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

[Liminal]

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, .

You seem to confuse anything less than 100% accuracy with being completely inaccurate. I'm not sure why you think not being able to survey the 0.6 million homeless, out of a total population of over 320 million fatally flaws the data.
And of course a survey isn't 100 percent accurate, but a 3% margin of error for Unemployment level and a 0.2 percentage point error for the UE rate is not bad and it's silly to say that's not accurate.

Three percent of what?

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you would understand basic math or statistics.
BLS estimates, that for the week of 7-13 December, 2014, there were 8,331,000 people in America who did not work, but who had looked for work between November 16 and December 13. Sample error was estimated at a Standard Error of 157,006. At a 90% confidence interval, that's a margin of error of 1.645 Standard Errors, so the margin of error at 90% confidence is 8,331,000 +/- 258,274 or +/- 3.1% In other words, if you redid the survey over and over resampling and resampling, 90% of the time the result would be somewhere between 8.1 million and 8.6 million Unemployed.

Three percent of the people who are never included in surveys? Three percent of homeless, indigent, and migrant people. Maybe you don't quite realize how ridiculous you sound right now.

Again, The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimated that in 2013 there were approximately 610,000 Homeless. Those who are couch-surfing or otherwise temporarily stating with friends or family will be included in the survey. Many of the homeless, sadly, are children under 15 who would be excluded from the survey anyway. Some of the homeless do work, and so would be counted as employed. Of those that remain,I would doubt that a large percent looked for work, though undoubtedly some did.

The point is that though of course it would be nice to include everyone in the survey, that's not possible as a practical matter, and the number of people excluded from the survey due to homelessness is very unlikely to affect the total numbers.
If half of the homeless fit the definition of Unemployed, that would raise the rate from 5.6% to 5.6%, which is not statistically significant (since the rate is +/-.2 percentage points anyway).

This of course no judgement or attempt to ignore or marginalize the Homeless.

Meanwhile, no one has any way of knowing how many people you've just reduced to a margin of error.

That makes no sense at all. What do you think margin of error means?

They have no way of knowing how many people they don't know about. Which part of that equation do you fail to grasp?

 

[Liminal]

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, .

You seem to confuse anything less than 100% accuracy with being completely inaccurate. I'm not sure why you think not being able to survey the 0.6 million homeless, out of a total population of over 320 million fatally flaws the data.
And of course a survey isn't 100 percent accurate, but a 3% margin of error for Unemployment level and a 0.2 percentage point error for the UE rate is not bad and it's silly to say that's not accurate.

Three percent of what? Three percent of the people who are never included in surveys? Three percent of homeless, indigent, and migrant people. Maybe you don't quite realize how ridiculous you sound right now.

Stop projecting dummy, it makes even the non 'moderate' right wingers look honest in comparison, lol

You and your Tea Party Confederates should stop pretending to be Democrats.

Stop projecting dummy

I don't believe you're really a Democrat because you exhibit all the symptoms of severe knee jerk syndrome. It's a chronic condition that prevents people like you from actually thinking about anything. Sadly there is no cure, you'll have to live out your empty thoughtless existence, constantly resorting to childish rhetoric to make sense out of your world; a confused, meaningless life with no purpose. I feel sorry for you.

 

[pinqy]

You seem to confuse anything less than 100% accuracy with being completely inaccurate. I'm not sure why you think not being able to survey the 0.6 million homeless, out of a total population of over 320 million fatally flaws the data.
And of course a survey isn't 100 percent accurate, but a 3% margin of error for Unemployment level and a 0.2 percentage point error for the UE rate is not bad and it's silly to say that's not accurate.

Three percent of what?

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you would understand basic math or statistics.
BLS estimates, that for the week of 7-13 December, 2014, there were 8,331,000 people in America who did not work, but who had looked for work between November 16 and December 13. Sample error was estimated at a Standard Error of 157,006. At a 90% confidence interval, that's a margin of error of 1.645 Standard Errors, so the margin of error at 90% confidence is 8,331,000 +/- 258,274 or +/- 3.1% In other words, if you redid the survey over and over resampling and resampling, 90% of the time the result would be somewhere between 8.1 million and 8.6 million Unemployed.

