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

[Markle]

Oh? Q3-2016 = 3.5%

And over his 8 years, GDP increased more than it did after 8 years of Booooosh.

As you know and are being facetious about is the fact that petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama is the first president in history to not have a single year with a GDP above 3%. Why keep lying?

The Strange Ups and Downs of the U.S. Economy Since 1929

Share with us specifically which year is not accurate.

And still, real GDP increased more under Obama than it did Bush...

Q4-2000: 12,679.3
Q4-2008: 14,577.0 - 15.0% (Bush)
Q4-2016: 16,842.4 - 15.3% (Obama)

https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

What is the average for each president and which had years with the GPA over 3%?

 

[Faun]

Much of which is directly attributable to the Bush's Great Recession tsunami.

An educational opportunity for you.

Democrats actions leading to Mortgage Collapse B.B.

From New York Times
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

From Bloomberg News
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis - Club Cobra

The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs, ie Fannie, Freddie etc.)
Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs

Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Democrats of Financial Crisis; Meltdown


The Wall Street Journal Barney’s Rubble
Barney's Rubble

Mashup of Maxine Waters & Barney Frank - Then Vs. Now

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street
Steve Kroft On Credit Default Swaps And Their Central Role In The Unfolding Economic Crisis
The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street

Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008 ALONE, here dating back to 2001! Duplicate of Whitehouse.archives Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008 | Sweetness & Light

Ah, yes, the ever popular rightard video of Barney Frank talking trash.

Cite the bill(s) he either passed or blocked that you think led to the financial collapse...

As you know, no legislation was required to b passed or blocked. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were on the committee's charged with making the rules and regulations. I know, hard to accept.

What an idiot you are. If nothing needed to be done, no one did anything wrong. Obviously, something needed to be done.

 

[Faun]

Oh? Q3-2016 = 3.5%

And over his 8 years, GDP increased more than it did after 8 years of Booooosh.

As you know and are being facetious about is the fact that petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama is the first president in history to not have a single year with a GDP above 3%. Why keep lying?

The Strange Ups and Downs of the U.S. Economy Since 1929

Share with us specifically which year is not accurate.

And still, real GDP increased more under Obama than it did Bush...

Q4-2000: 12,679.3
Q4-2008: 14,577.0 - 15.0% (Bush)
Q4-2016: 16,842.4 - 15.3% (Obama)

https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

What is the average for each president and which had years with the GPA over 3%?

So? Real GDP increased more under Obama than it did Bush...

Q4-2000: 12,679.3
Q4-2008: 14,577.0 - 15.0% (Bush)
Q4-2016: 16,842.4 - 15.3% (Obama)

https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

 

[IcebergSlim]

As a far left Progressive, you know full well that the 2001 recession was not brief, shallow or mild. It began when the dotcom bubble burst. We had not recovered from that when the 9/11/2001 act of war occurred and further pushed down the economy. Some folks laughed when President Bush was asked, what can we as citizens do and he replied, go shopping. He knew the attack could be devastating to the economy and there could be another attack. President Bush was 100% correct.

It was so brief, shallow and mild that I was unemployed for 8 monhs.

What does that tell you, Bri?

It tells me that Slick Willy handed Bush a serious recession

A solid first effort....now allow me to inform you that the data says otherwise....

That leaves another variable, Bri.....

Think Head Like a Boston Butt.

The data does not say otherwise.

End of story.

Here's the GDP data....

2000-10-01 2.3
2001-01-01 -1.1
2001-04-01 2.1
2001-07-01 -1.3
2001-10-01 1.1


Bri......tell everyone what the technical definition of "Recession" is....

 

[IcebergSlim]

Much of which is directly attributable to the Bush's Great Recession tsunami.

An educational opportunity for you.

Democrats actions leading to Mortgage Collapse B.B.

From New York Times
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

From Bloomberg News
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis - Club Cobra

The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs, ie Fannie, Freddie etc.)
Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs

Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Democrats of Financial Crisis; Meltdown


The Wall Street Journal Barney’s Rubble
Barney's Rubble

Mashup of Maxine Waters & Barney Frank - Then Vs. Now

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street
Steve Kroft On Credit Default Swaps And Their Central Role In The Unfolding Economic Crisis
The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street

Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008 ALONE, here dating back to 2001! Duplicate of Whitehouse.archives Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008 | Sweetness & Light

Ah, yes, the ever popular rightard video of Barney Frank talking trash.

Cite the bill(s) he either passed or blocked that you think led to the financial collapse...

As you know, no legislation was required to b passed or blocked. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were on the committee's charged with making the rules and regulations. I know, hard to accept.

