The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[Faun]

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce.

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

Which is why you dishonestly chose the average. It do not tell you the the condition of the economy at the start and end of the term like the beginning and end of the term. Now if you wanted to be honest you might have used the average of the first 6 months and the last 6 months, but honesty is not a characteristic of the Right.

The average is used because it is the best way to asses the entire Presidency lasting 96 months.

With November's figures released ... after 82 months in office ...

Reagan ..... 7.86
Obama ...... 7.85

Now what??

 

[rightwinger]

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce.

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

Which is why you dishonestly chose the average. It do not tell you the the condition of the economy at the start and end of the term like the beginning and end of the term. Now if you wanted to be honest you might have used the average of the first 6 months and the last 6 months, but honesty is not a characteristic of the Right.

The average is used because it is the best way to asses the entire Presidency lasting 96 months.

With November's figures released ... after 82 months in office ...

Reagan ..... 7.86
Obama ...... 7.85

Now what??

Do we need any more evidence that Obama is a better President than Reagan?

And Obama still has another year of sub 7.86 employment figures

 

[Faun]

Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce.

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

Which is why you dishonestly chose the average. It do not tell you the the condition of the economy at the start and end of the term like the beginning and end of the term. Now if you wanted to be honest you might have used the average of the first 6 months and the last 6 months, but honesty is not a characteristic of the Right.

The average is used because it is the best way to asses the entire Presidency lasting 96 months.

With November's figures released ... after 82 months in office ...

Reagan ..... 7.86
Obama ...... 7.85

Now what??

Do we need any more evidence that Obama is a better President than Reagan?

And Obama still has another year of sub 7.86 employment figures

Yup. By the time Obama leaves office, Ford and Reagan will own the two worst records for that and we will never hear about the average unemployment rate again; just as we never did before Obama became president.

 

[MarcATL]

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce.

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

Which is why you dishonestly chose the average. It do not tell you the the condition of the economy at the start and end of the term like the beginning and end of the term. Now if you wanted to be honest you might have used the average of the first 6 months and the last 6 months, but honesty is not a characteristic of the Right.

By his methodology, a president who starts at 10% and ends at 5% has the same "average" as a president who starts at 5% and ends at 10%

Nice little trick the Republicans have. They are masters of slight of hand.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[rightwinger]

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce.

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

Which is why you dishonestly chose the average. It do not tell you the the condition of the economy at the start and end of the term like the beginning and end of the term. Now if you wanted to be honest you might have used the average of the first 6 months and the last 6 months, but honesty is not a characteristic of the Right.

By his methodology, a president who starts at 10% and ends at 5% has the same "average" as a president who starts at 5% and ends at 10%

Nice little trick the Republicans have. They are masters of slight of hand.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

That is why this stupid "unemployment average" has never been used before and will never be used again

But, what the hell.......it is a good way to evaluate the Kenyan, at least until he starts delivering sub 5% unemployment rates

 

[MarcATL]

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

Which is why you dishonestly chose the average. It do not tell you the the condition of the economy at the start and end of the term like the beginning and end of the term. Now if you wanted to be honest you might have used the average of the first 6 months and the last 6 months, but honesty is not a characteristic of the Right.

The average is used because it is the best way to asses the entire Presidency lasting 96 months.

With November's figures released ... after 82 months in office ...

Reagan ..... 7.86
Obama ...... 7.85

Now what??

Do we need any more evidence that Obama is a better President than Reagan?

And Obama still has another year of sub 7.86 employment figures

Yup. By the time Obama leaves office, Ford and Reagan will own the two worst records for that and we will never hear about the average unemployment rate again; just as we never did before Obama became president.

Yep, this thing is going to bite these radical rightwing shills in the buttocks. The unemployment rate is great to continue dropping under Obama, or even if it stays the same, the average rate will drop. At that point this thread will be forever abandoned and those that created it and promoted it will act as if it never existed.

They will then come up with a new way to make the economy appear bad under President Barack Obama.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[U2Edge]

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce.

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

Which is why you dishonestly chose the average. It do not tell you the the condition of the economy at the start and end of the term like the beginning and end of the term. Now if you wanted to be honest you might have used the average of the first 6 months and the last 6 months, but honesty is not a characteristic of the Right.

