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

[Faun]

You've been shown this before... $30 trillion. Way more than everything you listed combined.

Your link: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
YOU have to be KIDDING!!!!!
What a subjective totally ignorant GUESS!!!!
Hey IDIOT when you consider 5,000 people killed in 9/11 hurricanes what kind of "psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects did their relatives, businesses that LOSS the productivity of those dead Americans suffer? Has that been calculated?
I mean using average age of 40 that died and the average earning power for 20 years of $50,000/year.. that alone was a loss of trillions!
Businesses destroyed in 9/11. Almost 18,000 small businesses were shut down or destroyed. Assume each business did at least $100,000 a year
for the next 20 years... nearly $40 billion! The Impact Of 9/11 On Business The Impact Of 9/11 On Business
Due to 9/11/01 2,996 killed, 6,000 wounded..."

Under Bush 2001 - 2008 Lives lost: 2,782 Disasters:$429 Billion in losses ;
Total lives lost: 5,778
Under Obama 2009 - 2016 Lives lost: 831 Disasters: 100.9 Billion in losses
Source of above data: Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Using that same subjective measure during that period you divide that $30 trillion by 831 lives lost under Obama like lives lost in 9/11 and disasters, Hurricanes,floods,etc..under Bush. Then due to the "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" and using the same dumb ass ruler that James Pethokoukis did in coming up with $30 trillion... the losses under Bush were over $208,000,000,000,000!
Too many zeros? $208 trillion in "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" under GWB!!!
HA HA HA... my number is bigger than your number!!!

$208 Trillion in losses due to life/destruction under Bush from 9/11 disasters,etc. is nearly 6 times bigger then your $30 trillion!

$30 trillion is far more than all the events you listed -- combined.

Your source Using that same subjective measure during that period you divide that $30 trillion by 831 lives lost under Obama like lives lost in 9/11 and disasters, Hurricanes,floods,etc..under Bush. Then due to the "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" and using the same dumb ass ruler that James Pethokoukis did in coming up with $30 trillion... the losses under Bush were over $208,000,000,000,000 provided then the measuring stick!

So I'll match your $30 trillion and raise you to $208 Trillion in losses due to life/destruction under Bush from 9/11 disasters,etc. is nearly 6 times bigger then your $30 trillion!

Imbecile, the "psychological trauma" accounts for a small chunk of the economic impact.

$19 trillion was from lost household wealth...



Plus another $7 trillion in lost stock market valuation in 2008...

Wall Street's Final '08 Toll: $6.9 Trillion Wiped Out

Plus another couple of trillion lost in the stock market in 2009 until March when the market started turning around.

$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession.

Far exceeds everything you listed -- combined.

Remember this is what YOU quoted based on James Pethokoukis YOUR EXPERT!!!
AND I QUOTE:
We conservatively estimate the loss of national output as a result of the financial crisis and its aftermath at between $6 trillion and $14 trillion. If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses.
So subtracting $14 Trillion from $30 Trillion leaves $16 Trillion of "broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs”
Lets agree $14 Trillion on market losses, businesses destroyed airlines not flying wall street closed, etc....associated with 9/11,etc. I'll buy that.
And let's agree then Pethokoukis attributes then $16 Trillion related to "broad and more difficult to quantify costs". You agree? Simple math.
So $16 trillion attributed to broad and more difficult to quantify costs" OK?
There were 5,778 ACTUAL DEATHS during the events from 2001 to 2008.
As part of that "broad and more difficult to quantify costs" since we are GUESSING here.. that each of those deaths cost over the next
30 years cost $50 million a year in "broad and difficult to quantify costs" There... we have $20 trillion in "broad and difficult to quantify costs"!
See I can pull a number out of my butt just as well as Pethokoukis!!!!
Remember there were stock brokers, business people, etc. all sorts of people who's lives were cut short. Who knows what great invention
that might have spun off billions in revenue would have come from one of those 5,778! Again nothing like that equaled during Obama!

Finally let's look at yours and Pethokoukis contention!
Neither one of you took into account the TRULY psychological blow to America when 9/11 occurred.
A BRAND New cabinet post was created.
Just the simple time to take off your shoes at the airport for the last 17 years is cumulative and part of that "broad and difficult to quantify costs"!
And then we have the trillions of dollars completing what Bill Clinton started in 1998 with the Liberation of Iraq. I've not even touched
on the costs that came from all those people wanting someone to do something about Saddam because remember!
If he were alive today 3.6 million kids would be dead by now! Simply because he wouldn't agree to this simple statement:
Do you or do you not have any WMDs? Saddam would neither confirm or deny! Why?
So please I can pull a number just as Pethokoukis out regarding the costs that EVERY American has had to bear and not just those
during the minor recession.
By the way neither YOU nor Pethokoukis ever admitted any knowledge of this event!
The 9/18/2008 Economic Terrorist Attack:
On Thursday (Sept 18), at 11 in the morning the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the U.S.,
to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two.
The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide.
We were having an electronic run on the banks.
They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there. If they had not done that, their estimation was that by 2pm that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/119619-how-the-world-almost-came-to-an-end-on-september-18-2008

You don't think THAT had a bearing on the financial community?

