Obamacare Economy: 7 Years, 16 million Jobs Created, Middle Class Incomes Up $3K

[IcebergSlim]

You couldn't even bring yourself to answer the question....

How about this one -

How many votes did you cast for Scrub?

hahahhahaha, like AL Gore or John Kerry. Really? too funny. Let's face it, we have had candidates that leave a lot in question. Bush was necessary for the 9/11 event. A dem would have destroyed the US. So yeah, two votes for Bush. Now how many libturds did you vote into the congress during the last year of Bush's run? See now there is the real issue. The ones writing the laws. you simpletons have erased the bank scandal created by the dems in those last three years. Dodd, Frank maybe?

keep your heads up your ass and never admit anything. I can at least admit that Bush handled the last two years badly. he should have tested the dems and didn't. I am disappointed. Doesn't mean it didn't need my vote to stop the dems. I'm just saying.

Love it!

A whole system of Presidential performance analysis built on baseless fantasies about Democrats destroying United States, conveniently divorced from economic concern.

"yea he started a 10 year war of convenience...but at least he didn't destroy United States....by....well...ummm...well...you know how them Democrats do."

Dodd, Frank, just say those two names out loud until you have no voice, and those are the two responsible for the banking crisis that was 09. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Now again, Bush mishandled the situation, most likely because he didn't think the congress would have helped him. His error. he should have had meetings with the congress to shut Dodd, Frank down.

I see...any legit economists sharing your surely well informed ASSertions?

"I've never seen any. What I did see consensus around is pervasive irrational market exuberance, where barely anyone in the market recognized that real estate is not a magic risk-free, bubble-proof commodity.

The Financial Panic of 2008 and Financial Regulatory Reform

The interbank credit markets seized up. The market value of US financial institutions, especially US mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, [1] collapsed throughout the summer. The US Government was particularly concerned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because of their size and importance to the US housing market. On 30 June 2008, these two institutions had combined liabilities of over US$5.5 trillion, on a combined total regulatory capital base of approximately US$100 billion. Moreover, a widespread perception existed that their obligations were backed by an implicit guarantee from the US Government. The US Treasury asked Congress for a blank cheque – the power to inject unlimited amounts of additional capital into Fannie and Freddie, arguing that if the market knew that the Treasury had a ‘bazooka’ instead of a ‘squirt gun’, it was substantially less likely that the Treasury would be required to provide any financial assistance at all. Congress gave the Treasury that authority on 30 July 2008. [2]

The market value of Fannie and Freddie, however, continued to collapse throughout August. The Government determined that many of their assets needed to be written down, and concluded that they would not be able to plug the hole by raising additional capital from the capital markets. Alarmed that a failure of Fannie or Freddie could pull down the rest of the financial system, the US Treasury decided to exercise its new ‘bazooka’ authority on 6 September 2008 – approximately five weeks after receiving it – concluding that such action would calm the financial markets. The Government put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship and pledged to inject up to US$200 billion of new capital in the form of senior preferred stock and warrants. The terms of the transaction resulted in an immediate dilution of 80 per cent of common shareholder value, and a sharp drop in the value of junior preferred stock. The value of Fannie’s and Freddie’s senior and subordinated debt, however, soared because it was senior to the Government’s investment."

As the one Pinto-skeptic in the room, Zandi proceeded to answer his own question, “Where are the losses?” As of year-end 2013, approximately $1 trillion in credit losses on pre-crisis loans had been realized. But the realized loss rate among different sectors varied considerably. Best in class were Fannie and Freddie, with a realized loss rate of 3%. Then came depository institutions, like banks, which had a realized loss rate of 6%. The strong outlier was private label mortgage securities, with a realized loss rate of 23%, seven times that of the GSEs.

Subordination Triggered the Financial Crisis, Not the GSEs

Do you have ANY idea what that means?

 

[AntonToo]

You couldn't even bring yourself to answer the question....

How about this one -

How many votes did you cast for Scrub?

hahahhahaha, like AL Gore or John Kerry. Really? too funny. Let's face it, we have had candidates that leave a lot in question. Bush was necessary for the 9/11 event. A dem would have destroyed the US. So yeah, two votes for Bush. Now how many libturds did you vote into the congress during the last year of Bush's run? See now there is the real issue. The ones writing the laws. you simpletons have erased the bank scandal created by the dems in those last three years. Dodd, Frank maybe?

keep your heads up your ass and never admit anything. I can at least admit that Bush handled the last two years badly. he should have tested the dems and didn't. I am disappointed. Doesn't mean it didn't need my vote to stop the dems. I'm just saying.

Love it!

A whole system of Presidential performance analysis built on baseless fantasies about Democrats destroying United States, conveniently divorced from economic concern.

"yea he started a 10 year war of convenience...but at least he didn't destroy United States....by....well...ummm...well...you know how them Democrats do."

