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

[Dad2three]

Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.

Again, the single ending month or beginning month of administration is not what is important. Its the average of what you did over the entire 96 months in office that is important. Crow all you want to about one or two months, most reasonable people would prefer to look at how someone did over 96 months rather than just two.

Really? Then you can show where economists have averaged out the unemployment rate under presidents before Obama became president?

But I understand why it's so important to you since it hides how presidents like Bush drastically increased unemployment.

In the history of the BLS keeping unemployment stats, only ONE Republican left office with a lower unemployment rate; by comparison NO Democrat left office with a higher unemployment rate. Not one. Not even Carter.

So how can the right respond to that abysmal record on employment? Kraft a new measurement they find more palatable.

The numbers don't reveal the depth of the problem. Our economy has essentially recovered, but it's not the same economy it was before the crash. Ask anyone currently attending any college or university what they think their chances are of landing a good job when they graduate. Ask anyone who works at McDonald's when they think they'll be moving on to a higher paying service or manufacturing job. Do that and you may get some indication of the actual state of the economy.

Dec 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair

I wasn't arguing the causes of the disaster, merely disputing the accuracy of the unemployed numbers.

AND I WAS POINTING OUT POLICY (DUBYA/GOP) HAS CONSEQUENCES!

 

[Liminal]

The Housing bubble that was started under Clinton when he coerced lending institutions under penalty of law to loan money to those that would be unable to repay. That policy continued under Bush and the bundling of good and bad mortgages by the lending institutions that became worthless when the inflationary housing market price slowed, and people bailed out of their houses, caused the collapse of the economy. Bush realized the danger, but was unable to persuade the Democrats that controlled the House that the problem had to be resolved by the Congress.

Plenty of blame to go around unless you are a partisan hack.

You're either demented or lying (or both). In reality, when Democrats were in control of the House, they passed 2 bills to address the problem. One was introduced by Barney Frank (H.R.1427 in March, 2007), passed in the House but died in the Senate. The other, after Frank's bill died, was introduced by Nancy Pelosi (H.R.3221 in July, 2007) was ultimately signed by Bush in July, 2008.

They addressed the problem. Someone should tell the homeless about it, they'd be thrilled to know.

Don't understand what Frannie/Freddie do huh? lol

They must be celebrating at homeless camps and parked cars right now. The problem has been solved, their salvation has come because Congress addressed the issue, homeless folks all across America can go home now. Genius, why didn't anyone think of it before?

False premises, distortions and lies, without them what would right wingers do??? lol

I KNOW ANOTHER TAX CUT WILL HELP THE HOMELESS RIGHT/ Especially one going towards the 'job creators'??? LOL

I don't know what right wingers would do. Why don't you tell me about it.

 

[Liminal]

Again, the single ending month or beginning month of administration is not what is important. Its the average of what you did over the entire 96 months in office that is important. Crow all you want to about one or two months, most reasonable people would prefer to look at how someone did over 96 months rather than just two.

Really? Then you can show where economists have averaged out the unemployment rate under presidents before Obama became president?

But I understand why it's so important to you since it hides how presidents like Bush drastically increased unemployment.

In the history of the BLS keeping unemployment stats, only ONE Republican left office with a lower unemployment rate; by comparison NO Democrat left office with a higher unemployment rate. Not one. Not even Carter.

So how can the right respond to that abysmal record on employment? Kraft a new measurement they find more palatable.

The numbers don't reveal the depth of the problem. Our economy has essentially recovered, but it's not the same economy it was before the crash. Ask anyone currently attending any college or university what they think their chances are of landing a good job when they graduate. Ask anyone who works at McDonald's when they think they'll be moving on to a higher paying service or manufacturing job. Do that and you may get some indication of the actual state of the economy.

Dec 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair

I wasn't arguing the causes of the disaster, merely disputing the accuracy of the unemployed numbers.

AND I WAS POINTING OUT POLICY (DUBYA/GOP) HAS CONSEQUENCES!

And now that you've used all caps I can hear you much better.

 

[Faun]

So? Let's see you explain how that caused the collapse of the economy......

The Housing bubble that was started under Clinton when he coerced lending institutions under penalty of law to loan money to those that would be unable to repay. That policy continued under Bush and the bundling of good and bad mortgages by the lending institutions that became worthless when the inflationary housing market price slowed, and people bailed out of their houses, caused the collapse of the economy. Bush realized the danger, but was unable to persuade the Democrats that controlled the House that the problem had to be resolved by the Congress.