As you were shown, the financial hit to household wealth alone topped $19 trillion. About another $10 trillion in losses in the stock market.

More than every event you listed -- combined

 

[Dschrute3]

Meanwhile, Trump Winning!

U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June

The U.S. economy added 222,000 jobs in June, much more than economists were expecting, the Labor Department said Friday.

It's welcome news after the prior two jobs reports had hinted at a possible slowdown in job growth.

"The job market hasn't lost any steam," says Josh Wright, chief economist at software firm iCMS...

More:
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June

 

[bripat9643]

Your link: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
YOU have to be KIDDING!!!!!
What a subjective totally ignorant GUESS!!!!
Hey IDIOT when you consider 5,000 people killed in 9/11 hurricanes what kind of "psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects did their relatives, businesses that LOSS the productivity of those dead Americans suffer? Has that been calculated?
I mean using average age of 40 that died and the average earning power for 20 years of $50,000/year.. that alone was a loss of trillions!
Businesses destroyed in 9/11. Almost 18,000 small businesses were shut down or destroyed. Assume each business did at least $100,000 a year
for the next 20 years... nearly $40 billion! The Impact Of 9/11 On Business The Impact Of 9/11 On Business
Due to 9/11/01 2,996 killed, 6,000 wounded..."

Under Bush 2001 - 2008 Lives lost: 2,782 Disasters:$429 Billion in losses ;
Total lives lost: 5,778
Under Obama 2009 - 2016 Lives lost: 831 Disasters: 100.9 Billion in losses
Source of above data: Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Using that same subjective measure during that period you divide that $30 trillion by 831 lives lost under Obama like lives lost in 9/11 and disasters, Hurricanes,floods,etc..under Bush. Then due to the "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" and using the same dumb ass ruler that James Pethokoukis did in coming up with $30 trillion... the losses under Bush were over $208,000,000,000,000!
Too many zeros? $208 trillion in "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" under GWB!!!
HA HA HA... my number is bigger than your number!!!

$208 Trillion in losses due to life/destruction under Bush from 9/11 disasters,etc. is nearly 6 times bigger then your $30 trillion!

$30 trillion is far more than all the events you listed -- combined.

Your source Using that same subjective measure during that period you divide that $30 trillion by 831 lives lost under Obama like lives lost in 9/11 and disasters, Hurricanes,floods,etc..under Bush. Then due to the "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" and using the same dumb ass ruler that James Pethokoukis did in coming up with $30 trillion... the losses under Bush were over $208,000,000,000,000 provided then the measuring stick!

So I'll match your $30 trillion and raise you to $208 Trillion in losses due to life/destruction under Bush from 9/11 disasters,etc. is nearly 6 times bigger then your $30 trillion!

Imbecile, the "psychological trauma" accounts for a small chunk of the economic impact.

$19 trillion was from lost household wealth...



Plus another $7 trillion in lost stock market valuation in 2008...

Wall Street's Final '08 Toll: $6.9 Trillion Wiped Out

Plus another couple of trillion lost in the stock market in 2009 until March when the market started turning around.

$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession.

Far exceeds everything you listed -- combined.

Why do all the charts stop before they reach bottom? That looks like worthless propaganda to me. Of course, Obama's recession because his policies made it far worse than it had to be.

Your craziness persists. The chart reflects the depth of each recession respectively and the only recession Obama had was the one created under the leadership of Dubya.

How do we know when we can't see the whole chart?

 

[healthmyths]

So how many people DIED because of Bush's minor recession? ZERO!
HOW many Trillions of dollars was lost in the market, in destroyed businesses, in destroyed buildings, in destroyed homes, in destroyed property? ZERO!
How many Trillions of dollars lost in TAX revenue due to market, in destroyed businesses, in destroyed buildings, in destroyed homes, in destroyed property? ZERO!

Idiots like you saying these events PALE in comparison to the Minor recession...you need to talk to the survivors of 9/11/hurricanes that killed people!
And you say those events PALE????
There truly aren't any words to explain people's ignorance such as yours!
SHOW ME AGAIN where Trillions of dollars were lost due to destruction, market losses, lives lost during the minor recession?
I've showed you the events that no other President has had to confront!
Show me HOW the minor recession makes those event PALE?
Give me the links to counter this!
View attachment 137729

You've been shown this before... $30 trillion. Way more than everything you listed combined.

Your link: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
YOU have to be KIDDING!!!!!
What a subjective totally ignorant GUESS!!!!
Hey IDIOT when you consider 5,000 people killed in 9/11 hurricanes what kind of "psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects did their relatives, businesses that LOSS the productivity of those dead Americans suffer? Has that been calculated?
I mean using average age of 40 that died and the average earning power for 20 years of $50,000/year.. that alone was a loss of trillions!
Businesses destroyed in 9/11. Almost 18,000 small businesses were shut down or destroyed. Assume each business did at least $100,000 a year
for the next 20 years... nearly $40 billion! The Impact Of 9/11 On Business The Impact Of 9/11 On Business
Due to 9/11/01 2,996 killed, 6,000 wounded..."