Dodd, Frank, just say those two names out loud until you have no voice, and those are the two responsible for the banking crisis that was 09. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Now again, Bush mishandled the situation, most likely because he didn't think the congress would have helped him. His error. he should have had meetings with the congress to shut Dodd, Frank down.

I see...any legit economists sharing your surely well informed ASSertions?

"I've never seen any. What I did see consensus around is pervasive irrational market exuberance, where barely anyone in the market recognized that real estate is not a magic risk-free, bubble-proof commodity.

The Financial Panic of 2008 and Financial Regulatory Reform

The interbank credit markets seized up. The market value of US financial institutions, especially US mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, [1] collapsed throughout the summer. The US Government was particularly concerned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because of their size and importance to the US housing market. On 30 June 2008, these two institutions had combined liabilities of over US$5.5 trillion, on a combined total regulatory capital base of approximately US$100 billion. Moreover, a widespread perception existed that their obligations were backed by an implicit guarantee from the US Government. The US Treasury asked Congress for a blank cheque – the power to inject unlimited amounts of additional capital into Fannie and Freddie, arguing that if the market knew that the Treasury had a ‘bazooka’ instead of a ‘squirt gun’, it was substantially less likely that the Treasury would be required to provide any financial assistance at all. Congress gave the Treasury that authority on 30 July 2008. [2]

The market value of Fannie and Freddie, however, continued to collapse throughout August. The Government determined that many of their assets needed to be written down, and concluded that they would not be able to plug the hole by raising additional capital from the capital markets. Alarmed that a failure of Fannie or Freddie could pull down the rest of the financial system, the US Treasury decided to exercise its new ‘bazooka’ authority on 6 September 2008 – approximately five weeks after receiving it – concluding that such action would calm the financial markets. The Government put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship and pledged to inject up to US$200 billion of new capital in the form of senior preferred stock and warrants. The terms of the transaction resulted in an immediate dilution of 80 per cent of common shareholder value, and a sharp drop in the value of junior preferred stock. The value of Fannie’s and Freddie’s senior and subordinated debt, however, soared because it was senior to the Government’s investment."

Ok dumbass, from your link:

On 21 July 2010 the US enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act or the Act).


2010 was A YEAR AFTER THE RECESSION WAS OVER. So we can confidently conclude that your statement that this legislature is "responsible for the banking crisis that was 09." is nothing but ignorant idiocy.

 

[easyt65]

The conspiracy involving faking numbers to make Obama Economy Legacy look like a success is nothing new.... just saying...

Real Unemployment: 9.3%

'Although the “unemployment rate” in the United States for November is 4.6% -- a rate last reached 9 years ago in August 2007 – the “real unemployment” rate is much higher, more than double at 9.3% nationwide.'

 

[jc456]

No....you tried to distract from THE FACTS with someone's opinion.....The Facts remain unsullied.

Wrong. I was pointing out that Obama's fellow Democrat, D-Warren, just stated his / snowflake 'facts' are just OPINION.

his / snowflake 'facts' are just OPINION

​

Facts are facts, Idiot......

If not from BLS, where do you get your employment data?

from the Bureau of Labor...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Look at that decline. Mamooth.

Why don't we put up the whole picture with some demographic context?

Notice something? From as far back as early 2000s, before anyone has heard the name Obama, it was clear that regardless of business cycle demographic patterns will depress LFPR well into 2030s.

LFPR dropped under Bush, it dropped under Obama and it will drop under Trump, just as surely as it increased through recessions since 1960s to 2000.

so? what's your point?

 

[AntonToo]

No....you tried to distract from THE FACTS with someone's opinion.....The Facts remain unsullied.

Wrong. I was pointing out that Obama's fellow Democrat, D-Warren, just stated his / snowflake 'facts' are just OPINION.

his / snowflake 'facts' are just OPINION

​

Facts are facts, Idiot......

If not from BLS, where do you get your employment data?

from the Bureau of Labor...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Look at that decline. Mamooth.

Why don't we put up the whole picture with some demographic context?

Notice something? From as far back as early 2000s, before anyone has heard the name Obama, it was clear that regardless of business cycle demographic patterns will depress LFPR well into 2030s.

LFPR dropped under Bush, it dropped under Obama and it will drop under Trump, just as surely as it increased through recessions since 1960s to 2000.

so? what's your point?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Wrong. I was pointing out that Obama's fellow Democrat, D-Warren, just stated his / snowflake 'facts' are just OPINION.

his / snowflake 'facts' are just OPINION

​

Facts are facts, Idiot......

If not from BLS, where do you get your employment data?

from the Bureau of Labor...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Look at that decline. Mamooth.

Why don't we put up the whole picture with some demographic context?

Notice something? From as far back as early 2000s, before anyone has heard the name Obama, it was clear that regardless of business cycle demographic patterns will depress LFPR well into 2030s.

LFPR dropped under Bush, it dropped under Obama and it will drop under Trump, just as surely as it increased through recessions since 1960s to 2000.

so? what's your point?