Plenty of blame to go around unless you are a partisan hack.

You're either demented or lying (or both). In reality, when Democrats were in control of the House, they passed 2 bills to address the problem. One was introduced by Barney Frank (H.R.1427 in March, 2007), passed in the House but died in the Senate. The other, after Frank's bill died, was introduced by Nancy Pelosi (H.R.3221 in July, 2007) was ultimately signed by Bush in July, 2008.

This is rather factual and you may even read it.

"Clinton, however, sowed the seeds of the Great Recession by helping to inflate the housing bubble, a key part of the financial debacle of 2007. But this wasn’t because he (not George W. Bush) signed two financial deregulation bills. Although Clinton legalized interstate banking in 1994 and commercial/investment banking combinations in 1999, that had nothing to do with the meltdown.

Then whyisClinton culpable? Because his secretary of housing and urban development, Andrew Cuomo, current governor of New York and a likely 2016 presidential aspirant, accelerated easy-housing policies and inflated the housing bubble, setting the stage for its collapse.

The meltdown was the consequence of a combination of the easy money and low interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve and the easy housing engineered by a variety of government agencies and policies. Those agencies include the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and two nominally private “government-sponsored enterprises” (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The agencies — along with laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act (passed in the 1970s, then fortified in the Clinton years), which required banks to make loans to people with poor and nonexistent credit histories — made widespread homeownership a national goal. This all led to a home-buying frenzy and an explosion of subprime and other non-prime mortgages, which banks and GSEs bundled into dubious securities and peddled to investors worldwide. Hovering in the background was the knowledge that the federal government would bail out troubled “too-big-to-fail” financial corporations, including Fannie and Freddie.

The housing boom could last for a while, but the bust was inevitable. When the Fed raised interest rates, things went kaboom. The Great Recession was on; we’re still suffering its effects. Without these government housing and monetary policies, the crisis would never have occurred.

Clinton’s contribution to the crisis lay in his appointment of Cuomo to HUD. Cuomo became HUD secretary in 1997 after becoming assistant secretary in 1993. In a heavily researched2008 articlein theVillage Voice, Wayne Barrett writes,

Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that — in combination with many other factors — helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded ‘kickbacks’ to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

Perhaps the only domestic issue George Bush and Bill Clinton were in complete agreement about was maximizing home ownership, each trying to lay claim to a record percentage of homeowners, and both describing their efforts as a boon to blacks and Hispanics. HUD, Fannie, and Freddie were their instruments, and, as is now apparent, the more unsavory the means, the greater the growth.…

Cuomo …did more to set these forces of unregulated expansion in motion than any other secretary and then boasted about it, presenting his initiatives as crusades for racial and social justice. [Emphasis added.]

Bill Clinton gave Cuomo that power and backed his aggressive policies to the hilt. Bill Clinton, then, shares responsibility for the Great Recession. When will he be held accountable?"

Seriously, are you drunk?

You were blaming the Democrat-led 110th Congress for the meltdown? WTF does that have to do with Clinton?

Then you posted how the Democrat-led House ignored Bush's attempts to "persuade" them into fixing lending problems. I correct you by showing 2 bills that Democrat-led House passed, one of which made it to Bush's desk -- and you respond with that long-winded diatribe which has nothing to do with your idiotic inference that the Democrat-led 110th Congress was responsible for the financial meltdown.

Apparently you are too fucking stupid to read what the laws that caused the eventual meltdown were and when and why they were signed into law. At last, a bill just before I leave office and after the crash. I am sure Bush was pleased.

So how did the Democrat-led House cause the crash??

I'm still waiting for you to explain how they did that?

And if I'm the one who's "too fucking stupid," why was I the one who had to educate you about the Democrat-led House passing two bills shortly after taking control, which you didn't know about?

You're welcome, by the eay.

Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.

Again, the single ending month or beginning month of administration is not what is important. Its the average of what you did over the entire 96 months in office that is important. Crow all you want to about one or two months, most reasonable people would prefer to look at how someone did over 96 months rather than just two.

Really? Then you can show where economists have averaged out the unemployment rate under presidents before Obama became president?

But I understand why it's so important to you since it hides how presidents like Bush drastically increased unemployment.

In the history of the BLS keeping unemployment stats, only ONE Republican left office with a lower unemployment rate; by comparison NO Democrat left office with a higher unemployment rate. Not one. Not even Carter.