Three percent of the people who are never included in surveys? Three percent of homeless, indigent, and migrant people. Maybe you don't quite realize how ridiculous you sound right now.

Again, The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimated that in 2013 there were approximately 610,000 Homeless. Those who are couch-surfing or otherwise temporarily stating with friends or family will be included in the survey. Many of the homeless, sadly, are children under 15 who would be excluded from the survey anyway. Some of the homeless do work, and so would be counted as employed. Of those that remain,I would doubt that a large percent looked for work, though undoubtedly some did.

The point is that though of course it would be nice to include everyone in the survey, that's not possible as a practical matter, and the number of people excluded from the survey due to homelessness is very unlikely to affect the total numbers.
If half of the homeless fit the definition of Unemployed, that would raise the rate from 5.6% to 5.6%, which is not statistically significant (since the rate is +/-.2 percentage points anyway).

This of course no judgement or attempt to ignore or marginalize the Homeless.

Meanwhile, no one has any way of knowing how many people you've just reduced to a margin of error.

That makes no sense at all. What do you think margin of error means?

They have no way of knowing how many people they don't know about. Which part of that equation do you fail to grasp?

What I'm not grasping is why you're not understanding that there are estimates of the homeless, and the numbers are small enough that including them wouldn't make much if any difference.
I'm also not grasping why you think that 0.2% of the population is so significant that it renders all statistics about the other 99.8% completely inaccurate.

 

[Liminal]

Three percent of what?

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you would understand basic math or statistics.
BLS estimates, that for the week of 7-13 December, 2014, there were 8,331,000 people in America who did not work, but who had looked for work between November 16 and December 13. Sample error was estimated at a Standard Error of 157,006. At a 90% confidence interval, that's a margin of error of 1.645 Standard Errors, so the margin of error at 90% confidence is 8,331,000 +/- 258,274 or +/- 3.1% In other words, if you redid the survey over and over resampling and resampling, 90% of the time the result would be somewhere between 8.1 million and 8.6 million Unemployed.

Three percent of the people who are never included in surveys? Three percent of homeless, indigent, and migrant people. Maybe you don't quite realize how ridiculous you sound right now.

Again, The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimated that in 2013 there were approximately 610,000 Homeless. Those who are couch-surfing or otherwise temporarily stating with friends or family will be included in the survey. Many of the homeless, sadly, are children under 15 who would be excluded from the survey anyway. Some of the homeless do work, and so would be counted as employed. Of those that remain,I would doubt that a large percent looked for work, though undoubtedly some did.

The point is that though of course it would be nice to include everyone in the survey, that's not possible as a practical matter, and the number of people excluded from the survey due to homelessness is very unlikely to affect the total numbers.
If half of the homeless fit the definition of Unemployed, that would raise the rate from 5.6% to 5.6%, which is not statistically significant (since the rate is +/-.2 percentage points anyway).

This of course no judgement or attempt to ignore or marginalize the Homeless.

Meanwhile, no one has any way of knowing how many people you've just reduced to a margin of error.

That makes no sense at all. What do you think margin of error means?

They have no way of knowing how many people they don't know about. Which part of that equation do you fail to grasp?

What I'm not grasping is why you're not understanding that there are estimates of the homeless, and the numbers are small enough that including them wouldn't make much if any difference.
I'm also not grasping why you think that 0.2% of the population is so significant that it renders all statistics about the other 99.8% completely inaccurate.

You still don't get it. The base figure is inaccurate, the numbers are based on sampling projection with no mechanism for determining the total population.

 

[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 way.

I will try and dumb the 'long winded diatribe down a bit for he dumbass partisans. One bill getting to Bush's desk a couple of months before the end of his term and AFTER the crash in the housing market is a joke.