Concussive in this instance....

 

[jc456]

hahahhahaha, like AL Gore or John Kerry. Really? too funny. Let's face it, we have had candidates that leave a lot in question. Bush was necessary for the 9/11 event. A dem would have destroyed the US. So yeah, two votes for Bush. Now how many libturds did you vote into the congress during the last year of Bush's run? See now there is the real issue. The ones writing the laws. you simpletons have erased the bank scandal created by the dems in those last three years. Dodd, Frank maybe?

keep your heads up your ass and never admit anything. I can at least admit that Bush handled the last two years badly. he should have tested the dems and didn't. I am disappointed. Doesn't mean it didn't need my vote to stop the dems. I'm just saying.

Love it!

A whole system of Presidential performance analysis built on baseless fantasies about Democrats destroying United States, conveniently divorced from economic concern.

"yea he started a 10 year war of convenience...but at least he didn't destroy United States....by....well...ummm...well...you know how them Democrats do."

Dodd, Frank, just say those two names out loud until you have no voice, and those are the two responsible for the banking crisis that was 09. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Now again, Bush mishandled the situation, most likely because he didn't think the congress would have helped him. His error. he should have had meetings with the congress to shut Dodd, Frank down.

I see...any legit economists sharing your surely well informed ASSertions?

"I've never seen any. What I did see consensus around is pervasive irrational market exuberance, where barely anyone in the market recognized that real estate is not a magic risk-free, bubble-proof commodity.

The Financial Panic of 2008 and Financial Regulatory Reform

The interbank credit markets seized up. The market value of US financial institutions, especially US mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, [1] collapsed throughout the summer. The US Government was particularly concerned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because of their size and importance to the US housing market. On 30 June 2008, these two institutions had combined liabilities of over US$5.5 trillion, on a combined total regulatory capital base of approximately US$100 billion. Moreover, a widespread perception existed that their obligations were backed by an implicit guarantee from the US Government. The US Treasury asked Congress for a blank cheque – the power to inject unlimited amounts of additional capital into Fannie and Freddie, arguing that if the market knew that the Treasury had a ‘bazooka’ instead of a ‘squirt gun’, it was substantially less likely that the Treasury would be required to provide any financial assistance at all. Congress gave the Treasury that authority on 30 July 2008. [2]

The market value of Fannie and Freddie, however, continued to collapse throughout August. The Government determined that many of their assets needed to be written down, and concluded that they would not be able to plug the hole by raising additional capital from the capital markets. Alarmed that a failure of Fannie or Freddie could pull down the rest of the financial system, the US Treasury decided to exercise its new ‘bazooka’ authority on 6 September 2008 – approximately five weeks after receiving it – concluding that such action would calm the financial markets. The Government put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship and pledged to inject up to US$200 billion of new capital in the form of senior preferred stock and warrants. The terms of the transaction resulted in an immediate dilution of 80 per cent of common shareholder value, and a sharp drop in the value of junior preferred stock. The value of Fannie’s and Freddie’s senior and subordinated debt, however, soared because it was senior to the Government’s investment."

Ok dumbass, from your link:

On 21 July 2010 the US enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act or the Act).


2010 was A YEAR AFTER THE RECESSION WAS OVER YOU FUCKING RETARD. So we can confidently conclude that your statement that this legislature is "responsible for the banking crisis that was 09." is nothing but ignorant idiocy.

yep, so? Freddie Mac and Fannie May were Dodd, Frank. They were the ones responsible for the legislation that affected the banking industry with these two. Read it, I posted it.

 

[jc456]

Wrong. I was pointing out that Obama's fellow Democrat, D-Warren, just stated his / snowflake 'facts' are just OPINION.

his / snowflake 'facts' are just OPINION

​

Facts are facts, Idiot......

If not from BLS, where do you get your employment data?

from the Bureau of Labor...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Look at that decline. Mamooth.

Why don't we put up the whole picture with some demographic context?

Notice something? From as far back as early 2000s, before anyone has heard the name Obama, it was clear that regardless of business cycle demographic patterns will depress LFPR well into 2030s.

LFPR dropped under Bush, it dropped under Obama and it will drop under Trump, just as surely as it increased through recessions since 1960s to 2000.

so? what's your point?

so you don't know what your point was? just say dot.com. over and over then ask again, what's your point?

It's not clear how this helps obummer's numbers. that's my point.

 

[AntonToo]

his / snowflake 'facts' are just OPINION

​

Facts are facts, Idiot......

If not from BLS, where do you get your employment data?

from the Bureau of Labor...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Look at that decline. Mamooth.

Why don't we put up the whole picture with some demographic context?

Notice something? From as far back as early 2000s, before anyone has heard the name Obama, it was clear that regardless of business cycle demographic patterns will depress LFPR well into 2030s.

LFPR dropped under Bush, it dropped under Obama and it will drop under Trump, just as surely as it increased through recessions since 1960s to 2000.

so? what's your point?

so you don't know what your point was? just say dot.com. over and over then ask again, what's your point?