The average is used because it is the best way to asses the entire Presidency lasting 96 months.

No, it's not. As another poster pointed out, a president taking the unemployment rate from 4% to 11% at the same rate another president takes it from 11% to 4%, looks like they've performed exactly the same according to your idiocy. And it's precisely because averaging out the unemployment rate hides what a president inherits compared to what they leave for their successor which is why you do it. To hide the reality that Bush inherited a good economy but dumped one of the worst economies on Obama.

Explain to us how simply looking at January 2001 and December 2008 is an accurate way to asses what happened over a 96 month period? How would you like it if your perfo

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

 

[rightwinger]

Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce.

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

Which is why you dishonestly chose the average. It do not tell you the the condition of the economy at the start and end of the term like the beginning and end of the term. Now if you wanted to be honest you might have used the average of the first 6 months and the last 6 months, but honesty is not a characteristic of the Right.

The average is used because it is the best way to asses the entire Presidency lasting 96 months.

No, it's not. As another poster pointed out, a president taking the unemployment rate from 4% to 11% at the same rate another president takes it from 11% to 4%, looks like they've performed exactly the same according to your idiocy. And it's precisely because averaging out the unemployment rate hides what a president inherits compared to what they leave for their successor which is why you do it. To hide the reality that Bush inherited a good economy but dumped one of the worst economies on Obama.

Explain to us how simply looking at January 2001 and December 2008 is an accurate way to asses what happened over a 96 month period? How would you like it if your perfo

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

Its like a poker game.......It only matters what you started out at and what you left the table with. How much you were up or down at any point is irrelevant

Try explaining to your wife....I may have lost $1000, but my average during the game was pretty good

 

[U2Edge]

The monthly unemployment rate for November 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 83rd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 months to the average of 7.85% in November 2015 at 83 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 7.85%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 7.85%

651.4/83 = 7.8481 = 7.85%

There are 13 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate went up in November to 62.5%, from the 62.4% it was at in October.

 

[rightwinger]

The monthly unemployment rate for November 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 83rd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 months to the average of 7.85% in November 2015 at 83 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 7.85%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 7.85%

651.4/83 = 7.8481 = 7.85%

There are 13 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate went up in November to 62.5%, from the 62.4% it was at in October.

You still have not provided a source for your numbers

You also haven't explained how you consider and "average" unemployment that starts at 5% and ends at 10% is the same thing as an average that starts at 10% and ends at 5%?

 

[U2Edge]

The monthly unemployment rate for November 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 83rd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 months to the average of 7.85% in November 2015 at 83 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 7.85%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 7.85%

651.4/83 = 7.8481 = 7.85%

There are 13 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate went up in November to 62.5%, from the 62.4% it was at in October.

You still have not provided a source for your numbers

You also haven't explained how you consider and "average" unemployment that starts at 5% and ends at 10% is the same thing as an average that starts at 10% and ends at 5%?

All the numbers that I have used come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You can get it all here Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject. They have every monthly unemployment rate from January 1948 to the present. They also have every monthly labor force participation rate from January 1948 to the present. I've posted this many times.

As for your other question, there are 96 months in a two term Presidency. Having a starting month of 5% or 10% and an ending month of 5% or 10% can't ever be said to be the same thing because in either case, there is 94 months of missing data. YOU CAN'T EVALUATE A PRESIDENT SIMPLY BY HIS FIRST MONTH IN OFFICE AND HIS LAST MONTH IN OFFICE, JUST LIKE YOU CAN'T EVALUATE A STUDENT BY THE GRADES OF HIS FIRST MONTH IN CLASS AND THE LAST MONTH IN CLASS. Your leaving out over 90% of what happened when you do that.

Unemployment rates often will go up and down multiple times during a Presidency. Rarely is there a perfect consistent trend of up or down and even if there was, the average is still the most accurate way of assessing what conditions are like, simply because for example, just looking at January 2001 and December 2008 leaves out far to much data.

Would you evaluate whether you were happy during the years 2001 to 2008, simply by looking out how you felt in January 2001 and December 2008 without looking at any of the other 94 months?

Should we evaluate what happened in World War II by simply looking at September 1939 and August 1945? Would simply looking at those two months come anywhere close to describing what happened in World War II?