"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.

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.…"

Let's review your inanities, shall we?

First you blame the Democrat-led Congress for doing nothing. Then after I expose that as the bald-face lie it is, you change your position that they waited until the end of Bush's presidency. Yet more idiocy as that Congress was the last one elected while Bush was president.

Oddly enough, you blame the Democrat-led Congress for taking too long to pass oversight of GSE's, even though they didn't take control of the Congress until 2007, yet you didn't blame the Congress during any of these years:

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002 (the year when Bush first asked Congress for additional GSE oversight)

One can only guess at your partisanship for not blaming the Republican-led Congresses which failed to get a bill to Bush for 5 years while it was still possible to prevent the meltdown, but instead blame the Democrat-led Congress which took over after it was too late to thwart the impending collapse.

G'head ... this is where you change your position again and blame Barney Frank, one member of the minority party, for single handedly preventing the Republican majority Congress from passing a bill....

As to your idiocy that the CRA either caused or contributed to the collapse, that nonsense has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly....

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”​

As to your comment on removing down payment requirements ... that was Bush ..

President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003​

But one thing you did get right was how low interest rates contributed to the disaster. That happened 2002 when the federal fund rate dropped to 1.67%. It would drop again to 1% in 2003.

Money Market Interest Rates and Mortgage Rates 1980 ndash 2002

Remind me again what Republicans did in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, & 2006 to prevent the meltdown after the Fed dropped the rate on Bush's watch?

 

[Liminal]

Democrats can certainly all agree that the policies of the Bush Administration led to the economic disaster. I don't think there ever was any serious debate about that.

 

[TooTall]

Democrats can certainly all agree that the policies of the Bush Administration led to the economic disaster. I don't think there ever was any serious debate about that.

I have posted this several times and totally agree with the statement.

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.…"

 

[Liminal]

Democrats can certainly all agree that the policies of the Bush Administration led to the economic disaster. I don't think there ever was any serious debate about that.

I have posted this several times and totally agree with the statement.

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.…"

I agree, the Clinton's have been instrumental in the promotion and implementation of global trade agreements that accelerated the process of globalization, which in turn resulted in millions of US manufacturing jobs going overseas. Hilary Clinton is the reason I voted for Barrack Obama in the primaries for 2008.

 

[TooTall]

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 way.

I will try and dumb the 'long winded diatribe down a bit for he dumbass partisans. One bill getting to Bush's desk a couple of months before the end of his term and AFTER the crash in the housing market is a joke.

"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.

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.…"

Let's review your inanities, shall we?

First you blame the Democrat-led Congress for doing nothing. Then after I expose that as the bald-face lie it is, you change your position that they waited until the end of Bush's presidency. Yet more idiocy as that Congress was the last one elected while Bush was president.

Oddly enough, you blame the Democrat-led Congress for taking too long to pass oversight of GSE's, even though they didn't take control of the Congress until 2007, yet you didn't blame the Congress during any of these years:

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002 (the year when Bush first asked Congress for additional GSE oversight)

One can only guess at your partisanship for not blaming the Republican-led Congresses which failed to get a bill to Bush for 5 years while it was still possible to prevent the meltdown, but instead blame the Democrat-led Congress which took over after it was too late to thwart the impending collapse.

G'head ... this is where you change your position again and blame Barney Frank, one member of the minority party, for single handedly preventing the Republican majority Congress from passing a bill....

As to your idiocy that the CRA either caused or contributed to the collapse, that nonsense has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly....

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”​

As to your comment on removing down payment requirements ... that was Bush ..

President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003​

But one thing you did get right was how low interest rates contributed to the disaster. That happened 2002 when the federal fund rate dropped to 1.67%. It would drop again to 1% in 2003.

Money Market Interest Rates and Mortgage Rates 1980 ndash 2002

Remind me again what Republicans did in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, & 2006 to prevent the meltdown after the Fed dropped the rate on Bush's watch?