Except that the GSEs had very little to do with the crash....

Curious that in all your videos and assorted crap, you avoid any reference to the FCIC...

Can you explain why?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Oh? Q3-2016 = 3.5%

And over his 8 years, GDP increased more than it did after 8 years of Booooosh.

As you know and are being facetious about is the fact that petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama is the first president in history to not have a single year with a GDP above 3%. Why keep lying?

The Strange Ups and Downs of the U.S. Economy Since 1929

Share with us specifically which year is not accurate.

And still, real GDP increased more under Obama than it did Bush...

Q4-2000: 12,679.3
Q4-2008: 14,577.0 - 15.0% (Bush)
Q4-2016: 16,842.4 - 15.3% (Obama)

https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

What is the average for each president and which had years with the GPA over 3%?

So? Real GDP increased more under Obama than it did Bush...

Q4-2000: 12,679.3
Q4-2008: 14,577.0 - 15.0% (Bush)
Q4-2016: 16,842.4 - 15.3% (Obama)

https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

Primary Source?

Insidious Bastage Icehole!

 

[bripat9643]

It was so brief, shallow and mild that I was unemployed for 8 monhs.

What does that tell you, Bri?

It tells me that Slick Willy handed Bush a serious recession

A solid first effort....now allow me to inform you that the data says otherwise....

That leaves another variable, Bri.....

Think Head Like a Boston Butt.

The data does not say otherwise.

End of story.

Here's the GDP data....

2000-10-01 2.3
2001-01-01 -1.1
2001-04-01 2.1
2001-07-01 -1.3
2001-10-01 1.1


Bri......tell everyone what the technical definition of "Recession" is....

You're relying on technicalities. There are tens of thousands of people in the software industry who lost their jobs, and your own statistics show two quarters of negative growth, even though there was one very anemic quarter of growth in between.

 

[Faun]

What does that tell you, Bri?

It tells me that Slick Willy handed Bush a serious recession

A solid first effort....now allow me to inform you that the data says otherwise....

That leaves another variable, Bri.....

Think Head Like a Boston Butt.

The data does not say otherwise.

End of story.

Here's the GDP data....

2000-10-01 2.3
2001-01-01 -1.1
2001-04-01 2.1
2001-07-01 -1.3
2001-10-01 1.1


Bri......tell everyone what the technical definition of "Recession" is....

You're relying on technicalities. There are tens of thousands of people in the software industry who lost their jobs, and your own statistics show two quarters of negative growth, even though there was one very anemic quarter of growth in between.

LOL

So now, recessions are no longer determined by their definition -- they're determined by what morons like you think is an adequate number of layoffs??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It tells me that Slick Willy handed Bush a serious recession

A solid first effort....now allow me to inform you that the data says otherwise....

That leaves another variable, Bri.....

Think Head Like a Boston Butt.

The data does not say otherwise.

End of story.

Here's the GDP data....

2000-10-01 2.3
2001-01-01 -1.1
2001-04-01 2.1
2001-07-01 -1.3
2001-10-01 1.1


Bri......tell everyone what the technical definition of "Recession" is....

You're relying on technicalities. There are tens of thousands of people in the software industry who lost their jobs, and your own statistics show two quarters of negative growth, even though there was one very anemic quarter of growth in between.

LOL

So now, recessions are no longer determined by their definition -- they're determined by what morons like you think is an adequate number of layoffs??

So now, recessions are no longer determined by their definition

They're determined by the NBER. Take it up with them.

 

[Faun]

A solid first effort....now allow me to inform you that the data says otherwise....

That leaves another variable, Bri.....

Think Head Like a Boston Butt.

The data does not say otherwise.

End of story.

Here's the GDP data....

2000-10-01 2.3
2001-01-01 -1.1
2001-04-01 2.1
2001-07-01 -1.3
2001-10-01 1.1


Bri......tell everyone what the technical definition of "Recession" is....

You're relying on technicalities. There are tens of thousands of people in the software industry who lost their jobs, and your own statistics show two quarters of negative growth, even though there was one very anemic quarter of growth in between.

LOL

So now, recessions are no longer determined by their definition -- they're determined by what morons like you think is an adequate number of layoffs??

So now, recessions are no longer determined by their definition

They're determined by the NBER. Take it up with them.

Take what up? The NBER says we were not in recession when either Reagan or Bush became president. I'm good with that.

But I am laughing at bripat9643 who seems to be inventing his own definition which amounts to thousands of IT folks losing their jobs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The data does not say otherwise.

End of story.

Here's the GDP data....

