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

[Dad2three]

The actual numbers for Bush on the unemployment rate are from 4.2% to 6.1% with the average over 8 years of 5.27%. So far after Obama has an average of 8.7% during his 5 1/2 years. The cause of the initial loss of jobs was the housing bubble that went south, and that was a result of government policy started by Clinton and continued by Bush.

Try 4.2% to 7.8% and skyrocketing. Bush nearly doubled the UE rate, Obama has brought Bush's 7.8% down to 6.1% and falling. Only the Right considers a president who doubled the UE rate better on the economy than a president who cuts the UE rate!

Speaking of cuckoo, read this, then brag some more:

WASHINGTON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. The only problem is that three out of four of the nearly 1 million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-paid.

YOU LEFT OFF SOMETHING THERE BUBBA

"Aug 21, 2013"


June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000. The economy has added more than 200,000 jobs for five months in a row now, the longest such streak since 1999. In the first half of this year alone the economy has added 1.4 million jobs, another accomplishment not seen since 1999.



Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record ? The People's View


10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED UNDER OBAMA SINCE HITTING BUSH'S BOTTOM MARCH 2010.


BUSH LOST 673,000+ PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEARS (PLUS 4+ MILLION MORE IN 2009)

YOU'D THINK THE GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES WOULD'VE WORKED AFTER 8 YEARS RIGHT?




Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Dad2three]

Since when do private lenders work "outside" of government lending practices? Those lenders were working within government prescribed rules and regulations. I know that you folks on the Left love to blame businesses and absolve government but the truth is that well meaning but fatally flawed governmental regulations passed long before George W. Bush took office contributed to the real estate bubble that eventually led to a severe recession. It should also be noted that George W. Bush was one of the few people in Washington who were cautioning that there WAS a problem on the horizon and that liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh poohed that concern.

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

BUSH 'WARNING' ABOUT F/F

June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
Groups ask HUD to rethink plan that would increase financing of homes to low-income people.



Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004




Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, BARNEY Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf







Q Why would Bush’s regulators let banks lower their lending standards?

A. Federal regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision work for Bush and he was pushing his “Ownership Society” programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bush’s regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bush’s documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.


MUCH MORE ON DUBYA'S SUBPRIME CRISIS HERE

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html#post9373464

 

[Dad2three]

Bush has one of the best average unemployment rates since World War II at 5.27%. Something Obama, despite being in office two full terms, will never be able to achieve.

The Bush dummy was handed an UE rate of about 4% and passed on a rate of about 8%. Obama is cutting Bush's 8% down to about 6%. Only a complete idiot would argue that a president that increases unemployment by 100% is better than a president that decreases unemployment by 25%.

The actual numbers for Bush on the unemployment rate are from 4.2% to 6.1% with the average over 8 years of 5.27%. So far after Obama has an average of 8.7% during his 5 1/2 years. The cause of the initial loss of jobs was the housing bubble that went south, and that was a result of government policy started by Clinton and continued by Bush.

CLINTON? LOL


WHY AVERAGE?

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008

THAT WAS CLINTON?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html#post9373464

 

[Dad2three]

Since when do private lenders work "outside" of government lending practices? Those lenders were working within government prescribed rules and regulations. I know that you folks on the Left love to blame businesses and absolve government but the truth is that well meaning but fatally flawed governmental regulations passed long before George W. Bush took office contributed to the real estate bubble that eventually led to a severe recession. It should also be noted that George W. Bush was one of the few people in Washington who were cautioning that there WAS a problem on the horizon and that liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh poohed that concern.

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


Here are key things we know based on data. Together, they present a series of tough hurdles for the big lie proponents.

•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.




Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.

•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing laws overseen by either Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Community Reinvestment Act — Source: McClatchy


These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

 

[TooTall]

Try 4.2% to 7.8% and skyrocketing. Bush nearly doubled the UE rate, Obama has brought Bush's 7.8% down to 6.1% and falling. Only the Right considers a president who doubled the UE rate better on the economy than a president who cuts the UE rate!

Speaking of cuckoo, read this, then brag some more:

WASHINGTON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. The only problem is that three out of four of the nearly 1 million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-paid.

YOU LEFT OFF SOMETHING THERE BUBBA

"Aug 21, 2013"


June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000. The economy has added more than 200,000 jobs for five months in a row now, the longest such streak since 1999. In the first half of this year alone the economy has added 1.4 million jobs, another accomplishment not seen since 1999.



Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record ? The People's View


10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED UNDER OBAMA SINCE HITTING BUSH'S BOTTOM MARCH 2010.


BUSH LOST 673,000+ PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEARS (PLUS 4+ MILLION MORE IN 2009)

YOU'D THINK THE GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES WOULD'VE WORKED AFTER 8 YEARS RIGHT?




Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

I will repeat the stats for the brain dead.

WASHINGTON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. The only problem is that three out of four of the nearly 1 million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-paid.

Take out the low paying part time jobs and tell me some more Obama propaganda.

 

[Dad2three]

Speaking of cuckoo, read this, then brag some more:

YOU LEFT OFF SOMETHING THERE BUBBA

"Aug 21, 2013"


June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000. The economy has added more than 200,000 jobs for five months in a row now, the longest such streak since 1999. In the first half of this year alone the economy has added 1.4 million jobs, another accomplishment not seen since 1999.



Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record ? The People's View


10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED UNDER OBAMA SINCE HITTING BUSH'S BOTTOM MARCH 2010.


BUSH LOST 673,000+ PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEARS (PLUS 4+ MILLION MORE IN 2009)

YOU'D THINK THE GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES WOULD'VE WORKED AFTER 8 YEARS RIGHT?




Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

I will repeat the stats for the brain dead.

WASHINGTON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. The only problem is that three out of four of the nearly 1 million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-paid.

Take out the low paying part time jobs and tell me some more Obama propaganda.

Got it, You''ll go with year old data

Are most new jobs part-time, as Obama critics say? Probably not


The establishment survey is viewed as more accurate because what workplaces tell government can be crosschecked against tax and other official records. The same is not true of the more volatile household survey, which relies on the good will and good faith of the individuals questioned.

The establishment survey, however, does not break down the number of jobs created into part- and full-time. Instead it asks companies, government offices and nonprofit organizations how many hours each employee averages each week.

That number tells a very different story and suggests most of the new jobs in 2013 are full-time. The average employee worked 34.4 hours in July, a tick lower than in June but still near a post-recession high.

The number of hours worked would fall more sharply if the jobs businesses say they are creating were mostly part-time. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that it hasn’t happened, however. More than 80% of all jobs in the United States are full-time.


Some 19.6% of the workforce is part-time, compared with 17% in the year before the last recession began. The number of part-timers rose steadily during the recession and flattened out at just under 20% after the recovery began in mid-2009. It’s remained near that level ever since.



Are most new jobs part-time, as Obama critics say? Probably not - Capitol Report - MarketWatch





The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America—in 5 Graphs

A falsifiable claim, falsified


The first thing you would expect to see from a Part-Time America is that the number of part-time jobs added would rival the number of full-time jobs added. But in the last year, new full-time jobs outnumbered part-time jobs by 1.8 million to 8,000. For every new part-time job, we're creating 225 full-time positions.

Okay, but one year is just one year! Let's keep looking.

The second thing we should expect to see from Part-Time America is a growing number of part-time jobs since Obama came into office and started passing laws. Here's a graph showing the number of people working part-time for economic reasons since March 2010, the month Obamacare was passed.
The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America?in 5 Graphs - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic

Here's What Obama's 'Part-Time America' Really Looks Like
The president's critics love this talking point. But since 2010, full-time jobs are up 7.6 million, and part-time jobs have declined by more than 900,000.


Here's What Obama's 'Part-Time America' Really Looks Like - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic



lol

 

[TooTall]

The Bush dummy was handed an UE rate of about 4% and passed on a rate of about 8%. Obama is cutting Bush's 8% down to about 6%. Only a complete idiot would argue that a president that increases unemployment by 100% is better than a president that decreases unemployment by 25%.

The actual numbers for Bush on the unemployment rate are from 4.2% to 6.1% with the average over 8 years of 5.27%. So far after Obama has an average of 8.7% during his 5 1/2 years. The cause of the initial loss of jobs was the housing bubble that went south, and that was a result of government policy started by Clinton and continued by Bush.

CLINTON? LOL


WHY AVERAGE?

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008

THAT WAS CLINTON?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html#post9373464

Here is what really happened.

In 2003, 5 years ago, Republicans took control of the Senate. On July 31, 2003, in the 108th Congress, recognizing the dangers in Fannie and Freddie, and after hearings where Fannie and Freddie were taken to the carpet for improper practices, Senators John Sununu (R-NH), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) introduced legislation to strengthen and improve the oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Trent Lott and John McCain were co-sponsors. This bill (S. 1508) passed the Senate Banking Committee, with Democrats opposing. With the opposition by Democrats, traditionally seen as evidence that a bill will never pass the 60-vote cloture rule for a floor vote, the bill died in the 108th Congress.