So how can the right respond to that abysmal record on employment? Kraft a new measurement they find more palatable.

The numbers don't reveal the depth of the problem. Our economy has essentially recovered, but it's not the same economy it was before the crash. Ask anyone currently attending any college or university what they think their chances are of landing a good job when they graduate. Ask anyone who works at McDonald's when they think they'll be moving on to a higher paying service or manufacturing job. Do that and you may get some indication of the actual state of the economy.

Dec 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair

I wasn't arguing the causes of the disaster, merely disputing the accuracy of the unemployed numbers.

I see no evidence they're off by much.

 

[Dad2three]

As Republicans fumble over unemployment

Now it is....But you are not using the U6 number (we never did for anyone else)

and my favorite.......But, but what about the employment rate (which has been dropping for 15 years because of baby boomers retiring)

The labor force participation rate

If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.

You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher."
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.

But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like). That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.

No, what I'm saying is that if more people joined the labor force they would have to be put into the unemployment line, because the current economy is not strong enough to support that many jobs.

The average labor force participation rate under Bush was above 66% for the 96 months he was in office. It was still at or near 66% when he left office. The labor force participation rate was only slightly higher at the end of Clintons term start of Bush's term at 67.3%. The little decline from there to where Bush was in his last year is negligible. Plus the oldest Baby Boomers were not even eligible for retirement until 2008, and that's if they were retiring at 62 which is considered early although you can get benefits if you choose to.

The real crash in the labor force participation rate happens after 2008. Going from 65.8% to 62.7% in just the past 6 years is the LARGEST, FASTEST steepest decline in the labor force participation rate in United States HISTORY!

Finally, these are national figures and even if the national labor force participation rate dropped to 58% tomorrow, you would still have people in the regular unemployment category because what the national figures show is not necessarily what is happening at the state or county level in some areas. A lot of jobs would open up and companies would be looking to other countries for workers to come into the States for jobs that were not being filled.

There are a lot of people that are currently in long term unemployment or past that an no longer receive any benefits. They don't get counted in the labor force participation rate or the unemployment rate. Some have retired but others have not.

This is a measure of what is going on in the economy. An economy that is strong will have a high labor force participation rate and low unemployment. Take April 2000, 3.8% unemployment with a 67.3% labor force participation rate. Despite such a high labor force participation rate in April 2000, the economy was so strong that only 3.8% of those regularly participating in the job market were unemployed. So it is a measure of the health of the economy and its ability to provide jobs and income to those that seek it.

Typically 5.6% unemployment is great and would be a sign of a strong economy, but that fact is tempered by the fact that the labor force participation rate has rapidly shrunk and is only at 62.7% currently. If the labor force participation rate had been rising or holding steady from where it was in 2008, then that 5.6% unemployment figure would be cause for a celebration.

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":


Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

You're either demented or lying (or both). In reality, when Democrats were in control of the House, they passed 2 bills to address the problem. One was introduced by Barney Frank (H.R.1427 in March, 2007), passed in the House but died in the Senate. The other, after Frank's bill died, was introduced by Nancy Pelosi (H.R.3221 in July, 2007) was ultimately signed by Bush in July, 2008.

They addressed the problem. Someone should tell the homeless about it, they'd be thrilled to know.

Don't understand what Frannie/Freddie do huh? lol

They must be celebrating at homeless camps and parked cars right now. The problem has been solved, their salvation has come because Congress addressed the issue, homeless folks all across America can go home now. Genius, why didn't anyone think of it before?

False premises, distortions and lies, without them what would right wingers do??? lol

I KNOW ANOTHER TAX CUT WILL HELP THE HOMELESS RIGHT/ Especially one going towards the 'job creators'??? LOL

I don't know what right wingers would do. Why don't you tell me about it.

Sorry, libertarians ARE farrrr right wingers Bubba

 

[Liminal]

The Housing bubble that was started under Clinton when he coerced lending institutions under penalty of law to loan money to those that would be unable to repay. That policy continued under Bush and the bundling of good and bad mortgages by the lending institutions that became worthless when the inflationary housing market price slowed, and people bailed out of their houses, caused the collapse of the economy. Bush realized the danger, but was unable to persuade the Democrats that controlled the House that the problem had to be resolved by the Congress.

Plenty of blame to go around unless you are a partisan hack.