It's not clear how this helps obummer's numbers. that's my point.

BUT IT IS CLEAR. VERY CLEAR IN FACT.

LFPR decline is BAKED INTO THE DEMOGRAPHICS. Obama or anyone else cannot make people younger, they cannot change the shift towards higher education.

LFPR's decline is proof of bad economy today no more than it's constant expansion throughout 1960-2000s was proof of good economy.

This is the BLS statement on that from well before Obama and even Great Recession:

Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2006: Every year after 2000, the rate declined gradually, from 66.8 percent in 2001 to 66.0 percent in 2004 and 2005. According to the BLS projections, the overall participation rate will continue its gradual decrease each decade and reach 60.4 percent in 2050.

 

[IcebergSlim]

The conspiracy involving faking numbers to make Obama Economy Legacy look like a success is nothing new.... just saying...

Real Unemployment: 9.3%

'Although the “unemployment rate” in the United States for November is 4.6% -- a rate last reached 9 years ago in August 2007 – the “real unemployment” rate is much higher, more than double at 9.3% nationwide.'

So to prove that Obama is "faking numbers" you cite the U6 rate......from the very same source as that on which we rely for U3....and the nominal jobs numbers? Are you under the impression that U6 has been kept hidden?

and to top it off, you use CNS as a source?

Allow me to make this clear.....

You are a moron of the very first stripe....

Tell everyone when you first heard of U6......

Then tell everyone how U6 fared, between 2001 and 2009, as well as 2009-2016...

But before you go, let me show you an example of "Fake News"...and you certainly aren't in a position to complain about the source...

Here's the headline


94,333,000 Not In Labor Force; Labor Force Participation 62.8%


then, in the 5th paragraph....

In Friday’s report, BLS said the economy added 255,000 jobs in July, a better showing than analysts expected.



Now watch this....


Report: New records set in March for U.S. employment


then in the 4th paragraph....


Additionally, the report indicates the U.S. added 98,000 jobs last month, falling short of recent gains of 219,000 in February and 216,000 in January.


"Additionally"?

The Establishment Survey jobs number IS THE FUCKING REASON FOR THE REPORT!


But it gets even funnier....

Having been busted on this shit,CNS now obscures access to its archives, so I have to get that particular article as recatapulted by some thinly disguised NoVAR of Terence Jeffrey's......

and this is the source on which you rely to sort REAL news from FAKE....

 

[IcebergSlim]

his / snowflake 'facts' are just OPINION

​

Facts are facts, Idiot......

If not from BLS, where do you get your employment data?

from the Bureau of Labor...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Look at that decline. Mamooth.

Why don't we put up the whole picture with some demographic context?

Notice something? From as far back as early 2000s, before anyone has heard the name Obama, it was clear that regardless of business cycle demographic patterns will depress LFPR well into 2030s.

LFPR dropped under Bush, it dropped under Obama and it will drop under Trump, just as surely as it increased through recessions since 1960s to 2000.

so? what's your point?

so you don't know what your point was? just say dot.com. over and over then ask again, what's your point?

It's not clear how this helps obummer's numbers. that's my point.

No...YOU don't know what his point was......because you are thicker than pig shit....

the decline in LFPR has been anticipated for a long time....the evidence of which was before you...

 

[easyt65]

Let's talk about what's 'Real' and what's 'Fake' regarding Barry's 'Legacy' Economy / Record:


Real Unemployment: 9.3%



Despite Zero Percent Interest Rates, Obama’s Economy Ranks Worst Post WW2 - Trading with The Fly


https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2017-01-27/gdp-growth-slows-to-19-percent-in-obama-administrations-final-days





Obama's Final Economic Numbers Are In - And They're Devastating!

"- There were 5,669,000 Americans working part-time in November who would rather have a full-time job but cited economic reasons for not having such employment.

According to the bureau, involuntary part-time workers are “persons who indicated that they would like to work full time but were working part time (1 to 34 hours) because of an economic reason, such as their hours were cut back or they were unable to find full-time jobs.”

Obama can white-wash it all he wants, but the fact is people are still struggling to make ends meet and find good steady jobs.


Obama touts that he created 10 million jobs over his 2 terms, but Obama’s own former economic advisor Alan Krueger says that 95 percent of the jobs that were counted in that number were temporary or part time


- Barack Obama’s budget is projected to run a deficit of $7.3 trillion over his eight years, making him the president with the largest budget deficit. George W. Bush is second, with a deficit of $3.29 trillion over his eight years. Ronald Reagan is third at $1.412 trillion deficit in eight years and George H.W. Bush comes in fourth with a $1.03 trillion deficit in his single term.


- On the day President Obama was sworn into office (January 20, 2009) the national debt stood at an historic high of $10.6 trillion dollars. As of January 5, 2017, Obama has almost doubled the debt to an astounding $19.9 trillion.