On January 26, 2005, hoping for a different result in the new congress, Sununu, Hagel, and Dole re-introduced legislation (S. 190) to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill incorporated many provisions of the Sununu, Hagel, Dole legislation from the prior congress. It passed out of the Committee on another party-line vote of 11 – 9 on July 28, 2005. But again, without a single Democrat vote, the bill was doomed if brought to the floor for the critical 60-vote cloture. Only 41 Democrat votes would doom it. In a growing negative atmosphere created by the left based on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a fight over an unreported crisis brewing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was likely considered futile. Again the bill was not scheduled to go to the floor where Democrats would certainly have defeated it by voting against cloture and prevented an up or down vote.

In May 2006, John McCain signed on as a co-sponsor of the stalled bill, in the hopes of gathering more co-sponsors and getting a vote in the 109th Congress before the bill would die. McCain would state, “I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.” The bill did not obtain any of the necessary support from the Democrats, and once again, the bill died when the 109th Congress ended.

On March 14, 2006, Sununu and Hagel (R-NE) introduced an amendment to the Lobbying Reform Bill that would review the lobbying activities of GSE’s such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were becoming powerful lobbyists, funneling huge amounts of campaign money to Senate leaders, including Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Of the top 25 recipients, 18 were Democrats with top Democrats exceeded 6-figure contributions from these federally-backed and controlled institutions. The amendment would have directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study the lobbying activities of GSEs to determine whether these activities further their statutory housing mission. The amendment would also require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Affairs (HUD) to conduct annual audits of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Foundations. The Amendment was defeated along party lines.

On April 12, 2007, Sununu, Hagel, Dole, and Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) re-introduced legislation (S. 1100) to improve oversight of GSE’s. The major reforms in their bill were included in final legislation passed the Senate on July 26, 2008 and was signed into law on July 30, 2008. But it was too late, with the lending industry already beginning to fall, led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I highlighted the reason these bill didn't get Democrat support in the next to the last paragraph.

 

[sealybobo]

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%

Either you are a dishonest or stupid fuck. First off, think of all the jobs that were fleeing America when Bush left office. Yes these numbers are still bush's fault.

2ndly. Remember all the spending cuts the tea baggers insisted on? Remember the GOP wouldn't let Obama have any stimulus money like we gave Reagan and Bush to help stimulate their economies? So you tied his hands and you insisted on spending cuts you knew would cut jobs. Your corporations have record profits in the bank and they still aren't hiring or giving raises.

So don't blame Obama. Blame yourselves.

 

[Dad2three]

The actual numbers for Bush on the unemployment rate are from 4.2% to 6.1% with the average over 8 years of 5.27%. So far after Obama has an average of 8.7% during his 5 1/2 years. The cause of the initial loss of jobs was the housing bubble that went south, and that was a result of government policy started by Clinton and continued by Bush.

CLINTON? LOL


WHY AVERAGE?

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008

THAT WAS CLINTON?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html#post9373464

Here is what really happened.

In 2003, 5 years ago, Republicans took control of the Senate. On July 31, 2003, in the 108th Congress, recognizing the dangers in Fannie and Freddie, and after hearings where Fannie and Freddie were taken to the carpet for improper practices, Senators John Sununu (R-NH), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) introduced legislation to strengthen and improve the oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Trent Lott and John McCain were co-sponsors. This bill (S. 1508) passed the Senate Banking Committee, with Democrats opposing. With the opposition by Democrats, traditionally seen as evidence that a bill will never pass the 60-vote cloture rule for a floor vote, the bill died in the 108th Congress.

On January 26, 2005, hoping for a different result in the new congress, Sununu, Hagel, and Dole re-introduced legislation (S. 190) to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill incorporated many provisions of the Sununu, Hagel, Dole legislation from the prior congress. It passed out of the Committee on another party-line vote of 11 – 9 on July 28, 2005. But again, without a single Democrat vote, the bill was doomed if brought to the floor for the critical 60-vote cloture. Only 41 Democrat votes would doom it. In a growing negative atmosphere created by the left based on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a fight over an unreported crisis brewing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was likely considered futile. Again the bill was not scheduled to go to the floor where Democrats would certainly have defeated it by voting against cloture and prevented an up or down vote.