I did blame Bush for continuing the policies on housing initiated by Clinton. Did you miss this?

"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.…"

And, the Republican Congress did nothing, however perhaps you can show me where the Democrat minority introduced a single bill prior to 2007 in the House or the Senate to correct the impending housing crash. You can do it!

 

[Dad2three]

Democrats can certainly all agree that the policies of the Bush Administration led to the economic disaster. I don't think there ever was any serious debate about that.

I have posted this several times and totally agree with the statement.

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.…"

YET UNDER DUBYA HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED. Weird How about under Clinton, did he ALLOW AND CHEER FOR A SUBPRIME BUBBLE LIKE DUBYA???


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown

Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.


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

BUT I AGREE, DUBYA HOSED THE GSE'S BY LOWERING THEIR STANDARDS, GETTING RID OF CLINTON'S 2000 RULE THAT RESTRICTED F/F TO BUY SUBPRIME TO MEET THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS AND FORCING F/F TO BUY $440 BILLION IN THE SECONDARY MARKETS!

 

[Dad2three]

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 way.

I will try and dumb the 'long winded diatribe down a bit for he dumbass partisans. One bill getting to Bush's desk a couple of months before the end of his term and AFTER the crash in the housing market is a joke.

"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.

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.…"

Let's review your inanities, shall we?

First you blame the Democrat-led Congress for doing nothing. Then after I expose that as the bald-face lie it is, you change your position that they waited until the end of Bush's presidency. Yet more idiocy as that Congress was the last one elected while Bush was president.

Oddly enough, you blame the Democrat-led Congress for taking too long to pass oversight of GSE's, even though they didn't take control of the Congress until 2007, yet you didn't blame the Congress during any of these years:

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002 (the year when Bush first asked Congress for additional GSE oversight)

One can only guess at your partisanship for not blaming the Republican-led Congresses which failed to get a bill to Bush for 5 years while it was still possible to prevent the meltdown, but instead blame the Democrat-led Congress which took over after it was too late to thwart the impending collapse.

G'head ... this is where you change your position again and blame Barney Frank, one member of the minority party, for single handedly preventing the Republican majority Congress from passing a bill....

As to your idiocy that the CRA either caused or contributed to the collapse, that nonsense has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly....

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”​

As to your comment on removing down payment requirements ... that was Bush ..

President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003​

But one thing you did get right was how low interest rates contributed to the disaster. That happened 2002 when the federal fund rate dropped to 1.67%. It would drop again to 1% in 2003.

Money Market Interest Rates and Mortgage Rates 1980 ndash 2002

Remind me again what Republicans did in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, & 2006 to prevent the meltdown after the Fed dropped the rate on Bush's watch?

I did blame Bush for continuing the policies on housing initiated by Clinton. Did you miss this?

"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.…"

And, the Republican Congress did nothing, however perhaps you can show me where the Democrat minority introduced a single bill prior to 2007 in the House or the Senate to correct the impending housing crash. You can do it!

"I did blame Bush for continuing the policies on housing initiated by Clinton"


Falsely of course


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.

"Democrat minority introduced a single bill prior to 2007 in the House or the Senate to correct the impending housing crash"

IT WAS A REGULATOR FAILURE BUBBA, NOT GSE OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS FAILURE, WHICH BRANCH HAS REGULATOR AGAIN?


Which branch DID HAVE oversight of GSE's? Which branch DID require F/F top purchase $440 BILLION in MBS's to meet HIS goals? Which branch got rid of rules Clinton put into HUD to stop F/F from getting credit for affordable housing goals that used subprime loans?? lol


BUT THE DEMS SIGNED ONTO HR1461 IN 2005 THAT DUBYA OPPOSED THAT WOULD'VE STOPPED MUCH OF THE GSE PROBLEM, OF COURSE DUBYA OPPOSED IT, LOL


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[edthecynic]

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.