Remember when candidate Obama said in 2008 that 43rd President George W. Bush was “driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents. Number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

Well, Obama drove up our national debt from $10.6 trillion for the first 43 presidents, and number 44 added over $9 trillion all by his lonesome – as of January 5, 2017, Obama has almost doubled the debt to an astounding $19.9 trillion that we are going to have to pay back – over $61,000 for every man, woman and child, and over $166,000 per U.S. taxpayer, according to the U.S. National Debt Clock on January 7, 2017. How irresponsible and unpatriotic is that?!"

 

[jc456]

hahahhahaha, like AL Gore or John Kerry. Really? too funny. Let's face it, we have had candidates that leave a lot in question. Bush was necessary for the 9/11 event. A dem would have destroyed the US. So yeah, two votes for Bush. Now how many libturds did you vote into the congress during the last year of Bush's run? See now there is the real issue. The ones writing the laws. you simpletons have erased the bank scandal created by the dems in those last three years. Dodd, Frank maybe?

keep your heads up your ass and never admit anything. I can at least admit that Bush handled the last two years badly. he should have tested the dems and didn't. I am disappointed. Doesn't mean it didn't need my vote to stop the dems. I'm just saying.

Love it!

A whole system of Presidential performance analysis built on baseless fantasies about Democrats destroying United States, conveniently divorced from economic concern.

"yea he started a 10 year war of convenience...but at least he didn't destroy United States....by....well...ummm...well...you know how them Democrats do."

Dodd, Frank, just say those two names out loud until you have no voice, and those are the two responsible for the banking crisis that was 09. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Now again, Bush mishandled the situation, most likely because he didn't think the congress would have helped him. His error. he should have had meetings with the congress to shut Dodd, Frank down.

I see...any legit economists sharing your surely well informed ASSertions?

"I've never seen any. What I did see consensus around is pervasive irrational market exuberance, where barely anyone in the market recognized that real estate is not a magic risk-free, bubble-proof commodity.

The Financial Panic of 2008 and Financial Regulatory Reform

The interbank credit markets seized up. The market value of US financial institutions, especially US mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, [1] collapsed throughout the summer. The US Government was particularly concerned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because of their size and importance to the US housing market. On 30 June 2008, these two institutions had combined liabilities of over US$5.5 trillion, on a combined total regulatory capital base of approximately US$100 billion. Moreover, a widespread perception existed that their obligations were backed by an implicit guarantee from the US Government. The US Treasury asked Congress for a blank cheque – the power to inject unlimited amounts of additional capital into Fannie and Freddie, arguing that if the market knew that the Treasury had a ‘bazooka’ instead of a ‘squirt gun’, it was substantially less likely that the Treasury would be required to provide any financial assistance at all. Congress gave the Treasury that authority on 30 July 2008. [2]

The market value of Fannie and Freddie, however, continued to collapse throughout August. The Government determined that many of their assets needed to be written down, and concluded that they would not be able to plug the hole by raising additional capital from the capital markets. Alarmed that a failure of Fannie or Freddie could pull down the rest of the financial system, the US Treasury decided to exercise its new ‘bazooka’ authority on 6 September 2008 – approximately five weeks after receiving it – concluding that such action would calm the financial markets. The Government put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship and pledged to inject up to US$200 billion of new capital in the form of senior preferred stock and warrants. The terms of the transaction resulted in an immediate dilution of 80 per cent of common shareholder value, and a sharp drop in the value of junior preferred stock. The value of Fannie’s and Freddie’s senior and subordinated debt, however, soared because it was senior to the Government’s investment."

As the one Pinto-skeptic in the room, Zandi proceeded to answer his own question, “Where are the losses?” As of year-end 2013, approximately $1 trillion in credit losses on pre-crisis loans had been realized. But the realized loss rate among different sectors varied considerably. Best in class were Fannie and Freddie, with a realized loss rate of 3%. Then came depository institutions, like banks, which had a realized loss rate of 6%. The strong outlier was private label mortgage securities, with a realized loss rate of 23%, seven times that of the GSEs.

Subordination Triggered the Financial Crisis, Not the GSEs

Do you have ANY idea what that means?

that you still haven't provided any information that Bush was responsible. Thanks,

 

[IcebergSlim]

hahahhahaha, like AL Gore or John Kerry. Really? too funny. Let's face it, we have had candidates that leave a lot in question. Bush was necessary for the 9/11 event. A dem would have destroyed the US. So yeah, two votes for Bush. Now how many libturds did you vote into the congress during the last year of Bush's run? See now there is the real issue. The ones writing the laws. you simpletons have erased the bank scandal created by the dems in those last three years. Dodd, Frank maybe?

keep your heads up your ass and never admit anything. I can at least admit that Bush handled the last two years badly. he should have tested the dems and didn't. I am disappointed. Doesn't mean it didn't need my vote to stop the dems. I'm just saying.

Love it!