In May 2006, John McCain signed on as a co-sponsor of the stalled bill, in the hopes of gathering more co-sponsors and getting a vote in the 109th Congress before the bill would die. McCain would state, “I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.” The bill did not obtain any of the necessary support from the Democrats, and once again, the bill died when the 109th Congress ended.

On March 14, 2006, Sununu and Hagel (R-NE) introduced an amendment to the Lobbying Reform Bill that would review the lobbying activities of GSE’s such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were becoming powerful lobbyists, funneling huge amounts of campaign money to Senate leaders, including Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Of the top 25 recipients, 18 were Democrats with top Democrats exceeded 6-figure contributions from these federally-backed and controlled institutions. The amendment would have directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study the lobbying activities of GSEs to determine whether these activities further their statutory housing mission. The amendment would also require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Affairs (HUD) to conduct annual audits of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Foundations. The Amendment was defeated along party lines.

On April 12, 2007, Sununu, Hagel, Dole, and Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) re-introduced legislation (S. 1100) to improve oversight of GSE’s. The major reforms in their bill were included in final legislation passed the Senate on July 26, 2008 and was signed into law on July 30, 2008. But it was too late, with the lending industry already beginning to fall, led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I highlighted the reason these bill didn't get Democrat support in the next to the last paragraph.

YOU MEAN DUBYA AS REGULATOR OF F/F WASN'T ENOUGH? SERIOUSLY?


Republican Congress Talked About Financial Reform, But Did Nothing



In 2003-2004 , Republicans controlled both branches of Congress (108th) and the White House. What happened to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulatory reform under Republican leadership? Nothing.




Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS 2004 concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s

Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.“


THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES

- THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES



Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.


Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again.





The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R) , now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”

“What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”


Oxley (R) was Chairman of the House Financial Services committee and sponsor of the only reform bill to pass any chamber of the republican controlled congress




STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers".



June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
Groups ask HUD to rethink plan that would increase financing of homes to low-income people.



(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004



In April (2004), HUD proposed new federal regulations that would raise the GSEs targeted lending requirements. HUD estimates that over the next four years an additional one million low- and moderate-income families would be served as a result of the new goals.

HUD Archives: HUD DATA SHOWS FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC HAVE TRAILED THE INDUSTRY IN PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN 44 STATES


This data covering 1999-2002 shows that combined, the GSEs have lagged behind the primary market in 44 states in their commitment to provide affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income families.

HUD Archives: HUD DATA SHOWS FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC HAVE TRAILED THE INDUSTRY IN PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN 44 STATES


HOLY COW! Bush forced them to lower their standards. If only somebody had warned us that Bush's policies would hurt Freddie and Fannie. Wait, somebody did.




Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf



Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown



“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast




Freddie Mac Paid GOP Consulting Firm $2M To Kill Legislation



Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.

In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.


In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.



Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.


Freddie Mac Paid GOP Consulting Firm $2M To Kill Legislation




“We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President (DUBYA) said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to.”

 

[Dad2three]

The actual numbers for Bush on the unemployment rate are from 4.2% to 6.1% with the average over 8 years of 5.27%. So far after Obama has an average of 8.7% during his 5 1/2 years. The cause of the initial loss of jobs was the housing bubble that went south, and that was a result of government policy started by Clinton and continued by Bush.

CLINTON? LOL


WHY AVERAGE?

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008

THAT WAS CLINTON?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html#post9373464

Here is what really happened.

In 2003, 5 years ago, Republicans took control of the Senate. On July 31, 2003, in the 108th Congress, recognizing the dangers in Fannie and Freddie, and after hearings where Fannie and Freddie were taken to the carpet for improper practices, Senators John Sununu (R-NH), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) introduced legislation to strengthen and improve the oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Trent Lott and John McCain were co-sponsors. This bill (S. 1508) passed the Senate Banking Committee, with Democrats opposing. With the opposition by Democrats, traditionally seen as evidence that a bill will never pass the 60-vote cloture rule for a floor vote, the bill died in the 108th Congress.

On January 26, 2005, hoping for a different result in the new congress, Sununu, Hagel, and Dole re-introduced legislation (S. 190) to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill incorporated many provisions of the Sununu, Hagel, Dole legislation from the prior congress. It passed out of the Committee on another party-line vote of 11 – 9 on July 28, 2005. But again, without a single Democrat vote, the bill was doomed if brought to the floor for the critical 60-vote cloture. Only 41 Democrat votes would doom it. In a growing negative atmosphere created by the left based on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a fight over an unreported crisis brewing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was likely considered futile. Again the bill was not scheduled to go to the floor where Democrats would certainly have defeated it by voting against cloture and prevented an up or down vote.