Could one determine if the 1920s were a good decade or not by simply looking at January 1920 and December 1929?

 

[rightwinger]

The monthly unemployment rate for November 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 83rd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 months to the average of 7.85% in November 2015 at 83 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 7.85%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 7.85%

651.4/83 = 7.8481 = 7.85%

There are 13 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate went up in November to 62.5%, from the 62.4% it was at in October.

You still have not provided a source for your numbers

You also haven't explained how you consider and "average" unemployment that starts at 5% and ends at 10% is the same thing as an average that starts at 10% and ends at 5%?

All the numbers that I have used come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You can get it all here Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject. They have every monthly unemployment rate from January 1948 to the present. They also have every monthly labor force participation rate from January 1948 to the present. I've posted this many times.

As for your other question, there are 96 months in a two term Presidency. Having a starting month of 5% or 10% and an ending month of 5% or 10% can't ever be said to be the same thing because in either case, there is 94 months of missing data. YOU CAN'T EVALUATE A PRESIDENT SIMPLY BY HIS FIRST MONTH IN OFFICE AND HIS LAST MONTH IN OFFICE, JUST LIKE YOU CAN'T EVALUATE A STUDENT BY THE GRADES OF HIS FIRST MONTH IN CLASS AND THE LAST MONTH IN CLASS. Your leaving out over 90% of what happened when you do that.

Unemployment rates often will go up and down multiple times during a Presidency. Rarely is there a perfect consistent trend of up or down and even if there was, the average is still the most accurate way of assessing what conditions are like, simply because for example, just looking at January 2001 and December 2008 leaves out far to much data.

Would you evaluate whether you were happy during the years 2001 to 2008, simply by looking out how you felt in January 2001 and December 2008 without looking at any of the other 94 months?

Should we evaluate what happened in World War II by simply looking at September 1939 and August 1945? Would simply looking at those two months come anywhere close to describing what happened in World War II?

Could one determine if the 1920s were a good decade or not by simply looking at January 1920 and December 1929?

You are still ducking the obvious

Nobody is saying take the first and last months...If someone starts at 10% (think Obama) and unemployment steadily drops to 5%, do you claim it is the same thing as starting at 5% (think Bush) and steadily rising to 10%?

How can that worthless statistic be a valid indicator of economic performance?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008. Pick your poison, the economy is either controlled through the policies of the executive branch or with approval of the legislative.

 

[rdean]

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.86%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%

Never in the history of the United States has a political party been so anti education. This is why business wants immigrants. An ignorant GOP raises unemployment. Try to figure out why.

 

[rdean]

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008. Pick your poison, the economy is either controlled through the policies of the executive branch or with approval of the legislative.

Republicans controlled both branches and the presidency under Bush for nearly 5 years. They used reconciliation three times. Do you remember for what?

 

[Faun]

The monthly unemployment rate for November 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 83rd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 months to the average of 7.85% in November 2015 at 83 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 7.85%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 7.85%

651.4/83 = 7.8481 = 7.85%

There are 13 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate went up in November to 62.5%, from the 62.4% it was at in October.

After 82 months in office, Reagan averaged 7.86%

 

[Faun]

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008. Pick your poison, the economy is either controlled through the policies of the executive branch or with approval of the legislative.

How can you rightards possibly be this retarded?? The economy began collapsing towards the end of 2007 due to toxic loans written years earlier. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think it was policies of the 110th Congress which caused the collapse.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't have the ambition to do the math, but I'm pretty sure we are very close to the point where the Obama presidency does not have the worst UE rate.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008. Pick your poison, the economy is either controlled through the policies of the executive branch or with approval of the legislative.

How can you rightards possibly be this retarded?? The economy began collapsing towards the end of 2007 due to toxic loans written years earlier. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think it was policies of the 110th Congress which caused the collapse.

The loans were forced upon by banks under CRA, new regulations that were signed by President Clinton. institutions were not allowed to use tools like credit history that could potentially disqualify minority groups for fear of discrimination.

Community Reinvestment Act prodded banks to take bad, costly risks in lending

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT December 28, 2012 By: Hans Bader


The Community Reinvestment Act was enacted in 1977, but it was not enforced stringently until regulations dramatically expanded its reach in the 1990s. It then became one of the factors that contributed to the financial crisis.