Under Bush 2001 - 2008 Lives lost: 2,782 Disasters:$429 Billion in losses ;
Total lives lost: 5,778
Under Obama 2009 - 2016 Lives lost: 831 Disasters: 100.9 Billion in losses
Source of above data: Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Using that same subjective measure during that period you divide that $30 trillion by 831 lives lost under Obama like lives lost in 9/11 and disasters, Hurricanes,floods,etc..under Bush. Then due to the "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" and using the same dumb ass ruler that James Pethokoukis did in coming up with $30 trillion... the losses under Bush were over $208,000,000,000,000!
Too many zeros? $208 trillion in "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" under GWB!!!
HA HA HA... my number is bigger than your number!!!

$208 Trillion in losses due to life/destruction under Bush from 9/11 disasters,etc. is nearly 6 times bigger then your $30 trillion!

$30 trillion is far more than all the events you listed -- combined.

Your source Using that same subjective measure during that period you divide that $30 trillion by 831 lives lost under Obama like lives lost in 9/11 and disasters, Hurricanes,floods,etc..under Bush. Then due to the "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" and using the same dumb ass ruler that James Pethokoukis did in coming up with $30 trillion... the losses under Bush were over $208,000,000,000,000 provided then the measuring stick!

So I'll match your $30 trillion and raise you to $208 Trillion in losses due to life/destruction under Bush from 9/11 disasters,etc. is nearly 6 times bigger then your $30 trillion!

Imbecile, the "psychological trauma" accounts for a small chunk of the economic impact.

$19 trillion was from lost household wealth...



Plus another $7 trillion in lost stock market valuation in 2008...

Wall Street's Final '08 Toll: $6.9 Trillion Wiped Out

Plus another couple of trillion lost in the stock market in 2009 until March when the market started turning around.

$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession.

Far exceeds everything you listed -- combined.

You can't have it both ways!
Remember you used Pethokoukis' quote: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
to clearly state $30 trillion i.e. $14 trillion from market, GDP,etc.. that he acknowledge and then he added another $16 trillion for rounding up purposes. NOT one single quantifiable source was use by Pethokoukis to arrive at the additional $16 trillion!
How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI

The same article you quoted does NOT blame the recession on Bush as you ignorantly do! And I quote:
"Just as the 1929 stock market crash didn’t cause the Great Depression, the housing collapse didn’t cause the Great Recession. In both cases, monetary policy mistakes were the likely proximate and fundamental cause. The role of the Federal Reserve in the Great Depression was the subject of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s A Monetary History of the United States. The Fed’s role in causing the Great Recession and Financial Crisis is explained in The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure? by Robert Hetzel. The first book caused a major rethink in the economic profession, so should the second. As Hetzel puts it: “Restrictive monetary policy rather than the deleveraging in financial markets that had begun in August 2007 offers a more direct explanation of the intensification of the recession that began in the summer of 2008.”
Hmmmm!!!! Who runs the Federal Reserve???? They certainly don't get directions from the President!
The Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the.. Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia

So where in the article YOU quoted does it ever say "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
It doesn't! YOU made that up!

 

[Faun]

$30 trillion is far more than all the events you listed -- combined.

Your source Using that same subjective measure during that period you divide that $30 trillion by 831 lives lost under Obama like lives lost in 9/11 and disasters, Hurricanes,floods,etc..under Bush. Then due to the "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" and using the same dumb ass ruler that James Pethokoukis did in coming up with $30 trillion... the losses under Bush were over $208,000,000,000,000 provided then the measuring stick!

So I'll match your $30 trillion and raise you to $208 Trillion in losses due to life/destruction under Bush from 9/11 disasters,etc. is nearly 6 times bigger then your $30 trillion!

Imbecile, the "psychological trauma" accounts for a small chunk of the economic impact.

$19 trillion was from lost household wealth...



Plus another $7 trillion in lost stock market valuation in 2008...

Wall Street's Final '08 Toll: $6.9 Trillion Wiped Out

Plus another couple of trillion lost in the stock market in 2009 until March when the market started turning around.

$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession.

Far exceeds everything you listed -- combined.

Why do all the charts stop before they reach bottom? That looks like worthless propaganda to me. Of course, Obama's recession because his policies made it far worse than it had to be.

Your craziness persists. The chart reflects the depth of each recession respectively and the only recession Obama had was the one created under the leadership of Dubya.

How do we know when we can't see the whole chart?

Open both eyes, maybe then you'll see it. I'm not experiencing such problems.

 

[Faun]

You've been shown this before... $30 trillion. Way more than everything you listed combined.