You're either demented or lying (or both). In reality, when Democrats were in control of the House, they passed 2 bills to address the problem. One was introduced by Barney Frank (H.R.1427 in March, 2007), passed in the House but died in the Senate. The other, after Frank's bill died, was introduced by Nancy Pelosi (H.R.3221 in July, 2007) was ultimately signed by Bush in July, 2008.

This is rather factual and you may even read it.

"Clinton, however, sowed the seeds of the Great Recession by helping to inflate the housing bubble, a key part of the financial debacle of 2007. But this wasn’t because he (not George W. Bush) signed two financial deregulation bills. Although Clinton legalized interstate banking in 1994 and commercial/investment banking combinations in 1999, that had nothing to do with the meltdown.

Then whyisClinton culpable? Because his secretary of housing and urban development, Andrew Cuomo, current governor of New York and a likely 2016 presidential aspirant, accelerated easy-housing policies and inflated the housing bubble, setting the stage for its collapse.

The meltdown was the consequence of a combination of the easy money and low interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve and the easy housing engineered by a variety of government agencies and policies. Those agencies include the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and two nominally private “government-sponsored enterprises” (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The agencies — along with laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act (passed in the 1970s, then fortified in the Clinton years), which required banks to make loans to people with poor and nonexistent credit histories — made widespread homeownership a national goal. This all led to a home-buying frenzy and an explosion of subprime and other non-prime mortgages, which banks and GSEs bundled into dubious securities and peddled to investors worldwide. Hovering in the background was the knowledge that the federal government would bail out troubled “too-big-to-fail” financial corporations, including Fannie and Freddie.

The housing boom could last for a while, but the bust was inevitable. When the Fed raised interest rates, things went kaboom. The Great Recession was on; we’re still suffering its effects. Without these government housing and monetary policies, the crisis would never have occurred.

Clinton’s contribution to the crisis lay in his appointment of Cuomo to HUD. Cuomo became HUD secretary in 1997 after becoming assistant secretary in 1993. In a heavily researched2008 articlein theVillage Voice, Wayne Barrett writes,

Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that — in combination with many other factors — helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded ‘kickbacks’ to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

Perhaps the only domestic issue George Bush and Bill Clinton were in complete agreement about was maximizing home ownership, each trying to lay claim to a record percentage of homeowners, and both describing their efforts as a boon to blacks and Hispanics. HUD, Fannie, and Freddie were their instruments, and, as is now apparent, the more unsavory the means, the greater the growth.…

Cuomo …did more to set these forces of unregulated expansion in motion than any other secretary and then boasted about it, presenting his initiatives as crusades for racial and social justice. [Emphasis added.]

Bill Clinton gave Cuomo that power and backed his aggressive policies to the hilt. Bill Clinton, then, shares responsibility for the Great Recession. When will he be held accountable?"

Seriously, are you drunk?

You were blaming the Democrat-led 110th Congress for the meltdown? WTF does that have to do with Clinton?

Then you posted how the Democrat-led House ignored Bush's attempts to "persuade" them into fixing lending problems. I correct you by showing 2 bills that Democrat-led House passed, one of which made it to Bush's desk -- and you respond with that long-winded diatribe which has nothing to do with your idiotic inference that the Democrat-led 110th Congress was responsible for the financial meltdown.

Apparently you are too fucking stupid to read what the laws that caused the eventual meltdown were and when and why they were signed into law. At last, a bill just before I leave office and after the crash. I am sure Bush was pleased.

So how did the Democrat-led House cause the crash??

I'm still waiting for you to explain how they did that?

And if I'm the one who's "too fucking stupid," why was I the one who had to educate you about the Democrat-led House passing two bills shortly after taking control, which you didn't know about?

You're welcome, by the eay.

Again, the single ending month or beginning month of administration is not what is important. Its the average of what you did over the entire 96 months in office that is important. Crow all you want to about one or two months, most reasonable people would prefer to look at how someone did over 96 months rather than just two.

Really? Then you can show where economists have averaged out the unemployment rate under presidents before Obama became president?

But I understand why it's so important to you since it hides how presidents like Bush drastically increased unemployment.

In the history of the BLS keeping unemployment stats, only ONE Republican left office with a lower unemployment rate; by comparison NO Democrat left office with a higher unemployment rate. Not one. Not even Carter.

So how can the right respond to that abysmal record on employment? Kraft a new measurement they find more palatable.