Banks and mortgage companies have long been under pressure from Congressmen and regulators to give loans to people with bad credit, in order to provide “affordable housing” and promote “diversity.” That played a key role in triggering the mortgage crisis, judging from a 2008 story in The New York Times. For example, “a high-ranking Democrat telephoned executives and screamed at them to purchase more loans from low-income borrowers.” The executives of government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “eventually yielded to those pressures, effectively wagering that if things got too bad, the government would bail them out.” But they realized the risk: “In 2004, Freddie Mac warned regulators that affordable housing goals could force the company to buy riskier loans.” Ultimately, though, Freddie Mac’s CEO, Richard F. Syron, told colleagues that “we couldn’t afford to say no to anyone.”

Lenders also face the risk of being sued for discrimination if they fail to lend money to people with bad credit, which can have a racially-disparate impact. The Justice Department is now extorting multimillion dollar settlements from banks, by accusing them of racial discrimination because they use traditional, non-racist lending criteria that minority borrowers are, on average, less likely to satisfy, such as having a high credit score, or being able to afford a substantial downpayment. Its Civil Rights Division chief, Tom Perez, “has compared bankers to Klansmen.” The “only difference, he says, is bankers discriminate ‘with a smile’ and ‘fine print,’” calling their lending criteria “every bit as destructive as the cross burned in a neighborhood.” Investor’s Business Daily chronicles this attack on small banks in “DOJ Begins Bank Witch Hunt." (These lawsuits are brought under other laws regulating banks, not the CRA, which is but one of many tools the federal government used to promote risky lending).

 

[Faun]

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008. Pick your poison, the economy is either controlled through the policies of the executive branch or with approval of the legislative.

How can you rightards possibly be this retarded?? The economy began collapsing towards the end of 2007 due to toxic loans written years earlier. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think it was policies of the 110th Congress which caused the collapse.

The loans were forced upon by banks under CRA, new regulations that were signed by President Clinton. institutions were not allowed to use tools like credit history that could potentially disqualify minority groups for fear of discrimination.

Community Reinvestment Act prodded banks to take bad, costly risks in lending

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT December 28, 2012 By: Hans Bader


The Community Reinvestment Act was enacted in 1977, but it was not enforced stringently until regulations dramatically expanded its reach in the 1990s. It then became one of the factors that contributed to the financial crisis.

Banks and mortgage companies have long been under pressure from Congressmen and regulators to give loans to people with bad credit, in order to provide “affordable housing” and promote “diversity.” That played a key role in triggering the mortgage crisis, judging from a 2008 story in The New York Times. For example, “a high-ranking Democrat telephoned executives and screamed at them to purchase more loans from low-income borrowers.” The executives of government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “eventually yielded to those pressures, effectively wagering that if things got too bad, the government would bail them out.” But they realized the risk: “In 2004, Freddie Mac warned regulators that affordable housing goals could force the company to buy riskier loans.” Ultimately, though, Freddie Mac’s CEO, Richard F. Syron, told colleagues that “we couldn’t afford to say no to anyone.”

Lenders also face the risk of being sued for discrimination if they fail to lend money to people with bad credit, which can have a racially-disparate impact. The Justice Department is now extorting multimillion dollar settlements from banks, by accusing them of racial discrimination because they use traditional, non-racist lending criteria that minority borrowers are, on average, less likely to satisfy, such as having a high credit score, or being able to afford a substantial downpayment. Its Civil Rights Division chief, Tom Perez, “has compared bankers to Klansmen.” The “only difference, he says, is bankers discriminate ‘with a smile’ and ‘fine print,’” calling their lending criteria “every bit as destructive as the cross burned in a neighborhood.” Investor’s Business Daily chronicles this attack on small banks in “DOJ Begins Bank Witch Hunt." (These lawsuits are brought under other laws regulating banks, not the CRA, which is but one of many tools the federal government used to promote risky lending).

Moron ... nothing you're pointing at implicates the 110th Congress. That was your claim. What the fuck is wrong with you?

You can't defend your idiocy; so you move onto deflect with some other idiocy??