Your link: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
YOU have to be KIDDING!!!!!
What a subjective totally ignorant GUESS!!!!
Hey IDIOT when you consider 5,000 people killed in 9/11 hurricanes what kind of "psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects did their relatives, businesses that LOSS the productivity of those dead Americans suffer? Has that been calculated?
I mean using average age of 40 that died and the average earning power for 20 years of $50,000/year.. that alone was a loss of trillions!
Businesses destroyed in 9/11. Almost 18,000 small businesses were shut down or destroyed. Assume each business did at least $100,000 a year
for the next 20 years... nearly $40 billion! The Impact Of 9/11 On Business The Impact Of 9/11 On Business
Due to 9/11/01 2,996 killed, 6,000 wounded..."

Under Bush 2001 - 2008 Lives lost: 2,782 Disasters:$429 Billion in losses ;
Total lives lost: 5,778
Under Obama 2009 - 2016 Lives lost: 831 Disasters: 100.9 Billion in losses
Source of above data: Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Using that same subjective measure during that period you divide that $30 trillion by 831 lives lost under Obama like lives lost in 9/11 and disasters, Hurricanes,floods,etc..under Bush. Then due to the "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" and using the same dumb ass ruler that James Pethokoukis did in coming up with $30 trillion... the losses under Bush were over $208,000,000,000,000!
Too many zeros? $208 trillion in "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" under GWB!!!
HA HA HA... my number is bigger than your number!!!

$208 Trillion in losses due to life/destruction under Bush from 9/11 disasters,etc. is nearly 6 times bigger then your $30 trillion!

$30 trillion is far more than all the events you listed -- combined.

Your source Using that same subjective measure during that period you divide that $30 trillion by 831 lives lost under Obama like lives lost in 9/11 and disasters, Hurricanes,floods,etc..under Bush. Then due to the "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" and using the same dumb ass ruler that James Pethokoukis did in coming up with $30 trillion... the losses under Bush were over $208,000,000,000,000 provided then the measuring stick!

So I'll match your $30 trillion and raise you to $208 Trillion in losses due to life/destruction under Bush from 9/11 disasters,etc. is nearly 6 times bigger then your $30 trillion!

Imbecile, the "psychological trauma" accounts for a small chunk of the economic impact.

$19 trillion was from lost household wealth...



Plus another $7 trillion in lost stock market valuation in 2008...

Wall Street's Final '08 Toll: $6.9 Trillion Wiped Out

Plus another couple of trillion lost in the stock market in 2009 until March when the market started turning around.

$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession.

Far exceeds everything you listed -- combined.

You can't have it both ways!
Remember you used Pethokoukis' quote: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
to clearly state $30 trillion i.e. $14 trillion from market, GDP,etc.. that he acknowledge and then he added another $16 trillion for rounding up purposes. NOT one single quantifiable source was use by Pethokoukis to arrive at the additional $16 trillion!
How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI

The same article you quoted does NOT blame the recession on Bush as you ignorantly do! And I quote:
"Just as the 1929 stock market crash didn’t cause the Great Depression, the housing collapse didn’t cause the Great Recession. In both cases, monetary policy mistakes were the likely proximate and fundamental cause. The role of the Federal Reserve in the Great Depression was the subject of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s A Monetary History of the United States. The Fed’s role in causing the Great Recession and Financial Crisis is explained in The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure? by Robert Hetzel. The first book caused a major rethink in the economic profession, so should the second. As Hetzel puts it: “Restrictive monetary policy rather than the deleveraging in financial markets that had begun in August 2007 offers a more direct explanation of the intensification of the recession that began in the summer of 2008.”
Hmmmm!!!! Who runs the Federal Reserve???? They certainly don't get directions from the President!
The Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the.. Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia

So where in the article YOU quoted does it ever say "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
It doesn't! YOU made that up!

I gave you a link which shows household loses exceeded $19 trillion. Stock market loses account for about another $10 trillion.

That's more than everything you listed -- combined.

 

[bripat9643]

Your source Using that same subjective measure during that period you divide that $30 trillion by 831 lives lost under Obama like lives lost in 9/11 and disasters, Hurricanes,floods,etc..under Bush. Then due to the "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" and using the same dumb ass ruler that James Pethokoukis did in coming up with $30 trillion... the losses under Bush were over $208,000,000,000,000 provided then the measuring stick!

So I'll match your $30 trillion and raise you to $208 Trillion in losses due to life/destruction under Bush from 9/11 disasters,etc. is nearly 6 times bigger then your $30 trillion!

Imbecile, the "psychological trauma" accounts for a small chunk of the economic impact.

$19 trillion was from lost household wealth...



Plus another $7 trillion in lost stock market valuation in 2008...

Wall Street's Final '08 Toll: $6.9 Trillion Wiped Out

Plus another couple of trillion lost in the stock market in 2009 until March when the market started turning around.

$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession.

Far exceeds everything you listed -- combined.

Why do all the charts stop before they reach bottom? That looks like worthless propaganda to me. Of course, Obama's recession because his policies made it far worse than it had to be.