The numbers don't reveal the depth of the problem. Our economy has essentially recovered, but it's not the same economy it was before the crash. Ask anyone currently attending any college or university what they think their chances are of landing a good job when they graduate. Ask anyone who works at McDonald's when they think they'll be moving on to a higher paying service or manufacturing job. Do that and you may get some indication of the actual state of the economy.

Dec 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair

I wasn't arguing the causes of the disaster, merely disputing the accuracy of the unemployed numbers.

I see no evidence they're off by much.

Oh, YOU see no evidence. Well, that's much different. Issue resolved.

 

[Liminal]

They addressed the problem. Someone should tell the homeless about it, they'd be thrilled to know.

Don't understand what Frannie/Freddie do huh? lol

They must be celebrating at homeless camps and parked cars right now. The problem has been solved, their salvation has come because Congress addressed the issue, homeless folks all across America can go home now. Genius, why didn't anyone think of it before?

False premises, distortions and lies, without them what would right wingers do??? lol

I KNOW ANOTHER TAX CUT WILL HELP THE HOMELESS RIGHT/ Especially one going towards the 'job creators'??? LOL

I don't know what right wingers would do. Why don't you tell me about it.

Sorry, libertarians ARE farrrr right wingers Bubba

I don't even begin to have a clue what you're going on about. Are you playing some kind of guessing game or what? Can I play too? What are the rules? I'm not familiar with this game.

 

[Dad2three]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

Those 2 events, as bad as they were, paled in comparison in terms of the damage done to the economy. The only reason Duhbya averaged 5.7% was a) he started at 4.2%; and b) the housing boom, which pumped up GDP and created millions of jobs.

Fact remains, while Bush was in office the average unemployment rate was 5.27% which was great for main street American far better than it has been while Obama has been sitting in the White House. That's a hard indisputable FACT! People can have great reasons and arguments to try and explain those facts, but those are opinions which are debatable.

Yeah, ponzi schemes work like that, UNTIL they pop

 

[Dad2three]

Don't understand what Frannie/Freddie do huh? lol

They must be celebrating at homeless camps and parked cars right now. The problem has been solved, their salvation has come because Congress addressed the issue, homeless folks all across America can go home now. Genius, why didn't anyone think of it before?

False premises, distortions and lies, without them what would right wingers do??? lol

I KNOW ANOTHER TAX CUT WILL HELP THE HOMELESS RIGHT/ Especially one going towards the 'job creators'??? LOL

I don't know what right wingers would do. Why don't you tell me about it.

Sorry, libertarians ARE farrrr right wingers Bubba

I don't even begin to have a clue what you're going on about. Are you playing some kind of guessing game or what? Can I play too? What are the rules? I'm not familiar with this game.

Sure Bubba, sure, lol

 

[Liminal]

They must be celebrating at homeless camps and parked cars right now. The problem has been solved, their salvation has come because Congress addressed the issue, homeless folks all across America can go home now. Genius, why didn't anyone think of it before?

False premises, distortions and lies, without them what would right wingers do??? lol

I KNOW ANOTHER TAX CUT WILL HELP THE HOMELESS RIGHT/ Especially one going towards the 'job creators'??? LOL

I don't know what right wingers would do. Why don't you tell me about it.

Sorry, libertarians ARE farrrr right wingers Bubba

I don't even begin to have a clue what you're going on about. Are you playing some kind of guessing game or what? Can I play too? What are the rules? I'm not familiar with this game.

Sure Bubba, sure, lol

I see, it must be difficult for you to focus your thoughts with your knees jerking so hard.

 

[Faun]

You're either demented or lying (or both). In reality, when Democrats were in control of the House, they passed 2 bills to address the problem. One was introduced by Barney Frank (H.R.1427 in March, 2007), passed in the House but died in the Senate. The other, after Frank's bill died, was introduced by Nancy Pelosi (H.R.3221 in July, 2007) was ultimately signed by Bush in July, 2008.

This is rather factual and you may even read it.

"Clinton, however, sowed the seeds of the Great Recession by helping to inflate the housing bubble, a key part of the financial debacle of 2007. But this wasn’t because he (not George W. Bush) signed two financial deregulation bills. Although Clinton legalized interstate banking in 1994 and commercial/investment banking combinations in 1999, that had nothing to do with the meltdown.

Then whyisClinton culpable? Because his secretary of housing and urban development, Andrew Cuomo, current governor of New York and a likely 2016 presidential aspirant, accelerated easy-housing policies and inflated the housing bubble, setting the stage for its collapse.