You posted no laws, only an opinion piece from a radical Right-wing source so whacked out you were rightly ashamed to link to its source, the FFF.org. There was no law under Clinton "which required banks to make loans to people with poor and nonexistent credit histories" that was Bush's ADDI.
The CRA had to do with banks "red lining" certain areas and preventing QUALIFIED minorities from getting mortgages in white neighborhoods. Racists always single out the CRA because to a racist NO minority is ever QUALIFIED to get a mortgage in a white neighborhood. PERIOD! So by definition, to the racist, any law that allows qualified minorities to get a mortgage in a white neighborhood had to have forced banks to make loans to people with poor and nonexistent credit histories. Rationalizations are so simple to the racist!!!

 

[Faun]

I was NOT lying . There were 2 people on my side, and dozens in the other forums. And it was a new thread, and you acted like there should have been many posters agreeing with me. The OP was only hoiurs old, you dolt. I'm not nuts, but you sure seem to be (as well as a LIAR too)

There was no one on your side in that thread. You lied. No one supported your idiocy in that thread at the time you said that.

I need not waste my time talking to an idiot.

She's not an idiot, she's purposefully deceptive and unconvincingly evasive. On the other hand she's not all that bright either, she's so deeply immersed in her own denial that you could almost believe she believes it too.

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, but going so far as to deny the very existence of any problem in this country with homelessness and poverty. Talk about country club liberals. You have no credibility as a Democrat or even as a human being.

You're such a drama queen.

I told no lie. I asked you what you thought I denied and you wouldn't say; so when I asked again, I wasn't lying when I pointed out how it seemed you couldn't say how.

As far as your claim that I denied the government can't collect accurate data ... what I disputed was your earlier unsupported claim that the government can't produce "reliable" data; or that they have "no way of knowing" how many people are out if work.

Since the government's numbers are based on scientific polling, and scientific polling produces reliable statistics within a reasonable margin of error, especially when sample rates are high and multiple polls are taken with the same questions; you would have to prove such a method is too inaccurate to be reliable. Pointing to a segment of society which represents about two tenths of one percent (0.2%) as evidence fails you as that falls easily within the margin of error, which is 1.67; given the CPS surveys about 60,000 households monthly and the CES surveys about 144,000 businesses/government agencies.

 

[Faun]

I need not waste my time talking to an idiot.

She's not an idiot, she's purposefully deceptive and unconvincingly evasive. On the other hand she's not all that bright either, she's so deeply immersed in her own denial that you could almost believe she believes it too.

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, .

You seem to confuse anything less than 100% accuracy with being completely inaccurate. I'm not sure why you think not being able to survey the 0.6 million homeless, out of a total population of over 320 million fatally flaws the data.
And of course a survey isn't 100 percent accurate, but a 3% margin of error for Unemployment level and a 0.2 percentage point error for the UE rate is not bad and it's silly to say that's not accurate.

Three percent of what? Three percent of the people who are never included in surveys? Three percent of homeless, indigent, and migrant people. Maybe you don't quite realize how ridiculous you sound right now.

Your lack of self-awareness is duly noted.

 

[Faun]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you would understand basic math or statistics.
BLS estimates, that for the week of 7-13 December, 2014, there were 8,331,000 people in America who did not work, but who had looked for work between November 16 and December 13. Sample error was estimated at a Standard Error of 157,006. At a 90% confidence interval, that's a margin of error of 1.645 Standard Errors, so the margin of error at 90% confidence is 8,331,000 +/- 258,274 or +/- 3.1% In other words, if you redid the survey over and over resampling and resampling, 90% of the time the result would be somewhere between 8.1 million and 8.6 million Unemployed.

Again, The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimated that in 2013 there were approximately 610,000 Homeless. Those who are couch-surfing or otherwise temporarily stating with friends or family will be included in the survey. Many of the homeless, sadly, are children under 15 who would be excluded from the survey anyway. Some of the homeless do work, and so would be counted as employed. Of those that remain,I would doubt that a large percent looked for work, though undoubtedly some did.