Your craziness persists. The chart reflects the depth of each recession respectively and the only recession Obama had was the one created under the leadership of Dubya.

How do we know when we can't see the whole chart?

Open both eyes, maybe then you'll see it. I'm not experiencing such problems.

How can you see what isn't there? Each line just stops at some arbitrary point, and no explanation of why that point was chosen is given.

 

[healthmyths]

Your link: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
YOU have to be KIDDING!!!!!
What a subjective totally ignorant GUESS!!!!
Hey IDIOT when you consider 5,000 people killed in 9/11 hurricanes what kind of "psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects did their relatives, businesses that LOSS the productivity of those dead Americans suffer? Has that been calculated?
I mean using average age of 40 that died and the average earning power for 20 years of $50,000/year.. that alone was a loss of trillions!
Businesses destroyed in 9/11. Almost 18,000 small businesses were shut down or destroyed. Assume each business did at least $100,000 a year
for the next 20 years... nearly $40 billion! The Impact Of 9/11 On Business The Impact Of 9/11 On Business
Due to 9/11/01 2,996 killed, 6,000 wounded..."

Under Bush 2001 - 2008 Lives lost: 2,782 Disasters:$429 Billion in losses ;
Total lives lost: 5,778
Under Obama 2009 - 2016 Lives lost: 831 Disasters: 100.9 Billion in losses
Source of above data: Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Using that same subjective measure during that period you divide that $30 trillion by 831 lives lost under Obama like lives lost in 9/11 and disasters, Hurricanes,floods,etc..under Bush. Then due to the "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" and using the same dumb ass ruler that James Pethokoukis did in coming up with $30 trillion... the losses under Bush were over $208,000,000,000,000!
Too many zeros? $208 trillion in "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" under GWB!!!
HA HA HA... my number is bigger than your number!!!

$208 Trillion in losses due to life/destruction under Bush from 9/11 disasters,etc. is nearly 6 times bigger then your $30 trillion!

$30 trillion is far more than all the events you listed -- combined.

Your source Using that same subjective measure during that period you divide that $30 trillion by 831 lives lost under Obama like lives lost in 9/11 and disasters, Hurricanes,floods,etc..under Bush. Then due to the "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" and using the same dumb ass ruler that James Pethokoukis did in coming up with $30 trillion... the losses under Bush were over $208,000,000,000,000 provided then the measuring stick!

So I'll match your $30 trillion and raise you to $208 Trillion in losses due to life/destruction under Bush from 9/11 disasters,etc. is nearly 6 times bigger then your $30 trillion!

Imbecile, the "psychological trauma" accounts for a small chunk of the economic impact.

$19 trillion was from lost household wealth...



Plus another $7 trillion in lost stock market valuation in 2008...

Wall Street's Final '08 Toll: $6.9 Trillion Wiped Out

Plus another couple of trillion lost in the stock market in 2009 until March when the market started turning around.

$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession.

Far exceeds everything you listed -- combined.

You can't have it both ways!
Remember you used Pethokoukis' quote: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
to clearly state $30 trillion i.e. $14 trillion from market, GDP,etc.. that he acknowledge and then he added another $16 trillion for rounding up purposes. NOT one single quantifiable source was use by Pethokoukis to arrive at the additional $16 trillion!
How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI

The same article you quoted does NOT blame the recession on Bush as you ignorantly do! And I quote:
"Just as the 1929 stock market crash didn’t cause the Great Depression, the housing collapse didn’t cause the Great Recession. In both cases, monetary policy mistakes were the likely proximate and fundamental cause. The role of the Federal Reserve in the Great Depression was the subject of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s A Monetary History of the United States. The Fed’s role in causing the Great Recession and Financial Crisis is explained in The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure? by Robert Hetzel. The first book caused a major rethink in the economic profession, so should the second. As Hetzel puts it: “Restrictive monetary policy rather than the deleveraging in financial markets that had begun in August 2007 offers a more direct explanation of the intensification of the recession that began in the summer of 2008.”
Hmmmm!!!! Who runs the Federal Reserve???? They certainly don't get directions from the President!
The Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the.. Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia

So where in the article YOU quoted does it ever say "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
It doesn't! YOU made that up!

I gave you a link which shows household loses exceeded $19 trillion. Stock market loses account for about another $10 trillion.

That's more than everything you listed -- combined.

BUT according to where you got your information How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI
It wasn't Bush's fault! Yet you clearly stated: "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?

The same article you quoted does NOT blame the recession on Bush as you ignorantly do! And I quote:
"Just as the 1929 stock market crash didn’t cause the Great Depression, the housing collapse didn’t cause the Great Recession. In both cases, monetary policy mistakes were the likely proximate and fundamental cause. The role of the Federal Reserve in the Great Depression was the subject of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s A Monetary History of the United States. The Fed’s role in causing the Great Recession and Financial Crisis is explained in The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure? by Robert Hetzel. The first book caused a major rethink in the economic profession, so should the second. As Hetzel puts it: “Restrictive monetary policy rather than the deleveraging in financial markets that had begun in August 2007 offers a more direct explanation of the intensification of the recession that began in the summer of 2008.”