In May 2006, John McCain signed on as a co-sponsor of the stalled bill, in the hopes of gathering more co-sponsors and getting a vote in the 109th Congress before the bill would die. McCain would state, “I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.” The bill did not obtain any of the necessary support from the Democrats, and once again, the bill died when the 109th Congress ended.

On March 14, 2006, Sununu and Hagel (R-NE) introduced an amendment to the Lobbying Reform Bill that would review the lobbying activities of GSE’s such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were becoming powerful lobbyists, funneling huge amounts of campaign money to Senate leaders, including Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Of the top 25 recipients, 18 were Democrats with top Democrats exceeded 6-figure contributions from these federally-backed and controlled institutions. The amendment would have directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study the lobbying activities of GSEs to determine whether these activities further their statutory housing mission. The amendment would also require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Affairs (HUD) to conduct annual audits of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Foundations. The Amendment was defeated along party lines.

On April 12, 2007, Sununu, Hagel, Dole, and Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) re-introduced legislation (S. 1100) to improve oversight of GSE’s. The major reforms in their bill were included in final legislation passed the Senate on July 26, 2008 and was signed into law on July 30, 2008. But it was too late, with the lending industry already beginning to fall, led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I highlighted the reason these bill didn't get Democrat support in the next to the last paragraph.

"In May 2006, John McCain signed on as a co-sponsor of the stalled bill, in the hopes of gathering more co-sponsors and getting a vote in the 109th Congress before the bill would die. McCain would state, “I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.” The bill did not obtain any of the necessary support from the Democrats, and once again, the bill died when the 109th Congress ended."





SERIOUSLY? LOL


Does McCain's support for that bill amount to fighting to rein in Freddie and Fannie? Sort of. Others had been fighting for Fannie-and-Freddie reform for more than a decade, and McCain signed onto the bill a year-and-a-half after it was introduced. And he reportedly didn't do too much for the bill beyond co-sponsoring it and issuing a statement.


The National Association of Home Builders opposed the bill (SAME GROUP THAT OPPOSED BUSH REQUIRING F/F TO UP THE GSE GOALS IN 2004, LOL) , as did the National Association of Realtors. Senate Democrats said they supported some form of stricter oversight, but would not support a provision of Hagel's bill that would limit the size of the company's portfolios. Negotiations stalled and the bill never made it to the floor.



McCain overstates his role in pushing for Fannie and Freddie reform


Fannie, Freddie and John, at odds in 2006 | PolitiFact


THAT WAS 2005, HOUSE REFORM DEMS SUPPORTED THAT PASSED THE GOP MAJORITY HOUSE WITH BI PARTISAN SUPPORT

HR1461

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers".



DEMS FAULT, *SHAKING HEAD*


House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R) , now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”

“What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

 

[pinqy]

Speaking of cuckoo, read this, then brag some more:

YOU LEFT OFF SOMETHING THERE BUBBA

"Aug 21, 2013"


June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000. The economy has added more than 200,000 jobs for five months in a row now, the longest such streak since 1999. In the first half of this year alone the economy has added 1.4 million jobs, another accomplishment not seen since 1999.



Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record ? The People's View


10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED UNDER OBAMA SINCE HITTING BUSH'S BOTTOM MARCH 2010.


BUSH LOST 673,000+ PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEARS (PLUS 4+ MILLION MORE IN 2009)

YOU'D THINK THE GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES WOULD'VE WORKED AFTER 8 YEARS RIGHT?




Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

I will repeat the stats for the brain dead.

WASHINGTON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. The only problem is that three out of four of the nearly 1 million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-paid.

Take out the low paying part time jobs and tell me some more Obama propaganda.

I guess you missed my earlier post due to Dad2three's fire hydrant approach. But your source doesn't know what he's talking about. The article is August 2013, and he claimed that so far that year there had been 1 million hires. In fact there had been 26.7 million non-farm payroll hires by that point (though that data wasn't available yet). There had been 25.6 million separations, so the NET change was around a million, but there's a difference between hires and net change.

Next, the survey he's citing, the Current Employment Survey, doesn't distinguish between full and part time work, it just looks at average hours.

To get part time and full time numbers, he had to look at the Current Population Survey, which includes a lot of people the CES doesn't and uses different definitions and a different time frame. You can't directly compare the two.

As for low paying....average weekly pay and average hourly pay increased from Jan to July 2013.