The point is that though of course it would be nice to include everyone in the survey, that's not possible as a practical matter, and the number of people excluded from the survey due to homelessness is very unlikely to affect the total numbers.
If half of the homeless fit the definition of Unemployed, that would raise the rate from 5.6% to 5.6%, which is not statistically significant (since the rate is +/-.2 percentage points anyway).

This of course no judgement or attempt to ignore or marginalize the Homeless.

Meanwhile, no one has any way of knowing how many people you've just reduced to a margin of error.

That makes no sense at all. What do you think margin of error means?

They have no way of knowing how many people they don't know about. Which part of that equation do you fail to grasp?

What I'm not grasping is why you're not understanding that there are estimates of the homeless, and the numbers are small enough that including them wouldn't make much if any difference.
I'm also not grasping why you think that 0.2% of the population is so significant that it renders all statistics about the other 99.8% completely inaccurate.

You still don't get it. The base figure is inaccurate, the numbers are based on sampling projection with no mechanism for determining the total population.

No mechanism for determining the total population??

www.census.gov

 

[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 way.

I will try and dumb the 'long winded diatribe down a bit for he dumbass partisans. One bill getting to Bush's desk a couple of months before the end of his term and AFTER the crash in the housing market is a joke.

"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.

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.…"

Let's review your inanities, shall we?

First you blame the Democrat-led Congress for doing nothing. Then after I expose that as the bald-face lie it is, you change your position that they waited until the end of Bush's presidency. Yet more idiocy as that Congress was the last one elected while Bush was president.

Oddly enough, you blame the Democrat-led Congress for taking too long to pass oversight of GSE's, even though they didn't take control of the Congress until 2007, yet you didn't blame the Congress during any of these years:

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002 (the year when Bush first asked Congress for additional GSE oversight)

One can only guess at your partisanship for not blaming the Republican-led Congresses which failed to get a bill to Bush for 5 years while it was still possible to prevent the meltdown, but instead blame the Democrat-led Congress which took over after it was too late to thwart the impending collapse.

G'head ... this is where you change your position again and blame Barney Frank, one member of the minority party, for single handedly preventing the Republican majority Congress from passing a bill....

As to your idiocy that the CRA either caused or contributed to the collapse, that nonsense has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly....

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”​

As to your comment on removing down payment requirements ... that was Bush ..

President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003​

But one thing you did get right was how low interest rates contributed to the disaster. That happened 2002 when the federal fund rate dropped to 1.67%. It would drop again to 1% in 2003.

Money Market Interest Rates and Mortgage Rates 1980 ndash 2002

Remind me again what Republicans did in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, & 2006 to prevent the meltdown after the Fed dropped the rate on Bush's watch?

I did blame Bush for continuing the policies on housing initiated by Clinton. Did you miss this?

"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.…"

And, the Republican Congress did nothing, however perhaps you can show me where the Democrat minority introduced a single bill prior to 2007 in the House or the Senate to correct the impending housing crash. You can do it!

The vast majority of toxic loans were to middle and upper income families. You're still failing to show how giving loans to minorities crashed the system.

Time for you to shift your fluid position yet again.

As far as Democrats during the critical years while they were the minority party ... they had the issue completely wrong. But I don't hold them responsible for cratering our economy because they were neither in charge nor did they prevent the majority party from doing what needed to be done.

The party in control of the government is the party which assumes the blame for when shit happens. That said, had Democrats blocked Republicans from passing oversight, then I would have blamed them. Had Democrats been the party in charge when the vast majority of toxic loans were being given out, then I would have blamed them. But that's not how it happened. By 2007, the ship was going down. There was no stopping it. Action had to be taken years earlier.

 

[Liminal]

There was no one on your side in that thread. You lied. No one supported your idiocy in that thread at the time you said that.

I need not waste my time talking to an idiot.

She's not an idiot, she's purposefully deceptive and unconvincingly evasive. On the other hand she's not all that bright either, she's so deeply immersed in her own denial that you could almost believe she believes it too.