Finally are you so cruel, so calloused such a selfish, miserly person you ignore the “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses." from 5,778 lives lost?
I'm confident that the relatives, the employers, the GDP was directly affected by these lost lives in far excess of $20 trillion!

So in summary:
1) Explain how it was "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"? If the ARTICLE you linked to says it was the Federal Reserve's fault?
2) YOU explain to the relatives,employers, and businesses that lost the salaries,the goods purchased, THE LIVES of 5,778! How totally calloused and ignorant!

NOW facts to counter your exaggerated household losses.......
1) The office said paper wealth lost by U.S. homeowners totalled $9.1 billion.
Additionally, the GAO noted, economic losses associated with increased mortgage foreclosures and higher unemployment since 2008 need to be considered as additional costs. Financial Crisis Cost Tops $22 Trillion, GAO Says | HuffPost
2) Now as far as "Bush's Great Recession"... Here are the reasons and you tell me where in that discussion is there a MENTION of President Bush?

• The Community Reinvestment Act is not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Banks responded by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards. Forty-five percent of subprime loan originations went to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods in 2005 and 2006, where the foreclosures are almost twice as likely. This was made possible by the constant reforms to the Community Reinvestment Act.[32]
• Government-sponsored enterprise under the lax rules made to the Community Reinvestment Act, GSEs started to offer too many loans that were never repaid.[33]
• The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act allowed banks to use insured depositories to underwrite private securities loans and sell them on the open market in the form of securities. Better known as mortgage-backed security.[34][35]
• Giving Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac GSE status allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to borrow money in the bond market at lower rates (yields) than other financial institutions. With their funding advantage, they purchased and invested in huge numbers of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, and they did so with lower capital requirements than other regulated financial institutions and banks. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began to experience large losses on their retained portfolios, especially on their Alt-A and subprime investments. In 2008, the sheer size of their retained portfolios and mortgage guarantees led the Federal Housing Finance Agency to conclude that they would soon be insolvent. Under, GSE status Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's debt and credit guarantees grew so large, that 90 percent of all residential mortgages are financed through Fannie and Freddie or the Federal Housing Administration.[36][37][38]
• By 1966, the United States had suspended its postal savings system which encouraged savings by allowing people to buy certificates of deposit at post offices for as little as a dollar.[39] This started the transformation from a saving to consumption economy. Americans started reducing their savings and increased their debt. This temporarily kept private consumption and thus aggregate demand and employment high, but also contributed to the creation of the credit bubble which eventually burst.[40]
• Offshoring of American jobs: The U.S. government has from time to time encouraged the outsourcing of American jobs by various subsidies and through loopholes in tax policy which led to wage stagnation and the loss of American jobs.[41][42] When unemployed Americans did find jobs, many of the jobs were low-wage or entry level jobs.[43]
• Encouraging mergers: The U.S. government in its deregulatory periods has encouraged large corporate mergers, which often have the effect of reducing tax revenues and often choked market competition. Many such mergers act to cut employment, as well. The U.S. Treasury Department has allowed banks and other financial institutions in many cases to use the 2008 and 2009 bailout money to buy out their competitors.[44][45]
• Allowing unemployment to grow to control inflation: U.S. government policy sometimes favors growing unemployment ostensibly in order to achieve long run growth by reducing inflation. According to Merrill Lynch chief economist David Rosenberg, Great Recession in the United States - Wikipedia

Where in that list is there ANY MENTION of Bush's recession and $30 trillion in losses???

 

[edthecynic]

Meanwhile, Trump Winning!
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June

Only if you like the fact that 35 times more government jobs were added in June than manufacturing jobs.
Big Government CON$ervoFascists love Don THE Con!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

lol........so s0n......how's that strategy working out in elections over the last 7-8 years?

Perpetually slamming the other side while having zero idea's is ghey.

 

[Fang]

Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

EPIC FAIL

Even Barack Obama himself thought he could decide who works and who doesn't.

Obama Promised Unemployment Rate at 5.6% After Stimulus… Today It’s at 8.3% Instead

Obama Promised Unemployment Rate at 5.6% After Stimulus... Today It's at 8.3% Instead - Conservative News

 

[skookerasbil]

Pub dupes! How dumb can you get? The attention span of a pygmy shrew...

But winning elections s0n.........perpetual winning > attention spans!!

 

[Faun]

$30 trillion is far more than all the events you listed -- combined.

Your source Using that same subjective measure during that period you divide that $30 trillion by 831 lives lost under Obama like lives lost in 9/11 and disasters, Hurricanes,floods,etc..under Bush. Then due to the "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" and using the same dumb ass ruler that James Pethokoukis did in coming up with $30 trillion... the losses under Bush were over $208,000,000,000,000 provided then the measuring stick!

So I'll match your $30 trillion and raise you to $208 Trillion in losses due to life/destruction under Bush from 9/11 disasters,etc. is nearly 6 times bigger then your $30 trillion!