The meltdown was the consequence of a combination of the easy money and low interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve and the easy housing engineered by a variety of government agencies and policies. Those agencies include the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and two nominally private “government-sponsored enterprises” (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The agencies — along with laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act (passed in the 1970s, then fortified in the Clinton years), which required banks to make loans to people with poor and nonexistent credit histories — made widespread homeownership a national goal. This all led to a home-buying frenzy and an explosion of subprime and other non-prime mortgages, which banks and GSEs bundled into dubious securities and peddled to investors worldwide. Hovering in the background was the knowledge that the federal government would bail out troubled “too-big-to-fail” financial corporations, including Fannie and Freddie.

The housing boom could last for a while, but the bust was inevitable. When the Fed raised interest rates, things went kaboom. The Great Recession was on; we’re still suffering its effects. Without these government housing and monetary policies, the crisis would never have occurred.

Clinton’s contribution to the crisis lay in his appointment of Cuomo to HUD. Cuomo became HUD secretary in 1997 after becoming assistant secretary in 1993. In a heavily researched2008 articlein theVillage Voice, Wayne Barrett writes,

Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that — in combination with many other factors — helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded ‘kickbacks’ to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

Perhaps the only domestic issue George Bush and Bill Clinton were in complete agreement about was maximizing home ownership, each trying to lay claim to a record percentage of homeowners, and both describing their efforts as a boon to blacks and Hispanics. HUD, Fannie, and Freddie were their instruments, and, as is now apparent, the more unsavory the means, the greater the growth.…

Cuomo …did more to set these forces of unregulated expansion in motion than any other secretary and then boasted about it, presenting his initiatives as crusades for racial and social justice. [Emphasis added.]

Bill Clinton gave Cuomo that power and backed his aggressive policies to the hilt. Bill Clinton, then, shares responsibility for the Great Recession. When will he be held accountable?"

Seriously, are you drunk?

You were blaming the Democrat-led 110th Congress for the meltdown? WTF does that have to do with Clinton?

Then you posted how the Democrat-led House ignored Bush's attempts to "persuade" them into fixing lending problems. I correct you by showing 2 bills that Democrat-led House passed, one of which made it to Bush's desk -- and you respond with that long-winded diatribe which has nothing to do with your idiotic inference that the Democrat-led 110th Congress was responsible for the financial meltdown.

Apparently you are too fucking stupid to read what the laws that caused the eventual meltdown were and when and why they were signed into law. At last, a bill just before I leave office and after the crash. I am sure Bush was pleased.

So how did the Democrat-led House cause the crash??

I'm still waiting for you to explain how they did that?

And if I'm the one who's "too fucking stupid," why was I the one who had to educate you about the Democrat-led House passing two bills shortly after taking control, which you didn't know about?

You're welcome, by the eay.

Really? Then you can show where economists have averaged out the unemployment rate under presidents before Obama became president?

But I understand why it's so important to you since it hides how presidents like Bush drastically increased unemployment.

In the history of the BLS keeping unemployment stats, only ONE Republican left office with a lower unemployment rate; by comparison NO Democrat left office with a higher unemployment rate. Not one. Not even Carter.

So how can the right respond to that abysmal record on employment? Kraft a new measurement they find more palatable.

The numbers don't reveal the depth of the problem. Our economy has essentially recovered, but it's not the same economy it was before the crash. Ask anyone currently attending any college or university what they think their chances are of landing a good job when they graduate. Ask anyone who works at McDonald's when they think they'll be moving on to a higher paying service or manufacturing job. Do that and you may get some indication of the actual state of the economy.

Dec 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair

I wasn't arguing the causes of the disaster, merely disputing the accuracy of the unemployed numbers.

I see no evidence they're off by much.

Oh, YOU see no evidence. Well, that's much different. Issue resolved.

Glad we're in agreement then.

 

[Liminal]

This is rather factual and you may even read it.

"Clinton, however, sowed the seeds of the Great Recession by helping to inflate the housing bubble, a key part of the financial debacle of 2007. But this wasn’t because he (not George W. Bush) signed two financial deregulation bills. Although Clinton legalized interstate banking in 1994 and commercial/investment banking combinations in 1999, that had nothing to do with the meltdown.