 

[francoHFW]

The dupes prefer to go with the out of date, out of context, raw data bs talking points they heard on Faux Noise a thousand times...

 

[Bfgrn]

Since when do private lenders work "outside" of government lending practices? Those lenders were working within government prescribed rules and regulations. I know that you folks on the Left love to blame businesses and absolve government but the truth is that well meaning but fatally flawed governmental regulations passed long before George W. Bush took office contributed to the real estate bubble that eventually led to a severe recession. It should also be noted that George W. Bush was one of the few people in Washington who were cautioning that there WAS a problem on the horizon and that liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh poohed that concern.

Yes, private lenders outside of government lending practices. I guess faux news forgot to tell you who and what caused the financial collapse...

•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.

Consider a study by McClatchy: It found that more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. And McClatchy found that out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

A 2008 analysis found that the nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush cautioning that there WAS a problem on the horizon? REALLY???

Maybe you just FORGOT...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’

 

[TooTall]

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%

Either you are a dishonest or stupid fuck. First off, think of all the jobs that were fleeing America when Bush left office. Yes these numbers are still bush's fault.

2ndly. Remember all the spending cuts the tea baggers insisted on? Remember the GOP wouldn't let Obama have any stimulus money like we gave Reagan and Bush to help stimulate their economies? So you tied his hands and you insisted on spending cuts you knew would cut jobs. Your corporations have record profits in the bank and they still aren't hiring or giving raises.

So don't blame Obama. Blame yourselves.

Obama got about $840 billion in stimulus money for non-existant 'shovel ready' jobs and later laughed about it. Bush gave tax rebates back to taxpayer as his stimulus. I will take Bush's approach every time.

 

[U2Edge]

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%

Either you are a dishonest or stupid fuck. First off, think of all the jobs that were fleeing America when Bush left office. Yes these numbers are still bush's fault.

2ndly. Remember all the spending cuts the tea baggers insisted on? Remember the GOP wouldn't let Obama have any stimulus money like we gave Reagan and Bush to help stimulate their economies? So you tied his hands and you insisted on spending cuts you knew would cut jobs. Your corporations have record profits in the bank and they still aren't hiring or giving raises.

So don't blame Obama. Blame yourselves.

I'm sorry but these are the official numbers for each President at this time. The above was a year ago. Obama's figure is now 8.45% with the most recent month included in the figures.

 

[Oldstyle]

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%

Either you are a dishonest or stupid fuck. First off, think of all the jobs that were fleeing America when Bush left office. Yes these numbers are still bush's fault.

2ndly. Remember all the spending cuts the tea baggers insisted on? Remember the GOP wouldn't let Obama have any stimulus money like we gave Reagan and Bush to help stimulate their economies? So you tied his hands and you insisted on spending cuts you knew would cut jobs. Your corporations have record profits in the bank and they still aren't hiring or giving raises.

So don't blame Obama. Blame yourselves.

Wow, take off the blinders, Sealy!!! Bush left office almost six YEARS ago...Obama's current numbers are STILL his fault? Gee, I wonder when Barry's going to be held responsible for his own economic ineptness!

The GOP didn't let Obama have ANY stimulus money? First of all, Democrats had control of the House and the Senate. Secondly, Barack Obama not only got the remaining TARP stimulus to play with but nearly 900 billion in the Obama Stimulus to spend. He rang up more spending in his first two years than any President in the history of this nation! How you come to the conclusion that he had his "hands tied" is a mystery to me.

Corporations aren't hiring or investing because this Administration has such confused policies for economic growth, regulations of businesses and taxation that the people running businesses here are AFRAID to commit the capital TO hire.

 

[edthecynic]

Yeah, Bush "warned" there was a problem but blocked any reform. Barney Frank was a powerless minority congressman incapable of blocking anything the GOP controlled House wanted to pass.

The Democrats in the Senate filibustered any change to housing. You do know what a filibuster is do you not?

Bullshit! You do know what bullshit is do you not?

In order to filibuster a bill the GOP senate leader must bring the bill to the floor for a vote. The one reform bill, HR 1461, that got out of the House over Barney Frank's objections was killed in the GOP senate without a vote to filibuster! The GOP controlled Senate sent it to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to die without a vote.

Here is what really happened.