Imbecile, the "psychological trauma" accounts for a small chunk of the economic impact.

$19 trillion was from lost household wealth...



Plus another $7 trillion in lost stock market valuation in 2008...

Wall Street's Final '08 Toll: $6.9 Trillion Wiped Out

Plus another couple of trillion lost in the stock market in 2009 until March when the market started turning around.

$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession.

Far exceeds everything you listed -- combined.

You can't have it both ways!
Remember you used Pethokoukis' quote: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
to clearly state $30 trillion i.e. $14 trillion from market, GDP,etc.. that he acknowledge and then he added another $16 trillion for rounding up purposes. NOT one single quantifiable source was use by Pethokoukis to arrive at the additional $16 trillion!
How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI

The same article you quoted does NOT blame the recession on Bush as you ignorantly do! And I quote:
"Just as the 1929 stock market crash didn’t cause the Great Depression, the housing collapse didn’t cause the Great Recession. In both cases, monetary policy mistakes were the likely proximate and fundamental cause. The role of the Federal Reserve in the Great Depression was the subject of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s A Monetary History of the United States. The Fed’s role in causing the Great Recession and Financial Crisis is explained in The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure? by Robert Hetzel. The first book caused a major rethink in the economic profession, so should the second. As Hetzel puts it: “Restrictive monetary policy rather than the deleveraging in financial markets that had begun in August 2007 offers a more direct explanation of the intensification of the recession that began in the summer of 2008.”
Hmmmm!!!! Who runs the Federal Reserve???? They certainly don't get directions from the President!
The Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the.. Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia

So where in the article YOU quoted does it ever say "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
It doesn't! YOU made that up!

I gave you a link which shows household loses exceeded $19 trillion. Stock market loses account for about another $10 trillion.

That's more than everything you listed -- combined.

BUT according to where you got your information How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI
It wasn't Bush's fault! Yet you clearly stated: "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?

The same article you quoted does NOT blame the recession on Bush as you ignorantly do! And I quote:
"Just as the 1929 stock market crash didn’t cause the Great Depression, the housing collapse didn’t cause the Great Recession. In both cases, monetary policy mistakes were the likely proximate and fundamental cause. The role of the Federal Reserve in the Great Depression was the subject of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s A Monetary History of the United States. The Fed’s role in causing the Great Recession and Financial Crisis is explained in The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure? by Robert Hetzel. The first book caused a major rethink in the economic profession, so should the second. As Hetzel puts it: “Restrictive monetary policy rather than the deleveraging in financial markets that had begun in August 2007 offers a more direct explanation of the intensification of the recession that began in the summer of 2008.”

Finally are you so cruel, so calloused such a selfish, miserly person you ignore the “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses." from 5,778 lives lost?
I'm confident that the relatives, the employers, the GDP was directly affected by these lost lives in far excess of $20 trillion!

So in summary:
1) Explain how it was "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"? If the ARTICLE you linked to says it was the Federal Reserve's fault?
2) YOU explain to the relatives,employers, and businesses that lost the salaries,the goods purchased, THE LIVES of 5,778! How totally calloused and ignorant!

NOW facts to counter your exaggerated household losses.......
1) The office said paper wealth lost by U.S. homeowners totalled $9.1 billion.
Additionally, the GAO noted, economic losses associated with increased mortgage foreclosures and higher unemployment since 2008 need to be considered as additional costs. Financial Crisis Cost Tops $22 Trillion, GAO Says | HuffPost
2) Now as far as "Bush's Great Recession"... Here are the reasons and you tell me where in that discussion is there a MENTION of President Bush?

• The Community Reinvestment Act is not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Banks responded by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards. Forty-five percent of subprime loan originations went to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods in 2005 and 2006, where the foreclosures are almost twice as likely. This was made possible by the constant reforms to the Community Reinvestment Act.[32]
• Government-sponsored enterprise under the lax rules made to the Community Reinvestment Act, GSEs started to offer too many loans that were never repaid.[33]
• The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act allowed banks to use insured depositories to underwrite private securities loans and sell them on the open market in the form of securities. Better known as mortgage-backed security.[34][35]
• Giving Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac GSE status allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to borrow money in the bond market at lower rates (yields) than other financial institutions. With their funding advantage, they purchased and invested in huge numbers of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, and they did so with lower capital requirements than other regulated financial institutions and banks. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began to experience large losses on their retained portfolios, especially on their Alt-A and subprime investments. In 2008, the sheer size of their retained portfolios and mortgage guarantees led the Federal Housing Finance Agency to conclude that they would soon be insolvent. Under, GSE status Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's debt and credit guarantees grew so large, that 90 percent of all residential mortgages are financed through Fannie and Freddie or the Federal Housing Administration.[36][37][38]
• By 1966, the United States had suspended its postal savings system which encouraged savings by allowing people to buy certificates of deposit at post offices for as little as a dollar.[39] This started the transformation from a saving to consumption economy. Americans started reducing their savings and increased their debt. This temporarily kept private consumption and thus aggregate demand and employment high, but also contributed to the creation of the credit bubble which eventually burst.[40]
• Offshoring of American jobs: The U.S. government has from time to time encouraged the outsourcing of American jobs by various subsidies and through loopholes in tax policy which led to wage stagnation and the loss of American jobs.[41][42] When unemployed Americans did find jobs, many of the jobs were low-wage or entry level jobs.[43]
• Encouraging mergers: The U.S. government in its deregulatory periods has encouraged large corporate mergers, which often have the effect of reducing tax revenues and often choked market competition. Many such mergers act to cut employment, as well. The U.S. Treasury Department has allowed banks and other financial institutions in many cases to use the 2008 and 2009 bailout money to buy out their competitors.[44][45]
• Allowing unemployment to grow to control inflation: U.S. government policy sometimes favors growing unemployment ostensibly in order to achieve long run growth by reducing inflation. According to Merrill Lynch chief economist David Rosenberg, Great Recession in the United States - Wikipedia