Then whyisClinton culpable? Because his secretary of housing and urban development, Andrew Cuomo, current governor of New York and a likely 2016 presidential aspirant, accelerated easy-housing policies and inflated the housing bubble, setting the stage for its collapse.

The meltdown was the consequence of a combination of the easy money and low interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve and the easy housing engineered by a variety of government agencies and policies. Those agencies include the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and two nominally private “government-sponsored enterprises” (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The agencies — along with laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act (passed in the 1970s, then fortified in the Clinton years), which required banks to make loans to people with poor and nonexistent credit histories — made widespread homeownership a national goal. This all led to a home-buying frenzy and an explosion of subprime and other non-prime mortgages, which banks and GSEs bundled into dubious securities and peddled to investors worldwide. Hovering in the background was the knowledge that the federal government would bail out troubled “too-big-to-fail” financial corporations, including Fannie and Freddie.

The housing boom could last for a while, but the bust was inevitable. When the Fed raised interest rates, things went kaboom. The Great Recession was on; we’re still suffering its effects. Without these government housing and monetary policies, the crisis would never have occurred.

Clinton’s contribution to the crisis lay in his appointment of Cuomo to HUD. Cuomo became HUD secretary in 1997 after becoming assistant secretary in 1993. In a heavily researched2008 articlein theVillage Voice, Wayne Barrett writes,

Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that — in combination with many other factors — helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded ‘kickbacks’ to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

Perhaps the only domestic issue George Bush and Bill Clinton were in complete agreement about was maximizing home ownership, each trying to lay claim to a record percentage of homeowners, and both describing their efforts as a boon to blacks and Hispanics. HUD, Fannie, and Freddie were their instruments, and, as is now apparent, the more unsavory the means, the greater the growth.…

Cuomo …did more to set these forces of unregulated expansion in motion than any other secretary and then boasted about it, presenting his initiatives as crusades for racial and social justice. [Emphasis added.]

Bill Clinton gave Cuomo that power and backed his aggressive policies to the hilt. Bill Clinton, then, shares responsibility for the Great Recession. When will he be held accountable?"

Seriously, are you drunk?

You were blaming the Democrat-led 110th Congress for the meltdown? WTF does that have to do with Clinton?

Then you posted how the Democrat-led House ignored Bush's attempts to "persuade" them into fixing lending problems. I correct you by showing 2 bills that Democrat-led House passed, one of which made it to Bush's desk -- and you respond with that long-winded diatribe which has nothing to do with your idiotic inference that the Democrat-led 110th Congress was responsible for the financial meltdown.

Apparently you are too fucking stupid to read what the laws that caused the eventual meltdown were and when and why they were signed into law. At last, a bill just before I leave office and after the crash. I am sure Bush was pleased.

So how did the Democrat-led House cause the crash??

I'm still waiting for you to explain how they did that?

And if I'm the one who's "too fucking stupid," why was I the one who had to educate you about the Democrat-led House passing two bills shortly after taking control, which you didn't know about?

You're welcome, by the eay.

The numbers don't reveal the depth of the problem. Our economy has essentially recovered, but it's not the same economy it was before the crash. Ask anyone currently attending any college or university what they think their chances are of landing a good job when they graduate. Ask anyone who works at McDonald's when they think they'll be moving on to a higher paying service or manufacturing job. Do that and you may get some indication of the actual state of the economy.

Dec 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair

I wasn't arguing the causes of the disaster, merely disputing the accuracy of the unemployed numbers.

I see no evidence they're off by much.

Oh, YOU see no evidence. Well, that's much different. Issue resolved.

Glad we're in agreement then.

Is that all I had to do to satisfy you? If I'd known that I would have done it hours ago.

 

[Faun]

Seriously, are you drunk?

You were blaming the Democrat-led 110th Congress for the meltdown? WTF does that have to do with Clinton?

Then you posted how the Democrat-led House ignored Bush's attempts to "persuade" them into fixing lending problems. I correct you by showing 2 bills that Democrat-led House passed, one of which made it to Bush's desk -- and you respond with that long-winded diatribe which has nothing to do with your idiotic inference that the Democrat-led 110th Congress was responsible for the financial meltdown.

Apparently you are too fucking stupid to read what the laws that caused the eventual meltdown were and when and why they were signed into law. At last, a bill just before I leave office and after the crash. I am sure Bush was pleased.

So how did the Democrat-led House cause the crash??

I'm still waiting for you to explain how they did that?