A whole system of Presidential performance analysis built on baseless fantasies about Democrats destroying United States, conveniently divorced from economic concern.

"yea he started a 10 year war of convenience...but at least he didn't destroy United States....by....well...ummm...well...you know how them Democrats do."

Dodd, Frank, just say those two names out loud until you have no voice, and those are the two responsible for the banking crisis that was 09. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Now again, Bush mishandled the situation, most likely because he didn't think the congress would have helped him. His error. he should have had meetings with the congress to shut Dodd, Frank down.

I see...any legit economists sharing your surely well informed ASSertions?

"I've never seen any. What I did see consensus around is pervasive irrational market exuberance, where barely anyone in the market recognized that real estate is not a magic risk-free, bubble-proof commodity.

The Financial Panic of 2008 and Financial Regulatory Reform

The interbank credit markets seized up. The market value of US financial institutions, especially US mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, [1] collapsed throughout the summer. The US Government was particularly concerned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because of their size and importance to the US housing market. On 30 June 2008, these two institutions had combined liabilities of over US$5.5 trillion, on a combined total regulatory capital base of approximately US$100 billion. Moreover, a widespread perception existed that their obligations were backed by an implicit guarantee from the US Government. The US Treasury asked Congress for a blank cheque – the power to inject unlimited amounts of additional capital into Fannie and Freddie, arguing that if the market knew that the Treasury had a ‘bazooka’ instead of a ‘squirt gun’, it was substantially less likely that the Treasury would be required to provide any financial assistance at all. Congress gave the Treasury that authority on 30 July 2008. [2]

The market value of Fannie and Freddie, however, continued to collapse throughout August. The Government determined that many of their assets needed to be written down, and concluded that they would not be able to plug the hole by raising additional capital from the capital markets. Alarmed that a failure of Fannie or Freddie could pull down the rest of the financial system, the US Treasury decided to exercise its new ‘bazooka’ authority on 6 September 2008 – approximately five weeks after receiving it – concluding that such action would calm the financial markets. The Government put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship and pledged to inject up to US$200 billion of new capital in the form of senior preferred stock and warrants. The terms of the transaction resulted in an immediate dilution of 80 per cent of common shareholder value, and a sharp drop in the value of junior preferred stock. The value of Fannie’s and Freddie’s senior and subordinated debt, however, soared because it was senior to the Government’s investment."

Ok dumbass, from your link:

On 21 July 2010 the US enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act or the Act).


2010 was A YEAR AFTER THE RECESSION WAS OVER. So we can confidently conclude that your statement that this legislature is "responsible for the banking crisis that was 09." is nothing but ignorant idiocy.

No....he is confusing two different "Talking Points".....

 

[jc456]

Let's talk about what's 'Real' and what's 'Fake' regarding Barry's 'Legacy' Economy / Record:


Real Unemployment: 9.3%



Despite Zero Percent Interest Rates, Obama’s Economy Ranks Worst Post WW2 - Trading with The Fly


https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2017-01-27/gdp-growth-slows-to-19-percent-in-obama-administrations-final-days





Obama's Final Economic Numbers Are In - And They're Devastating!

"- There were 5,669,000 Americans working part-time in November who would rather have a full-time job but cited economic reasons for not having such employment.

According to the bureau, involuntary part-time workers are “persons who indicated that they would like to work full time but were working part time (1 to 34 hours) because of an economic reason, such as their hours were cut back or they were unable to find full-time jobs.”

Obama can white-wash it all he wants, but the fact is people are still struggling to make ends meet and find good steady jobs.


Obama touts that he created 10 million jobs over his 2 terms, but Obama’s own former economic advisor Alan Krueger says that 95 percent of the jobs that were counted in that number were temporary or part time


- Barack Obama’s budget is projected to run a deficit of $7.3 trillion over his eight years, making him the president with the largest budget deficit. George W. Bush is second, with a deficit of $3.29 trillion over his eight years. Ronald Reagan is third at $1.412 trillion deficit in eight years and George H.W. Bush comes in fourth with a $1.03 trillion deficit in his single term.


- On the day President Obama was sworn into office (January 20, 2009) the national debt stood at an historic high of $10.6 trillion dollars. As of January 5, 2017, Obama has almost doubled the debt to an astounding $19.9 trillion.

Remember when candidate Obama said in 2008 that 43rd President George W. Bush was “driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents. Number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

Well, Obama drove up our national debt from $10.6 trillion for the first 43 presidents, and number 44 added over $9 trillion all by his lonesome – as of January 5, 2017, Obama has almost doubled the debt to an astounding $19.9 trillion that we are going to have to pay back – over $61,000 for every man, woman and child, and over $166,000 per U.S. taxpayer, according to the U.S. National Debt Clock on January 7, 2017. How irresponsible and unpatriotic is that?!"

 

[jc456]

from the Bureau of Labor...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Look at that decline. Mamooth.

Why don't we put up the whole picture with some demographic context?