2000-10-01 2.3
2001-01-01 -1.1
2001-04-01 2.1
2001-07-01 -1.3
2001-10-01 1.1


Bri......tell everyone what the technical definition of "Recession" is....

You're relying on technicalities. There are tens of thousands of people in the software industry who lost their jobs, and your own statistics show two quarters of negative growth, even though there was one very anemic quarter of growth in between.

LOL

So now, recessions are no longer determined by their definition -- they're determined by what morons like you think is an adequate number of layoffs??

So now, recessions are no longer determined by their definition

They're determined by the NBER. Take it up with them.

Take what up? The NBER says we were not in recession when either Reagan or Bush became president. I'm good with that.

But I am laughing at bripat9643 who seems to be inventing his own definition which amounts to thousands of IT folks losing their jobs.

The NBER says we were not in recession when either Reagan or Bush became president.

Right. The 2001 recession started in March. Still waiting for anyone to explain what Bush did to cause it.

 

[Faun]

Here's the GDP data....

2000-10-01 2.3
2001-01-01 -1.1
2001-04-01 2.1
2001-07-01 -1.3
2001-10-01 1.1


Bri......tell everyone what the technical definition of "Recession" is....

You're relying on technicalities. There are tens of thousands of people in the software industry who lost their jobs, and your own statistics show two quarters of negative growth, even though there was one very anemic quarter of growth in between.

LOL

So now, recessions are no longer determined by their definition -- they're determined by what morons like you think is an adequate number of layoffs??

So now, recessions are no longer determined by their definition

They're determined by the NBER. Take it up with them.

Take what up? The NBER says we were not in recession when either Reagan or Bush became president. I'm good with that.

But I am laughing at bripat9643 who seems to be inventing his own definition which amounts to thousands of IT folks losing their jobs.

The NBER says we were not in recession when either Reagan or Bush became president.

Right. The 2001 recession started in March. Still waiting for anyone to explain what Bush did to cause it.

I already did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're relying on technicalities. There are tens of thousands of people in the software industry who lost their jobs, and your own statistics show two quarters of negative growth, even though there was one very anemic quarter of growth in between.

LOL

So now, recessions are no longer determined by their definition -- they're determined by what morons like you think is an adequate number of layoffs??

So now, recessions are no longer determined by their definition

They're determined by the NBER. Take it up with them.

Take what up? The NBER says we were not in recession when either Reagan or Bush became president. I'm good with that.

But I am laughing at bripat9643 who seems to be inventing his own definition which amounts to thousands of IT folks losing their jobs.

The NBER says we were not in recession when either Reagan or Bush became president.

Right. The 2001 recession started in March. Still waiting for anyone to explain what Bush did to cause it.

I already did.

No, you didn't.

 

[Faun]

LOL

So now, recessions are no longer determined by their definition -- they're determined by what morons like you think is an adequate number of layoffs??

So now, recessions are no longer determined by their definition

They're determined by the NBER. Take it up with them.

Take what up? The NBER says we were not in recession when either Reagan or Bush became president. I'm good with that.

But I am laughing at bripat9643 who seems to be inventing his own definition which amounts to thousands of IT folks losing their jobs.

The NBER says we were not in recession when either Reagan or Bush became president.

Right. The 2001 recession started in March. Still waiting for anyone to explain what Bush did to cause it.

I already did.

No, you didn't.

Now you're lying as yes, I did. The recession was so mild, it possibly wouldn't have even qualified as a recession if not for 9.11. While it started in March, that determination wasn't made until after 9.11.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So now, recessions are no longer determined by their definition

They're determined by the NBER. Take it up with them.

Take what up? The NBER says we were not in recession when either Reagan or Bush became president. I'm good with that.

But I am laughing at bripat9643 who seems to be inventing his own definition which amounts to thousands of IT folks losing their jobs.

The NBER says we were not in recession when either Reagan or Bush became president.

Right. The 2001 recession started in March. Still waiting for anyone to explain what Bush did to cause it.

I already did.

No, you didn't.

Now you're lying as yes, I did. The recession was so mild, it possibly wouldn't have even qualified as a recession if not for 9.11. While it started in March, that determination wasn't made until after 9.11.

So the recession started in March 2001 because 9/11....and that makes it Bush's fault.

 

[Faun]

Take what up? The NBER says we were not in recession when either Reagan or Bush became president. I'm good with that.

But I am laughing at bripat9643 who seems to be inventing his own definition which amounts to thousands of IT folks losing their jobs.

The NBER says we were not in recession when either Reagan or Bush became president.

Right. The 2001 recession started in March. Still waiting for anyone to explain what Bush did to cause it.

I already did.

No, you didn't.