In 2003, 5 years ago, Republicans took control of the Senate. On July 31, 2003, in the 108th Congress, recognizing the dangers in Fannie and Freddie, and after hearings where Fannie and Freddie were taken to the carpet for improper practices, Senators John Sununu (R-NH), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) introduced legislation to strengthen and improve the oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Trent Lott and John McCain were co-sponsors. This bill (S. 1508) passed the Senate Banking Committee, with Democrats opposing. With the opposition by Democrats, traditionally seen as evidence that a bill will never pass the 60-vote cloture rule for a floor vote, the bill died in the 108th Congress.

On January 26, 2005, hoping for a different result in the new congress, Sununu, Hagel, and Dole re-introduced legislation (S. 190) to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill incorporated many provisions of the Sununu, Hagel, Dole legislation from the prior congress. It passed out of the Committee on another party-line vote of 11 – 9 on July 28, 2005. But again, without a single Democrat vote, the bill was doomed if brought to the floor for the critical 60-vote cloture. Only 41 Democrat votes would doom it. In a growing negative atmosphere created by the left based on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a fight over an unreported crisis brewing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was likely considered futile. Again the bill was not scheduled to go to the floor where Democrats would certainly have defeated it by voting against cloture and prevented an up or down vote.

In May 2006, John McCain signed on as a co-sponsor of the stalled bill, in the hopes of gathering more co-sponsors and getting a vote in the 109th Congress before the bill would die. McCain would state, “I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.” The bill did not obtain any of the necessary support from the Democrats, and once again, the bill died when the 109th Congress ended.

On March 14, 2006, Sununu and Hagel (R-NE) introduced an amendment to the Lobbying Reform Bill that would review the lobbying activities of GSE’s such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were becoming powerful lobbyists, funneling huge amounts of campaign money to Senate leaders, including Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Of the top 25 recipients, 18 were Democrats with top Democrats exceeded 6-figure contributions from these federally-backed and controlled institutions. The amendment would have directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study the lobbying activities of GSEs to determine whether these activities further their statutory housing mission. The amendment would also require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Affairs (HUD) to conduct annual audits of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Foundations. The Amendment was defeated along party lines.

On April 12, 2007, Sununu, Hagel, Dole, and Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) re-introduced legislation (S. 1100) to improve oversight of GSE’s. The major reforms in their bill were included in final legislation passed the Senate on July 26, 2008 and was signed into law on July 30, 2008. But it was too late, with the lending industry already beginning to fall, led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I highlighted the reason these bill didn't get Democrat support in the next to the last paragraph.

Interesting how you answered my post in reply to someone else's post. I guess you didn't want people to see you claimed the Dems filibustered all the bills since not one of the bills you cited was filibustered. In fact not one of them was brought to the floor for a vote to present the opportunity for a filibuster. You claim it is the Dems fault the GOP majority never brought the bills to the floor for a vote, but that is BS. The bills did not have GOP support outside of committee and even Bush didn't support them, which is why they were never brought up for a vote.

For example, the bill S 109 is the Senate version of HR 1461 that I posted. Bush was opposed to the bill and the Conservative AEI called it "A GSE "Reform" That Is Worse than Current Law." Democrats unanimously supported HR 1461 in the Financial Services Committee. A majority of Democrats supported it on the
floor, though Congressman Frank and others voted against it because of unrelated restrictions it placed on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The bill passed the House, but the Bush administration and Senate Republicans opposed the Oxley bill. Senate Democrats offered the House‐passed Oxley bill in
that chamber, but Senate Republicans, who held the majority, lacked the votes to pass the bill. They
took no action on any bill.

S 1100 was just S 109 reintroduced and it too died in committee. It had nothing to do with the reform legislation, HR 3221, introduced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on 31 July 2007 that the Dem controlled Congress passed and became law July 30, 2008, it is just the Right trying to take credit for what the Dems accomplished. The Republican Congress Talked About Financial Reform, But Did Nothing for 5 years from 2003 until they lost control of Congress in 2007. The Dems had reform passed and signed in about a year and a half after taking over.