Notice something? From as far back as early 2000s, before anyone has heard the name Obama, it was clear that regardless of business cycle demographic patterns will depress LFPR well into 2030s.

LFPR dropped under Bush, it dropped under Obama and it will drop under Trump, just as surely as it increased through recessions since 1960s to 2000.

so? what's your point?

so you don't know what your point was? just say dot.com. over and over then ask again, what's your point?

It's not clear how this helps obummer's numbers. that's my point.

No...YOU don't know what his point was......because you are thicker than pig shit....

the decline in LFPR has been anticipated for a long time....the evidence of which was before you...

so what? how in the fk does that improve obummer's numbers like you and he stated? derp!!!!

 

[AntonToo]

Love it!

A whole system of Presidential performance analysis built on baseless fantasies about Democrats destroying United States, conveniently divorced from economic concern.

"yea he started a 10 year war of convenience...but at least he didn't destroy United States....by....well...ummm...well...you know how them Democrats do."

Dodd, Frank, just say those two names out loud until you have no voice, and those are the two responsible for the banking crisis that was 09. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Now again, Bush mishandled the situation, most likely because he didn't think the congress would have helped him. His error. he should have had meetings with the congress to shut Dodd, Frank down.

I see...any legit economists sharing your surely well informed ASSertions?

"I've never seen any. What I did see consensus around is pervasive irrational market exuberance, where barely anyone in the market recognized that real estate is not a magic risk-free, bubble-proof commodity.

The Financial Panic of 2008 and Financial Regulatory Reform

The interbank credit markets seized up. The market value of US financial institutions, especially US mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, [1] collapsed throughout the summer. The US Government was particularly concerned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because of their size and importance to the US housing market. On 30 June 2008, these two institutions had combined liabilities of over US$5.5 trillion, on a combined total regulatory capital base of approximately US$100 billion. Moreover, a widespread perception existed that their obligations were backed by an implicit guarantee from the US Government. The US Treasury asked Congress for a blank cheque – the power to inject unlimited amounts of additional capital into Fannie and Freddie, arguing that if the market knew that the Treasury had a ‘bazooka’ instead of a ‘squirt gun’, it was substantially less likely that the Treasury would be required to provide any financial assistance at all. Congress gave the Treasury that authority on 30 July 2008. [2]

The market value of Fannie and Freddie, however, continued to collapse throughout August. The Government determined that many of their assets needed to be written down, and concluded that they would not be able to plug the hole by raising additional capital from the capital markets. Alarmed that a failure of Fannie or Freddie could pull down the rest of the financial system, the US Treasury decided to exercise its new ‘bazooka’ authority on 6 September 2008 – approximately five weeks after receiving it – concluding that such action would calm the financial markets. The Government put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship and pledged to inject up to US$200 billion of new capital in the form of senior preferred stock and warrants. The terms of the transaction resulted in an immediate dilution of 80 per cent of common shareholder value, and a sharp drop in the value of junior preferred stock. The value of Fannie’s and Freddie’s senior and subordinated debt, however, soared because it was senior to the Government’s investment."

Ok dumbass, from your link:

On 21 July 2010 the US enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act or the Act).


2010 was A YEAR AFTER THE RECESSION WAS OVER. So we can confidently conclude that your statement that this legislature is "responsible for the banking crisis that was 09." is nothing but ignorant idiocy.

No....he is confusing two different "Talking Points".....

Yep, because he is clueless.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Let's talk about what's 'Real' and what's 'Fake' regarding Barry's 'Legacy' Economy / Record:


Real Unemployment: 9.3%



Despite Zero Percent Interest Rates, Obama’s Economy Ranks Worst Post WW2 - Trading with The Fly


https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2017-01-27/gdp-growth-slows-to-19-percent-in-obama-administrations-final-days





Obama's Final Economic Numbers Are In - And They're Devastating!

"- There were 5,669,000 Americans working part-time in November who would rather have a full-time job but cited economic reasons for not having such employment.

According to the bureau, involuntary part-time workers are “persons who indicated that they would like to work full time but were working part time (1 to 34 hours) because of an economic reason, such as their hours were cut back or they were unable to find full-time jobs.”

Obama can white-wash it all he wants, but the fact is people are still struggling to make ends meet and find good steady jobs.


Obama touts that he created 10 million jobs over his 2 terms, but Obama’s own former economic advisor Alan Krueger says that 95 percent of the jobs that were counted in that number were temporary or part time


- Barack Obama’s budget is projected to run a deficit of $7.3 trillion over his eight years, making him the president with the largest budget deficit. George W. Bush is second, with a deficit of $3.29 trillion over his eight years. Ronald Reagan is third at $1.412 trillion deficit in eight years and George H.W. Bush comes in fourth with a $1.03 trillion deficit in his single term.


- On the day President Obama was sworn into office (January 20, 2009) the national debt stood at an historic high of $10.6 trillion dollars. As of January 5, 2017, Obama has almost doubled the debt to an astounding $19.9 trillion.