Now you're lying as yes, I did. The recession was so mild, it possibly wouldn't have even qualified as a recession if not for 9.11. While it started in March, that determination wasn't made until after 9.11.

So the recession started in March 2001 because 9/11....and that makes it Bush's fault.

Well who's to blame for not preventing 9.11 if not Bush? Clinton??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The NBER says we were not in recession when either Reagan or Bush became president.

Right. The 2001 recession started in March. Still waiting for anyone to explain what Bush did to cause it.

I already did.

No, you didn't.

Now you're lying as yes, I did. The recession was so mild, it possibly wouldn't have even qualified as a recession if not for 9.11. While it started in March, that determination wasn't made until after 9.11.

So the recession started in March 2001 because 9/11....and that makes it Bush's fault.

Well who's to blame for not preventing 9.11 if not Bush? Clinton??

Well, Clinton did refuse to have Osama arrested by Sudan when they offered.
And he didn't launch a strike that could have killed Osama, but who's counting, eh?

So your latest claim is Bush caused the recession by not preventing 9/11.

 

[IcebergSlim]

What does that tell you, Bri?

It tells me that Slick Willy handed Bush a serious recession

A solid first effort....now allow me to inform you that the data says otherwise....

That leaves another variable, Bri.....

Think Head Like a Boston Butt.

The data does not say otherwise.

End of story.

Here's the GDP data....

2000-10-01 2.3
2001-01-01 -1.1
2001-04-01 2.1
2001-07-01 -1.3
2001-10-01 1.1


Bri......tell everyone what the technical definition of "Recession" is....

You're relying on technicalities. There are tens of thousands of people in the software industry who lost their jobs, and your own statistics show two quarters of negative growth, even though there was one very anemic quarter of growth in between.

Try this again, Bri....


Post the technical definition of "Recession".....

Further, as the data indicates, even for a NON-Recession it was mild.

What you experienced was "frictional unemployment"......that is when Stupid isn't selling....

 

[Faun]

I already did.

No, you didn't.

Now you're lying as yes, I did. The recession was so mild, it possibly wouldn't have even qualified as a recession if not for 9.11. While it started in March, that determination wasn't made until after 9.11.

So the recession started in March 2001 because 9/11....and that makes it Bush's fault.

Well who's to blame for not preventing 9.11 if not Bush? Clinton??

Well, Clinton did refuse to have Osama arrested by Sudan when they offered.
And he didn't launch a strike that could have killed Osama, but who's counting, eh?

So your latest claim is Bush caused the recession by not preventing 9/11.

Aside from the fact that Clinton did not refuse custody of bin Laden ...

In late 1995,when Bin Ladin was still in Sudan, the State Department and the CIA learned that Sudanese officials were discussing with the Saudi government the possibility of expelling Bin Ladin. U.S.Ambassador Timothy Carney encouraged the Sudanese to pursue this course. The Saudis, however, did not want Bin Ladin, giving as their reason their revocation of his citizenship.

Sudan’s minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Ladin. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment outstanding.

9/11 Commission Report, chapter 4, pg 109-110

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
​

.... so what? Osama wasn't flying any of the planes. 9.11 would likely have happened whether he was dead or alive.

And Bush did nothing to prevent other than to reject the FBI's request for a budget increase for counter terrorism and to warn his Attorney General to stop flying commercially.

Bush was president for nearly 8 months. He was responsible for protecting the U.S. and he failed miserably.

The recession, which started on his watch, may not have even been a recession had it not been for 9.11.

It's Bush's recession and Bush's security failure.

 

[Faun]

It tells me that Slick Willy handed Bush a serious recession

A solid first effort....now allow me to inform you that the data says otherwise....

That leaves another variable, Bri.....

Think Head Like a Boston Butt.

The data does not say otherwise.

End of story.

Here's the GDP data....

2000-10-01 2.3
2001-01-01 -1.1
2001-04-01 2.1
2001-07-01 -1.3
2001-10-01 1.1


Bri......tell everyone what the technical definition of "Recession" is....

You're relying on technicalities. There are tens of thousands of people in the software industry who lost their jobs, and your own statistics show two quarters of negative growth, even though there was one very anemic quarter of growth in between.

Try this again, Bri....


Post the technical definition of "Recession".....

Further, as the data indicates, even for a NON-Recession it was mild.

What you experienced was "frictional unemployment"......that is when Stupid isn't selling....

What that moron is ignorant of is that IT also took a hit because of Y2K. After years of ramping up to avert it, many developers found themselves out of work after crossing the 2000 threshold when their services were no longer needed. But as someone in the field, software engineers are never out of work for long.