies let us lose millions of jobs in his final months.

How did Bush let it happen on his watch? What should he have done instead?
WHat facts have you presented? None. In every discussion you bogus up facts, like revenue is falling. When confronted with reality you shift to something else.

 

[Billy000]

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".

If I were to say one more time that tax cuts increase our debt, would any of you believe me?

You want to reduce debt? Get a job parasite.

Why would you be so convinced I am unemployed? That is such a flimsy assumption lol

 

[Sallow]

What bailouts?

Really?

I'll wait for your answer.

Sorry..I'm kind of shocked.

But I guess you are about 16 or so and your parents never gave you the bad news about Reagan.

Savings & loan crisis[edit]
Savings and loan crisis in which 747 institutions failed and had to be rescued with $160 billion in taxpayer dollars.[28] Reagan's "elimination of loopholes" in the tax code included the elimination of the "passive loss" provisions that subsidized rental housing. Because this was removed retroactively, it bankrupted many real estate developments which used this tax break as a premise, which in turn bankrupted 747 Savings and Loans, many of whom were operating more or less as banks, thus requiring the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to cover their debts and losses with tax payer money. This with some other "deregulation" policies, ultimately led to the largest political and financial scandal in U.S. history to that date, the savings and loan crisis. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD $150 billion, about $125 billion of which was directly subsidized by the U.S. government, which further increased the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. See Keating Five.

As an indication of this scandal's size, Martin Mayer wrote at the time, "The theft from the taxpayer by the community that fattened on the growth of the savings and loan (S&L) industry in the 1980s is the worst public scandal in American history. Teapot Dome in the Harding administration and the Credit Mobilier in the times of Ulysses S. Grant have been taken as the ultimate horror stories of capitalist democracy gone to seed. Measuring by money, [or] by the misallocation of national resources... the S&L outrage makes Teapot Dome and Credit Mobilier seem minor episodes." [29]

Economist John Kenneth Galbraith called it "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."[30]
Reagan administration scandals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry to screw up the myth, kid.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMAGARePPZ8]Freddy vs Comic Book geek and D&D Nerd - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Billy000]

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.

Um, no I never said Bush should have fixed the problem. However, he did let it happen on his watch.

"Obama's policies did horrible things to the workforce"

Lol oh man you are one of the most willfully ignorant people on this site. When you are presented with facts that challenge your perspective, you run away like a little girl.

Obama's policies created jobs. Bush's policies let us lose millions of jobs in his final months.

How did Bush let it happen on his watch? What should he have done instead?
WHat facts have you presented? None. In every discussion you bogus up facts, like revenue is falling. When confronted with reality you shift to something else.

Don't blame me if you are stupid enough think 16.7% is a high percentage of revenue per GDP.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Really?

I'll wait for your answer.

Sorry..I'm kind of shocked.

But I guess you are about 16 or so and your parents never gave you the bad news about Reagan.

Savings & loan crisis[edit]
Savings and loan crisis in which 747 institutions failed and had to be rescued with $160 billion in taxpayer dollars.[28] Reagan's "elimination of loopholes" in the tax code included the elimination of the "passive loss" provisions that subsidized rental housing. Because this was removed retroactively, it bankrupted many real estate developments which used this tax break as a premise, which in turn bankrupted 747 Savings and Loans, many of whom were operating more or less as banks, thus requiring the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to cover their debts and losses with tax payer money. This with some other "deregulation" policies, ultimately led to the largest political and financial scandal in U.S. history to that date, the savings and loan crisis. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD $150 billion, about $125 billion of which was directly subsidized by the U.S. government, which further increased the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. See Keating Five.

As an indication of this scandal's size, Martin Mayer wrote at the time, "The theft from the taxpayer by the community that fattened on the growth of the savings and loan (S&L) industry in the 1980s is the worst public scandal in American history. Teapot Dome in the Harding administration and the Credit Mobilier in the times of Ulysses S. Grant have been taken as the ultimate horror stories of capitalist democracy gone to seed. Measuring by money, [or] by the misallocation of national resources... the S&L outrage makes Teapot Dome and Credit Mobilier seem minor episodes." [29]

Economist John Kenneth Galbraith called it "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."[30]
Reagan administration scandals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry to screw up the myth, kid.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMAGARePPZ8]Freddy vs Comic Book geek and D&D Nerd - YouTube[/ame]

Reagan gave us massive tax cuts, reduced inflation from double digits down to 4%.
Revenues went from $599 billion in FY 1981 all the way down to $991 billion in FY 1989.
But that doesn't count, because the S&L bailout cost $125 billion?

Sorry to laugh at your myth.

 

[The Rabbi]

Um, no I never said Bush should have fixed the problem. However, he did let it happen on his watch.

"Obama's policies did horrible things to the workforce"

Lol oh man you are one of the most willfully ignorant people on this site. When you are presented with facts that challenge your perspective, you run away like a little girl.

Obama's policies created jobs. Bush's policies let us lose millions of jobs in his final months.

How did Bush let it happen on his watch? What should he have done instead?
WHat facts have you presented? None. In every discussion you bogus up facts, like revenue is falling. When confronted with reality you shift to something else.

Don't blame me if you are stupid enough think 16.7% is a high percentage of revenue per GDP.

That's relevant how?
The fact is revenue has gone up for the last three years, both as a percent of GDP and in absolute numbers. When confrotned with facts you run away or deflect of make stuff up.
Again, how did Bush let the recession happen on his watch? What was he supposed to do instead?

 

[Billy000]

How did Bush let it happen on his watch? What should he have done instead?
WHat facts have you presented? None. In every discussion you bogus up facts, like revenue is falling. When confronted with reality you shift to something else.

Don't blame me if you are stupid enough think 16.7% is a high percentage of revenue per GDP.

That's relevant how?
The fact is revenue has gone up for the last three years, both as a percent of GDP and in absolute numbers. When confrotned with facts you run away or deflect of make stuff up.
Again, how did Bush let the recession happen on his watch? What was he supposed to do instead?

Uh yeah it went up a percent. That's good, but obviously not good enough.

If you are so content with exclaiming how much Obama has failed to pull us through this recovery in full, then why shouldn't I blame Bush for letting it happen?

 

[Billy000]

Here is a balanced perspective on the success and failure of TARP.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/10/public_opinion_and_bailouts

 

[The Rabbi]

Don't blame me if you are stupid enough think 16.7% is a high percentage of revenue per GDP.

That's relevant how?
The fact is revenue has gone up for the last three years, both as a percent of GDP and in absolute numbers. When confrotned with facts you run away or deflect of make stuff up.
Again, how did Bush let the recession happen on his watch? What was he supposed to do instead?

Uh yeah it went up a percent. That's good, but obviously not good enough.

If you are so content with exclaiming how much Obama has failed to pull us through this recovery in full, then why shouldn't I blame Bush for letting it happen?

So what would be a good figure? What difference what it make? How do you propose to do that?

Your question is a non sequitur and a deflection.
Obama's policies have produced the worst recovery in history, despite (actually because of) spending the most money on them. This is undoubted.
I can point to every policy just about and show that it distorted the market reaction that would have produced recovery and a strong one. You cannot point to any policy by Bush and say it was responsible for the recession.

 

[The Rabbi]

Here is a balanced perspective on the success and failure of TARP.

Public opinion and the bailouts: How effective was TARP, really? | The Economist

It wasnt really balanced.
And you know Bush proposed and signed TARP, right?