And if I'm the one who's "too fucking stupid," why was I the one who had to educate you about the Democrat-led House passing two bills shortly after taking control, which you didn't know about?

You're welcome, by the eay.

Dec 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair

I wasn't arguing the causes of the disaster, merely disputing the accuracy of the unemployed numbers.

I see no evidence they're off by much.

Oh, YOU see no evidence. Well, that's much different. Issue resolved.

Glad we're in agreement then.

Is that all I had to do to satisfy you? If I'd known that I would have done it hours ago.

No worries, I was satisfied before you griped.

 

[Liminal]

Apparently you are too fucking stupid to read what the laws that caused the eventual meltdown were and when and why they were signed into law. At last, a bill just before I leave office and after the crash. I am sure Bush was pleased.

So how did the Democrat-led House cause the crash??

I'm still waiting for you to explain how they did that?

And if I'm the one who's "too fucking stupid," why was I the one who had to educate you about the Democrat-led House passing two bills shortly after taking control, which you didn't know about?

You're welcome, by the eay.

I wasn't arguing the causes of the disaster, merely disputing the accuracy of the unemployed numbers.

I see no evidence they're off by much.

Oh, YOU see no evidence. Well, that's much different. Issue resolved.

Glad we're in agreement then.

Is that all I had to do to satisfy you? If I'd known that I would have done it hours ago.

No worries, I was satisfied before you griped.

I'm sure you're very happy satisfying yourself.

 

[Dad2three]

You keep telling yourself that.

Telling myself WHAT ?

That unemployment is not down.

There are no reliable statistics on the number of people who are unemployed but no longer receiving unemployment benefits. Those people are just out there like they don't even exist.

There are reliable numbers of about how many people are not in the labor force but want a job. And percentage-wise, that figure isn't much higher than before.

You should feel free to cite those reliable figures.

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":


But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.


The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

Weird, you mean ALLOWED 9/11 and ignored Katrina AS he allowed the Banksters to run a ponzi scheme on US as US household debt doubled between 2001-2007???

lol


Yeah, my Christmas is pretty cheap until the credit cards bills start rolling in too!

 

[Faun]

So how did the Democrat-led House cause the crash??

I'm still waiting for you to explain how they did that?

And if I'm the one who's "too fucking stupid," why was I the one who had to educate you about the Democrat-led House passing two bills shortly after taking control, which you didn't know about?

You're welcome, by the eay.
I see no evidence they're off by much.

Oh, YOU see no evidence. Well, that's much different. Issue resolved.

Glad we're in agreement then.

Is that all I had to do to satisfy you? If I'd known that I would have done it hours ago.

No worries, I was satisfied before you griped.

I'm sure you're very happy satisfying yourself.

Look at that -- we're in agreement again.

 

[Dad2three]

The monthly unemployment rate for December 2014 was 5.6%. This is Obama's 72nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.45% in June 2014 at 66 months to the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months.

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

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

Barrack Obama: 8.24%

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: 8.24%

593/72 = 8.236111 = 8.24%

The average unemployment rate now is far worse than 8.24% ..

Click the link >> NO Unemployment is NOT DOWN US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You keep telling yourself that.

Telling myself WHAT ?

That unemployment is not down.

There are no reliable statistics on the number of people who are unemployed but no longer receiving unemployment benefits. Those people are just out there like they don't even exist.

Reliability of the estimates

Statistics based on the household and establishment surveys are subject to both sampling and nonsampling error. When a sample, rather than the entire population, is
surveyed, there is a chance that the sample estimates may differ from the true population values they represent. The component of this difference that occurs because samples differ by chance is known as sampling error, and its variability is measured by the standard error of the estimate.

There is about a 90-percent ch ance, or level of confidence, that an estimate based on a sample will differ by no more than 1.6 standard errors from the true population value
because of sampling error. BLS analyses are generally conducted at the 90-percent level of confidence



http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

 

[Liminal]

Telling myself WHAT ?

That unemployment is not down.

There are no reliable statistics on the number of people who are unemployed but no longer receiving unemployment benefits. Those people are just out there like they don't even exist.

There are reliable numbers of about how many people are not in the labor force but want a job. And percentage-wise, that figure isn't much higher than before.

You should feel free to cite those reliable figures.

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":


But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.


The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

No doubt the homeless, indigent, migrant populations all across this great nation, that apparently aren't really there , can be even happier about the dividends payed on your stock portfolio this year. Happy days.