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, but going so far as to deny the very existence of any problem in this country with homelessness and poverty. Talk about country club liberals. You have no credibility as a Democrat or even as a human being.

You're such a drama queen.

I told no lie. I asked you what you thought I denied and you wouldn't say; so when I asked again, I wasn't lying when I pointed out how it seemed you couldn't say how.

As far as your claim that I denied the government can't collect accurate data ... what I disputed was your earlier unsupported claim that the government can't produce "reliable" data; or that they have "no way of knowing" how many people are out if work.

Since the government's numbers are based on scientific polling, and scientific polling produces reliable statistics within a reasonable margin of error, especially when sample rates are high and multiple polls are taken with the same questions; you would have to prove such a method is too inaccurate to be reliable. Pointing to a segment of society which represents about two tenths of one percent (0.2%) as evidence fails you as that falls easily within the margin of error, which is 1.67; given the CPS surveys about 60,000 households monthly and the CES surveys about 144,000 businesses/government agencies.

Back to the same circular logic.

 

[Dad2three]

I need not waste my time talking to an idiot.

She's not an idiot, she's purposefully deceptive and unconvincingly evasive. On the other hand she's not all that bright either, she's so deeply immersed in her own denial that you could almost believe she believes it too.

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, but going so far as to deny the very existence of any problem in this country with homelessness and poverty. Talk about country club liberals. You have no credibility as a Democrat or even as a human being.

You're such a drama queen.

I told no lie. I asked you what you thought I denied and you wouldn't say; so when I asked again, I wasn't lying when I pointed out how it seemed you couldn't say how.

As far as your claim that I denied the government can't collect accurate data ... what I disputed was your earlier unsupported claim that the government can't produce "reliable" data; or that they have "no way of knowing" how many people are out if work.

Since the government's numbers are based on scientific polling, and scientific polling produces reliable statistics within a reasonable margin of error, especially when sample rates are high and multiple polls are taken with the same questions; you would have to prove such a method is too inaccurate to be reliable. Pointing to a segment of society which represents about two tenths of one percent (0.2%) as evidence fails you as that falls easily within the margin of error, which is 1.67; given the CPS surveys about 60,000 households monthly and the CES surveys about 144,000 businesses/government agencies.

Back to the same circular logic.

Thanks for admitting it. You've reached the first step to help. Now try a little more...

 

[Statistikhengst]

She's not an idiot, she's purposefully deceptive and unconvincingly evasive. On the other hand she's not all that bright either, she's so deeply immersed in her own denial that you could almost believe she believes it too.

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, but going so far as to deny the very existence of any problem in this country with homelessness and poverty. Talk about country club liberals. You have no credibility as a Democrat or even as a human being.

You're such a drama queen.

I told no lie. I asked you what you thought I denied and you wouldn't say; so when I asked again, I wasn't lying when I pointed out how it seemed you couldn't say how.

As far as your claim that I denied the government can't collect accurate data ... what I disputed was your earlier unsupported claim that the government can't produce "reliable" data; or that they have "no way of knowing" how many people are out if work.

Since the government's numbers are based on scientific polling, and scientific polling produces reliable statistics within a reasonable margin of error, especially when sample rates are high and multiple polls are taken with the same questions; you would have to prove such a method is too inaccurate to be reliable. Pointing to a segment of society which represents about two tenths of one percent (0.2%) as evidence fails you as that falls easily within the margin of error, which is 1.67; given the CPS surveys about 60,000 households monthly and the CES surveys about 144,000 businesses/government agencies.

Back to the same circular logic.

Thanks for admitting it. You've reached the first step to help. Now try a little more...

Lots of patience is necessary. The healing is sometimes slow for Rrrrrrraging Rrrrrrrrighties!

 

[Interpol]

The numbers don't mean shit until after Obama's stimulus was enacted, which helped stop the 750,000 per month job losses he inherited from Dubya.