Here are quotes from the GOP objecting to the reform bill the Dems passed that you claimed was essentially S 1100 (which was S 109/HR 1461 resubmitted), which you also claim the GOP supported:

We*still*have*to*remember*that*millions*of*people*have*homeownership*opportunities*due*to*a

subprime*market.*I*am*very*leery*of*any*legislation*that*could*undercut*that*market*.*.*.*We*should*also*

take*note*about*what*is*happening*in*the*marketplace*now.*The*market*has*a*wonderful*ability*to*

correct*itself.”*

* ‐‐Rep.*Jeb*Hensarling*(R‐TX),*October*24,*2007*committee*hearing*


This*increasing*availability*and*affordability*of*subprime*mortgage*credit*is*and*has*been*an*important*

factor*leading*to*the*increase*in*home*ownership*in*recent*years.*This*bill*may*well*limit*now*the*

products*available*to*subprime*borrowers,*particularly*minority*borrowers,*and*will*deprive*many*of*

those*consumers*from*owning*or*maintaining*a*home*.*.*.*What*we*need*to*do*is*ensure*that*it*does*

absolutely*nothing*to*home*ownership,*particularly*among*minority*communities*who*have*benefited*

from*the*innovations*that*have*occurred*in*the*marketplace.*

* ‐‐Rep.*Scott*Garrett*(R‐NJ),*November*6,*2007*committee*markup*

House Committee on Financial Services 6


I*believe that the free market does the best job of providing affordable and accessible products. And I do

think*that*includes*mortgages.*Through*legitimate*innovation*in*the*private*mortgage*market,*more*

people*are*able*to*get*mortgages*at*lower*rates*than*ever.*

‐‐Rep.*Gresham*Barrett*(R‐SC),*October*24,*2007*hearing*


Really,*we*have*a*very*efficient*mortgage*system*today.*It*is*the*envy*of*the*world.*It*has*brought*record*

homeownership.*A*lot*of*people*have*benefited*from*our*mortgage*industry*and*the*sophistication*and*

the*creativity*that*has*come*from*it.*

‐‐Rep.*Randy*Neugebauer*(R‐TX),*October*24,*2007*hearing

 

[Dad2three]

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%

Either you are a dishonest or stupid fuck. First off, think of all the jobs that were fleeing America when Bush left office. Yes these numbers are still bush's fault.

2ndly. Remember all the spending cuts the tea baggers insisted on? Remember the GOP wouldn't let Obama have any stimulus money like we gave Reagan and Bush to help stimulate their economies? So you tied his hands and you insisted on spending cuts you knew would cut jobs. Your corporations have record profits in the bank and they still aren't hiring or giving raises.

So don't blame Obama. Blame yourselves.

Obama got about $840 billion in stimulus money for non-existant 'shovel ready' jobs and later laughed about it. Bush gave tax rebates back to taxpayer as his stimulus. I will take Bush's approach every time.

Weird, 40% of Obama stimulus was tax cuts, 20% aid to states and EVERYTHING had to do with Dubya's regulator failure!


CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

Under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

"Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. "That," he added, "is a distinct minority."

CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

 

[Dad2three]

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%

Either you are a dishonest or stupid fuck. First off, think of all the jobs that were fleeing America when Bush left office. Yes these numbers are still bush's fault.

2ndly. Remember all the spending cuts the tea baggers insisted on? Remember the GOP wouldn't let Obama have any stimulus money like we gave Reagan and Bush to help stimulate their economies? So you tied his hands and you insisted on spending cuts you knew would cut jobs. Your corporations have record profits in the bank and they still aren't hiring or giving raises.

So don't blame Obama. Blame yourselves.

I'm sorry but these are the official numbers for each President at this time. The above was a year ago. Obama's figure is now 8.45% with the most recent month included in the figures.

Weird how a ponzi scheme Bush cheer-lead for kept his unemployment rate low, even if he lost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years right?

 

[Oldstyle]

Either you are a dishonest or stupid fuck. First off, think of all the jobs that were fleeing America when Bush left office. Yes these numbers are still bush's fault.

2ndly. Remember all the spending cuts the tea baggers insisted on? Remember the GOP wouldn't let Obama have any stimulus money like we gave Reagan and Bush to help stimulate their economies? So you tied his hands and you insisted on spending cuts you knew would cut jobs. Your corporations have record profits in the bank and they still aren't hiring or giving raises.

So don't blame Obama. Blame yourselves.

Obama got about $840 billion in stimulus money for non-existant 'shovel ready' jobs and later laughed about it. Bush gave tax rebates back to taxpayer as his stimulus. I will take Bush's approach every time.

Weird, 40% of Obama stimulus was tax cuts, 20% aid to states and EVERYTHING had to do with Dubya's regulator failure!


CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

Under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

"Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. "That," he added, "is a distinct minority."

CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

LOL...the question I have is what idiot wouldn't think that unemployment should be lower after the Federal Government spent over a TRILLION dollars in stimulus? The truth is that the Obama Stimulus was so badly handled that they had to invent a new economic statistic, "jobs created or saved" to hide how few jobs they actually created by spending that incredibly large amount of money!