Where in that list is there ANY MENTION of Bush's recession and $30 trillion in losses???

You're an idiot. And I don't say that merely because you assign some blame to the CRA; but because you cite Huffington posts claim the GAO said the recession only cost household wealth $9.1 billion when the GAO never said that. The GAO put that at $9.1 trillion.

All total, the GAO put the price tag on the recession at $22 trillion, far exceeding every event you listed combined.

 

[Faun]

Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

EPIC FAIL

Even Barack Obama himself thought he could decide who works and who doesn't.

Obama Promised Unemployment Rate at 5.6% After Stimulus… Today It’s at 8.3% Instead

Obama Promised Unemployment Rate at 5.6% After Stimulus... Today It's at 8.3% Instead - Conservative News

Quote Obama making such a "promise"....

 

[Fang]

Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

EPIC FAIL

Even Barack Obama himself thought he could decide who works and who doesn't.

Obama Promised Unemployment Rate at 5.6% After Stimulus… Today It’s at 8.3% Instead

Obama Promised Unemployment Rate at 5.6% After Stimulus... Today It's at 8.3% Instead - Conservative News

Quote Obama making such a "promise"....

Do your own research.

 

[AntonToo]

Meanwhile, Trump Winning!

U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June

The U.S. economy added 222,000 jobs in June, much more than economists were expecting, the Labor Department said Friday.

It's welcome news after the prior two jobs reports had hinted at a possible slowdown in job growth.

"The job market hasn't lost any steam," says Josh Wright, chief economist at software firm iCMS...

More:
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June

In June 2016 were you and talking about Obama wins? Because we posted 287,000 jobs in that month.

Overall, Trump's job record has been in line, if slightly under-performing, 3 year trend. That means that so far Trump is falling short of his promises.

 

[Faun]

Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

EPIC FAIL

Even Barack Obama himself thought he could decide who works and who doesn't.

Obama Promised Unemployment Rate at 5.6% After Stimulus… Today It’s at 8.3% Instead

Obama Promised Unemployment Rate at 5.6% After Stimulus... Today It's at 8.3% Instead - Conservative News

Quote Obama making such a "promise"....

Do your own research.

Don't have to. I already know Obama never made any such promise. That's why you refused to answer.

 

[AntonToo]

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%

1. BULLSHIT. Unemployment by year:

• 2009: 9.3 percent.
• 2010: 9.6 percent.
• 2011: 8.9 percent.
• 2012: 8.1 percent.
• 2013: 7.4 percent.
• 2014: 6.2 percent.
• 2015: 5.3 percent.
• 2016: 4.9 percent.

Average of 7.5%

United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016

2. It's true, Obama is a total asshole for starting Great Recession.

The 8.86% figure is from an earlier point in his Presidency. This list gets updated in this thread sometimes every month. The current list is here:



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

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Donald Trump: 4.52%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
11. Barack Obama: 7.45%
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

It is based on the MONTHLY unemployment rate.

Yea, Trump's few month record is stellar....which is another way of saying that he hasn't yet wrecked the 4% unemployment in a stable, growing economy Obama handed off to him.

Does anyone live in your upstairs or are you just a brainless internet bot?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

EPIC FAIL

Even Barack Obama himself thought he could decide who works and who doesn't.

Obama Promised Unemployment Rate at 5.6% After Stimulus… Today It’s at 8.3% Instead

Obama Promised Unemployment Rate at 5.6% After Stimulus... Today It's at 8.3% Instead - Conservative News

He never promised that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

EPIC FAIL

Even Barack Obama himself thought he could decide who works and who doesn't.

Obama Promised Unemployment Rate at 5.6% After Stimulus… Today It’s at 8.3% Instead

Obama Promised Unemployment Rate at 5.6% After Stimulus... Today It's at 8.3% Instead - Conservative News

Quote Obama making such a "promise"....

Do your own research.

lol. Were you born a liar or is that an acquired feature of your character, such as it is?