Remember when candidate Obama said in 2008 that 43rd President George W. Bush was “driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents. Number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

Well, Obama drove up our national debt from $10.6 trillion for the first 43 presidents, and number 44 added over $9 trillion all by his lonesome – as of January 5, 2017, Obama has almost doubled the debt to an astounding $19.9 trillion that we are going to have to pay back – over $61,000 for every man, woman and child, and over $166,000 per U.S. taxpayer, according to the U.S. National Debt Clock on January 7, 2017. How irresponsible and unpatriotic is that?!"

Back with more CNS, and a few obscure blogs.......offering various uninformed pillocks' economic "stylings"....all in an effort to deny that 4 is INDEED the sum of 2 and 2.....

Furthermore, though none of it addresses any of the issues at hand, it is offered in volume sufficient to leave an informed reader to conclude that it isn't worth the time to wade through...

Well, Obama drove up our national debt from $10.6 trillion for the first 43 presidents, and number 44 added over $9 trillion all by his lonesome
​

No.....he didn't.....your source is an imbecile.....it's called "Structural Deficit"...add it to the lengthy list of things of which you were entirely ignorant before I edified you.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Love it!

A whole system of Presidential performance analysis built on baseless fantasies about Democrats destroying United States, conveniently divorced from economic concern.

"yea he started a 10 year war of convenience...but at least he didn't destroy United States....by....well...ummm...well...you know how them Democrats do."

Dodd, Frank, just say those two names out loud until you have no voice, and those are the two responsible for the banking crisis that was 09. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Now again, Bush mishandled the situation, most likely because he didn't think the congress would have helped him. His error. he should have had meetings with the congress to shut Dodd, Frank down.

I see...any legit economists sharing your surely well informed ASSertions?

"I've never seen any. What I did see consensus around is pervasive irrational market exuberance, where barely anyone in the market recognized that real estate is not a magic risk-free, bubble-proof commodity.

The Financial Panic of 2008 and Financial Regulatory Reform

The interbank credit markets seized up. The market value of US financial institutions, especially US mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, [1] collapsed throughout the summer. The US Government was particularly concerned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because of their size and importance to the US housing market. On 30 June 2008, these two institutions had combined liabilities of over US$5.5 trillion, on a combined total regulatory capital base of approximately US$100 billion. Moreover, a widespread perception existed that their obligations were backed by an implicit guarantee from the US Government. The US Treasury asked Congress for a blank cheque – the power to inject unlimited amounts of additional capital into Fannie and Freddie, arguing that if the market knew that the Treasury had a ‘bazooka’ instead of a ‘squirt gun’, it was substantially less likely that the Treasury would be required to provide any financial assistance at all. Congress gave the Treasury that authority on 30 July 2008. [2]

The market value of Fannie and Freddie, however, continued to collapse throughout August. The Government determined that many of their assets needed to be written down, and concluded that they would not be able to plug the hole by raising additional capital from the capital markets. Alarmed that a failure of Fannie or Freddie could pull down the rest of the financial system, the US Treasury decided to exercise its new ‘bazooka’ authority on 6 September 2008 – approximately five weeks after receiving it – concluding that such action would calm the financial markets. The Government put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship and pledged to inject up to US$200 billion of new capital in the form of senior preferred stock and warrants. The terms of the transaction resulted in an immediate dilution of 80 per cent of common shareholder value, and a sharp drop in the value of junior preferred stock. The value of Fannie’s and Freddie’s senior and subordinated debt, however, soared because it was senior to the Government’s investment."

As the one Pinto-skeptic in the room, Zandi proceeded to answer his own question, “Where are the losses?” As of year-end 2013, approximately $1 trillion in credit losses on pre-crisis loans had been realized. But the realized loss rate among different sectors varied considerably. Best in class were Fannie and Freddie, with a realized loss rate of 3%. Then came depository institutions, like banks, which had a realized loss rate of 6%. The strong outlier was private label mortgage securities, with a realized loss rate of 23%, seven times that of the GSEs.

Subordination Triggered the Financial Crisis, Not the GSEs

Do you have ANY idea what that means?

that you still haven't provided any information that Bush was responsible. Thanks,

FBI's Efforts in Combating Mortgage Fraud

Scrub shrugged......but he DID make sure that banks engaging in such activity be protected under the Federal umbrella from the aggressive efforts of state level regulators to put a stop to some of this....

 

[AntonToo]

so what? how in the fk does that improve obummer's numbers like you and he stated? derp!!!!

...Jesus fn Christ
.
You are saying that declining LFPR is proof of bad economy and I'm explaining to your thick, dumb ass, why it isn't. LFPR is a function of demographics that transcend economic cycle.

Don't want to accept that? Fine, I can't force you to be reasonable, but in short 4 years I'll be holding your nose to your very own silly standard when LFPR will continue it's decline under Trump.